>> GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE. THIS MEETING OF THE NIH COUNCIL OF COUNCILS IS NOW IN SESSION. AND IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE WITH YOU TODAY, HANKS FOR YOUR TRAVELS AND THANKS FOR ALL THE WORK YOU'RE GOING TO DO TODAY. FIRST LET'S GO AROUND THE TABLE, HAVE EACH COUNCIL MEMBER THE TELL US WHO THEY ARE, THEIR CURRENT INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION AND ALSO THE INSTITUTE OR CENTER ADVISORY COUNCIL THAT THEY WERE SELECTED FROM, ACKNOWLEDGING NOT EVERYONE HERE IS FROM NIC COUNCIL AT THIS TIME. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOUR RED MIC IS ON BEFORE YOU SPEAK. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) NIU NOMINATED BY NIDA. >> STEVEN DEKOUSKI UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA, CURRENTLY UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA ON SABBATICAL, NOMINATED BY NCCAM. NO ONE WANTS TO TAKE CREDIT FOR ME. >> WE'RE ALL HERE SPEAKING FOR IF SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, WE'RE NOT REPRESENTING IC SO YOU'RE WELCOME TO BE HERE. >> NANCY HAGUE NGUYEN, OREGON SCIENCE HEALTH UNIVERSITY AND MANY FRIENDS AT ORUP. >> GOOD MORNING, MY NAME IS KENT LLOYD FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS AND I WAS WITH ORUP. >> JANICE LEMONS JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, I'M AFFILIATED AND A FRIEND OF ORUP. >> BARBARA GUTHRIE, YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF NURSING, NOMINATED NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR NURSING RESEARCH. >> GILL WHITE, BLOOD CENTER WISCONSIN NOMINATED BY HEART LUNG BLOODS. >> CARLOS BUSTAMONTE, STANFORD UNIVERSITY, NOMINATED BY THE NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE. >> CRAIG MCCLAIN, UNIVERSITY OF LIEU WILLVILLE, NOMINATED BY NIAAA. >> JOYCE MITCHELL, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH NOMINATED BY THE NATIONAL LIBRARY OF MEDICINE. >> JIM (INAUDIBLE) TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE NOMINATED BY DEAFNESS AND COMMUNICATION DISORDERS. >> DICK EMUND, MAYOR CLINIC NOMINATED BY NIBIB. >> GOOD MORNING, PETER HODES, BAILOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE NOMINATED BY FOGARTY INTERNATIONAL CENTER. >> JEFF KAUFFMAN FROM THE ADENOID CYSTIC CARCINOMA RESEARCH FOUNDATION NOMINATED BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF DENTAL AND CRANIOFACIAL RESEARCH. >> GRACE LA MASTER UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI, NOMINATE BY NIEHS. >> DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DPKPSI. >> EMORY BROWN WAS NOT ABLE TO LEAVE MIT CAMBRIDGE TODAY. >> I'M HERE ON THE PHONE. >> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING. >> GOOD MORNING. EMORY BROWN MIT MGH, NOMINATED BY NINDS. >> THIS IS THE LAST MEETING FOR 8 OF THE COUNCIL MENS WHO SERVED THREE YEAR TERMS, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK RICHARD AMONG, JACK ELIAS, PETER HODES, KIM LIARLY, REGIS O'KEEFFE, REGINA ROBINOVICH AND TERRY WE THETTLE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT AND ASSISTANCE ON THE COUNCIL FOR THESE YEARS AND HELPING US EVOLVE. WE'RE A DIFFERENT COUNCIL THAN WE WERE WHEN Y'ALL STARTED. SO LET'S GIVE THIS GROUP A ROUND OF APPLAUSE. THANKS FOR YOUR INPUT UNFORTUNATELY SEVERAL MEMBERS TODAY CAN NOT BE WITH US BECAUSE OF OTHER COMMITMENTS AND THEY ARE JACK WISE, MARK LIVELY AND LAST MINUTE KIM LYRLEY IS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND, BOB MURPHY, REGIS