Enhancing The Vitality Of The National Institutes Of Health

The report says that important organizational changes are needed at the National Institutes of Health to ensure the agency meets future challenges effectively. In particular, the report advises NIH to devote additional resources to innovative interdisciplinary research that reflects its strategic objectives and cuts across all agency's institutes and centers. The report recommends that Congress should establish a formal process for determining how specific proposals for changes in the number of NIH agencies and centers should be addressed.

This book describes the premier organization for the performance and funding of biomedical research in the United States. By articulating events that occurred at the National Institutes of Health from 1991-2008, this volume also examines the leadership of directors Bernadine Healy, Harold Varmus and Elias Zerhouni. To conduct his research, Dr. Kastor interviewed more than 200 people currently working at the NIH, those who have left and those funded by the institute. In an engaging and dynamic prose style, Dr. Kastor presents his findings on the operations, problems, controversies, financies, politics and structure of the NIH.The book begins by examining topics such as the NIH's evaluation of grant funding, the argument between those who favor support of basic biomedical science versus clinical research, the inclusion of HIV/AIDS in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and the unique features of the Clinical Center, the hospital of the NIH. The volume concludes with a review of the recent conflict of interest controversy, the NIH's response to recent budget constrictions and the role of the institute in the Obama administration.

In the United States, health among racial and ethnic minorities, as well as poor people, is significantly worse than the overall U.S. population. Health disparities are reflected by indices such as excess mortality and morbidity and shorter life expectancy. Examining the Health Disparities Research Plan of the National Institutes of Health is an assessment of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Strategic Research Plan and Budget to Reduce and Ultimately Eliminate Health Disparities. It focuses on practical solutions to remedy the state of the current health disparity crisis. The NIH has played the leading role in conducting extensive research on minority health and health disparities for more than two decades. Although additional research is critical to facilitating a better understanding of the overarching social, economic, educational, and environmental factors that predispose groups to specific diseases and conditions, there is also a great need to translate the existing and new information into best care practices. This means increasing communication with affected populations and their communities. Examining the Health Disparities Research Plan of the National Institutes of Health presents solutions to improving the health disparities nationwide and evaluates the NIH strategy plan designed to actively correct and combat the ongoing health disparities dilemma.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the single largest funder of health research in the United States, and research it has supported has been pivotal to the explosion of biomedical knowledge over the past century. As NIH's success has grown, so has pressure from advocacy groups and other members of the public to devote more spending to their health concerns. In response to a request from Congress, this IOM study reviewed NIH's research priority-setting process and made recommendations for possible improvement. The committee considered the: Factors and criteria used by NIH to make funding allocations. Process by which the funding decisions are made. Mechanisms for public input. Impact of congressional statutory directives on funding decisions. Among other recommendations, the book recommends that NIH seek broader public input on decisions about how to spend its nearly $14 billion budget; it also urged the agency to create new Offices of Public Liaison in the Office of the Director and in each of the 21 research institutes to allow interested people to formally take part in the process.

Scientific and Humane Issues in the Use of Random-Source Dogs and Cats in Research examines the value of random-source animals in biomedical research and the role of Class B dealers who acquire and resell live dogs and cats to research institutions. Findings include that, while some random-source dogs and cats may be necessary and desirable for National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded research, there is no clear need to obtain those animals from Class B dealers. Several options for random-source animal acquisition already exist and additional options are recommended, which would further ensure the welfare of these animals and foster a positive public image for NIH. While the scientific community has recognized and responded to concerns for humane treatment of animals in research, government oversight has thus far been unable to fully enforce the Animal Welfare Act in regard to Class B dealers of live animals. Although the animals acquired by Class B dealers are destined for research-and NIH research in particular-the standard of care while in the possession of some Class B dealers requires an inordinate amount of government enforcement and is not commensurate with the policies of most NIH-funded research laboratories. This dichotomy of standards reflects poorly on public perceptions of NIH and jeopardizes animal welfare. This book will be crucial for NIH and other groups using random-source animals in research, including veterinary schools and research facilities. Animal welfare advocates, policy makers, and concerned pet owners will also find this a vital and informative work for reconciling the needs of research with the welfare of animals.