O'KEEFFE MAYBE BY PHONE LATER REGINA AND FOX. SO AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE DIRECTOR OF EACH OF THE SIX DIVISION PROGRAM OFFICES SERVE AS NON-VOTING LIAISON TO THE COUNCIL. THEY MAY APPOINT STAFF TO REPRESENT THEM AT MEETING IF NECESSARY AND I WOULD LIKE THOSE LIAISONS FROM THE DPKPSI OFFICE TO STAND AND IDENTIFY THEMSELVES, THEY SHOULD BE BEHIND ME. (OFF MIC) >> I HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT'S PLEASURE WORKING WITH THESE PEOPLE. THEY'RE SUCH HIGH QUALITY, THEY KEEP US ON TRACK HERE. BEFORE WE START I WOULD LIKE TO ARE MIND EVERYONE THAT MOST SESSION TODAY IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC INCLUDING MEMBERS OF THE PRESS. AND I'LL NOW HAND OVER TO ROBIN KAWAZOE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE COUNCIL AND ALSO DPKPSI DEPUTY DIRECTOR. SHE HAS A FEW ANNOUNCEMENTS. >> MATERIALS FOR THE MEETING ARE IN THE BINDERS AT THE COUNCIL MEMBER PLACES AT THE TABLE AND THOSE MATERIALS ARE ALSO AT THE TABLE NEAR THE ENTRANCE TO THE ROOM. I WANT TO REMIND COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT AS MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE YOUR SPECIAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES AND ARE SUBJECT TO THE RULES OF CONDUCT THAT APPLY TO FEDERAL EMPLOYEES. THESE RULES AND REGULATIONS ARE EXPLAINED IN A REPORT ENTITLED STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH WHICH YOU RECEIVED WHEN APPOINTED TO THE COUNCIL. AS YOU KNOW, BEFORE EVERY MEETING YOU PROVIDE US WITH INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL PROFESSIONAL AND FINANCIAL INTERESTS. WE USE THIS INFORMATION AS BASIS FOR ASSESSING WHETHER YOU HAVE ANY REAL POTENTIAL OR APPARENT CONFLICTS OF INTEREST THAT COULD COMPROMISE YOUR ABILITY TO BE OBJECTIVE IN GIVING ADVICE DURING THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS. IF SUCH COUNCIL/CONFLICTS ARE IDENTIFIED WE ISSUE A WAIVER OR RECUSE YOU FROM A PORTION OF THE MEETING. WE ALSO RELY ON YOU TO BE ATTENTIVE DURING OUR MEETINGS TO THE POSSIBILITY THAT AN ISSUE ARISES THAT COULD AFFECT OR APPEAR TO AFFECT YOUR INTEREST IN A SPECIFIC WAY. IF THIS HAPPENS WE ASK YOU TO RECUSE YOURSELF FROM THE DISCUSSION. AT THE CONCLUSION OF CLOSED SESSION YOUR SIGNATURE ON THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CERTIFICATION SHEET DOCUMENT YOUR LACK OF CONFLICT WITH ANY APPLICATIONS RAISED FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION. YOUR SIGNATURE DOCUMENTS UNDERSTANDING AND AGREEMENT TO THE ACCOUNT CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RULES OF CONDUCT, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. TIME HAS BEEN ALLOTTED IN AGENDA TODAY FOR DISCUSSION BETWEEN COUNCIL AND SPEAKERS AND ANY NIH STAFF THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS. THE PUBLIC IS WELCOME TO SUBMIT COMMENTS IN WRITING AFTER THE MEETING AND INSTRUCTIONS FOR DOING SO ARE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER NOTICE PUBLISHED ON SEPTEMBER 11th. MEETING -- MINUTES OF THE MEETING WILL BE POSTED ON THE DPKPSI WEBSITE. IN TERMS OF FUTURE MEETING DATES, THE NEXT MIGHT WILL BE ON JANUARY 31st, 2014, OTHER MEETING DATES IN 2014 ARE JUNE 20th AND SEPTEMBER 5TH. 2015 MEETINGS ARE HELD JANUARY 30th, JUNE 19th AND SEPTEMBER 1. ALL THIS INFORMATION IS ON COUNCIL WEBSITE ON THE DPKPSI WEBSITE. THIS MEETING IS TAPED AND WILL BE TRANSCRIBED IN ADDITION TO BEING BROADCAST BY VIDEOCAST. SO WE ASK THAT YOU USE YOUR MICROPHONE WHEN YOU SPEAK AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF. A CLOSED SESSION WILL BE HELD THIS AFTERNOON FROM 1:45 TO 2:45 TO CONDUCT SECOND LEVEL REVIEW GRANT APPLICATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH NIH AND FEDERAL POLICIES ATTENDANCE IN THIS SESSION IS RESTRICTED TO COUNCIL MEMBERS AND RELEVANT FOR NIH STAFF AND WE ASK GUESTS TO RETURN AT 3 P.M. FOR RESUMPTION OF THE OPEN SESSION. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? IF NOT, I'LL TURN THE MIC BACK OVER THE TO JIM. >> WE HAVE A FULL AGENDA TODAY. THIS MORNING I WOULD LIKE TO BROADSIDE UPDATE ON ACTIVITIES GOING ON IN DPKPSICS GOING ON, JUST A SMALL SHORT LIST. FOLLOWING WILL BE DISCUSSION, DR. BETSY WILDER FROM THE DIRECTOR OFFICE OF STRATEGIC COORDINATION WILL PROVIDE UPDATE ON COMMON FUND INITIATIVES AND BACKGROUND ON MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMON FUND, THEN WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AND PRINCIPLE DEPUTY DIRECTOR LARRY TABAK WILL PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON NIH AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING. NEXT AN OVERVIEW OF SHARED INSTRUMENT AND HIGH END INSTRUMENT PROGRAMS PRESENTED BY DR. ABRAHAM LEVY HEALTH SCIENTIST A ADMINISTRATOR IN ORUP AND DR. CAMILLE UGURBIL PROFESSOR DEPARTMENTS OF BIOCHEMISTRY, RADIOLOGY AND MEDICINE AND MCNIGHT PRESIDENTIAL ENDOWED CHAIR OF RADIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA WHO WILL PRESENT A SCIENTIFIC PRESENTATION ON IMAGING HUMAN BRAIN ANATOMY, FUNCTION AND CONNECTIVITY AND ADVANCES ACHIEVED THROUGH NOVEL INSTRUMENTATION WHICH IS A VERY LONG TITLE. THIS WILL BE AN INTERESTING TALK BUT IT ALSO SERVES TO HIGHLIGHT ACTIVITIES SUPPORTED BY OUR DIVISION OF INSTRUCTION AND INSTRUMENTS. WHICH IS THE PLACE FOLKS COME TO FOR HIGH END INSTRUMENTS FOR THE KIND OF WORK WE'LL HEAR ABOUT. THIS IS TIMELY TOO BECAUSE OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. WE'LL TAKE A BREAK FOR LUNCH AT 12:15 AND GO INTO CLOSED SESSION FOR THE GRANTS THAT START AT 1: 45. WE'LL COME BACK AND HEAR THE SECOND HALF OF THE PRESENTATION ABOUT THE COMMON FUND WITH OUR GOAL OF ASKING FOR A VOTE TO SET UP A WORKING GROUP TO ADVISE ON HOW MANAGE THE COMMON FUND. WE'LL GO BACK AND LOOK AT OUR COUNCIL OPERATING PROCEDURES WHICH YOU APPROVED IN SPRING. WE HAVE NOT CHANGED BUT WE IMMEDIATE TO VOTE ONCE A YEAR TO USE THEM FOR FISCAL YEAR 14 AND ISLE GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THAT. THEN THE NEW TOPIC ABOUT REPRODUCEIBILITY OF RESEARCH RESULTS, A CONCERNING ISSUE, ONE WE'RE LOOKING FOR INPUT FROM ALL OF THE ADVISORY COUNCILS. SO DAVID MURRAY IS HERE. THAT'S A CONCERN. NOT SURE WHAT HAPPENED WITH DAVID, HE WAS GOING TO PRESENT AN UPDATE ON THE STRATEGIC PLAN FROM THE OFFICE OF DISEASE PREVENTION. SOILY DO MY BEST WITH THIS. I WORKED WITH HIM. BUT THIS IS LIKE THE TIME YOU GAVE A SCIENTIFIC TALK AND THE SLIDES GOT MIXED UP AND YOU HAD TO GIVE IT ANYWAY. SO I'LL DO MY BEST. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS OFFICE OF STRATEGIC DISEASE PREVENTION WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1986 I BELIEVE TO SUPPORT WHAT WAS THEN PUT IN STATUTE THE POSITION OF ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR PREVENTION WHO IS AN ADVISOR PRINCIPALLY TO THE NIH DIRECTOR FOR DISEASE PREVENTION RESEARCH AND HOW TO COORDINATE THAT ACROSS NIH AND HOW TO REPRESENT NIH TO OTHER AGENCIES. THE OFFICE HAS NEVER HAD A STRATEGIC PLAN ODDLY. THEY HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB AT WHAT THEY DO BUT NEVER ARTICULATED WHAT IT IS THEY'RE TRYING TO DO, PUT OUT THE WAY THEY'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. SO WHEN DAVID ARRIVED A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO HE STARTED A STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS, HE ENGAGED MANY MEETINGS WITH THE COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVES, OTHER AGENCIES, CDC, AND MANY OTHERS. WE HAD A MEMBER OF OUR COUNCIL AGREED TO SERVE ON THE GROUP. THEY DEVELOPED A DRAFT OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN, WHAT IT IS THEY WANT TO ACCOMPLISH AND PRIORITIES. I WILL PRESENT AN OVERVIEW, IT DOESN'T HAVE DETAILS HOW TO IMPLEMENT IT BUT I'LL SHOW YOU THE THEMES THAT DAVID HAS COME UP WITH FROM ALL THE INPUT ABOUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO PROCEED. SO WE WILL SEND THIS TO YOU, IT'S A DRAFT, ADVANCED DRAFT, PRETTY GOOD. BUT WILL GO OUT VERY SHORTLY WITHIN A FEW DAYS FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, THERE'S A REQUEST FOR INFORMATION FROM ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC. HOPEFULLY BY LATE FALL IT WILL BE THEIR DRAFT OF WHAT -- HOW THEY'LL PRIORITIZE WORK FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. TO ME, THIS IS VERY POSITIVE THING. DPKPSI CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN 2008 AND TOOK SOME TIME TO COORDINATE THE OFFICES THAT SUPPORT TRANS-NIH RESEARCH. IN SOME WAYS WE'RE STILL FIND OUR WAY SO FOR DISEASE PREVENTION TO NOT HAVE A STRATEGIC PLAN IS A BIG DEAL. LET'S SEE WHAT SLIDES DAVID PUT UP HERE. AS I SAID, THEY CAME INTO EXISTENCE IN '86 AND THEIR MISSION IS TO IMPROVE PUBLIC HEALTH BY INCREASING THE SCOPE, QUALITY DISSEMINATION AN IMPACT OF PREVENTION RESEARCH THAT SUPPORTED BY NIH. HOW DOES DAVID DEFINE PREVENTION RESEARCH? IDENTIFY AND ASSESSMENT OF RISK AND PROTECTIVE FACTORS, HEALTH FACTOR, SCREEN AND IDENTIFICATION OF INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS AT RISK. DEVELOP AN EVALUATION OF INTERVENTIONS TO REDUCE THOSE RISKS. AND TRANSLATION AND DISSEMINATION OF EFFECTIVE PREVENTION INTERVENTIONS INTO PRACTICE. DEVELOPMENT OF RESEARCH METHS TO SUPPORT THE WORK. THIS IS A BIG ISSUE FOR DAVID A LARGE STUDY HUMAN STUDY DESIGN PERSON AND HE'S JUST APPEARED. GET READY TO TAKE OVER. I HAVE BEEN GIVEN WHAT'S ON THIS SLIDE AND BACKGROUND TO WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE LAST YEAR. DAVID WILL WALK YOU THROUGH HIS PRIORITIES. STRATEGIC PLAN. >> APOLOGIES FOR BEING A FEW MINUTES LATE. THANK YOU JIM FOR THE FIRST SLIDE. WE HAVE JUST FINISHED THE FIRST DRAFT OF THIS PLAN AND JIM HAS GIVEN YOU BACKGROUND SO LET ME TELL YOU WHAT -- HOW WE PROCEEDED AND WHAT'S IN IT. WE GOT INPUT FROM ALL SORTS OF PEOPLE, I MET WITH IC DIRECTORS IN NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER, WE ORGANIZED A WORKING GROUP THAT INCLUDES A MEMBER OF YOUR TEAM, REPRESENTATIVES FROM FEDERAL AGENCIES FROM ACADEMIA, FROM A VARIETY OF PUBLIC GROUPS AROUND THE COUNTRY. WE MET WITH PROGRAM STAFF, WE MET WITH REVIEW STAFF, WE MET WITH ALL SORTS OF FOLKS AND GOT AS MUCH INPUT AS WE COULD, AND WE SPENT MONTHS POURING OVER TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WERE GOING TO PROPOSE IN TERMS OF PRIORITIES SO THIS IS THE FIRST ONE. SYSTEMATICALLY MONITOR INVESTMENTS AND PREVENTION RESEARCH AND ASSESS, IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT KNOW WHAT NIH IS DOING IN PREVENTION, HOW MUCH WE INVEST IN TERMS OF DOLLARS AN GRANTS AND HOW THOSE PATTERNS CHANGE OVER TIME. WHAT AREAS ARE WE PUTTING MONEY INTO, WHAT KINDS OF DESIGNS ARE WE PUTTING MONEY INTO, PROJECTS. IF WE DON'T KNOW THAT, WE'RE REALLY IN THE DARK IN TERMS OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN TERMS OF PREVENTION RESEARCH HERE. FRANKLY WE DON'T KNOW IT WELL ENOUGH TODAY. NOT AS WELL AS WE SHOULD. SO WE'RE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING A NEW PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS TOOL WORKING WITH OFFICE OF PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS, ONE OF MY SISTER OFFICES IN DPKPSI TO DEVELOP TEST AN IMPLEMENT NEW TOOLS TO CLASSIFY NIH PREVENTION RESEARCH IN A VARIETY OF AREAS USING TAXONOMY UNDER DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW. ONCE WE HAVE THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO A BETTER JOB DESCRIBING THE PATTERNS OF INVESTMENT, DESCRIBING THE GAPS IN INVESTMENT AND OFFERING GUIDANCE TO OUR FRIENDS AROUND NIH WHAT AREAS WE SHOULD BE FOCUSING ONGOING FORWARD. SO THAT'S OUR FIRST PRIORITY. THE SECOND IS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT INFORMATION AS WELL AS INFORMATION FROM OTHER SOURCES AND IDENTIFY PREVENTION RESEARCH AREAS THAT NEED ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT OR EXPANDED ACTIVITY. WE'RE NOT CERTAINLY GOING TO WAIT AND SIT STILL UNTIL WE HAVE THE NEW PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS TOOLS BECAUSE THOSE MAY TAKE A COUPLE OF YEARS TO DEVELOP. WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING RIGHT AWAY WITH STAKEHOLDERS LIKE THE U.S. PREVENTIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE, COMMUNITY PREVENTIVE SERVICES TASK FORCE, OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO IDENTIFY THEIR PRIORITIES IN TERMS OF RESEARCH, WE'LL BE PROCESSING ALL THAT INPUT COMPARING THOSE PRIORITIES TO THE CURRENT PORTFOLIO. TO IDENTIFY GAPS AND WORKING WITH THE INSTITUTES AND CENTERS TO PRIORITIZE THE GAPS AND PUSH FORWARD FOR ADDITIONAL RESEARCH INVESTMENT IN THOSE AREAS. THE THIRD PRIORITY IS NEAR AND DEAR TO MY HEART. I'M A METHODOLOGIST ORIGINALLY, I HAVE SERVED ON ENOUGH NIH STUDY SECTIONS TO UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO HAVE GOOD METHODS PEOPLE ON THOSE STUDY SECTIONS TO MAKE SURE THE WELL DESIGNED PROJECTS GO FORWARD AND THE PROJECTS THAT AREN'T AS WELL DESIGNED GET FEEDBACK THEY NEED TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS. THIS IS AN IDEA I BROUGHT WHEN I CAME TO NIH TO IMPROVE METHODS USED IN PREVENTION RESEARCH FUNDED BY OUR AGENCY. TO DO THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING A LIST OF EXISTING FEDERAL AND NIH RESOURCES RELATED TO PREVENTION SCIENCE METHODS. WE'LL DEVELOP TRAINING IN THOSE METHODS FOR REVIEW STAFF, PROGRAM STAFF, EXTRAMURAL INVESTIGATOR, OFTEN TYING IN WITH REGULAR PROFESSIONAL SOCIETY MEETINGS. WE WANT TO WORK VERY MUCH WITH CSR AND IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT TO DEVELOP A DATABASE METHOD LOGICALLY ORIENTED INVESTIGATORS CATEGORIZING EXPERTISE AND METHODS AS WELL AS EXPERTISE IN SUBSTANTIVE AREAS, SROS CAN DRAW FROM THAT TO RECRUIT ON STUDY SECTIONS. WE HAVE HAD GOOD COOPERATION WITH CSR AS WE DEVELOP THAT EFFORT. WE'RE WORKING ON FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ENCOURAGE INNOVATIVE AND IMPROVED APPROACHES TO PREVENTION SCIENCE IN TERMS OF METHODS. WORKING WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO IDENTIFY BEST PRACTICES. THIS IS OUR THIRD PRIORITY. THE FOURTH, PROMOTE COLLABORATIVE PREVENTION RESEARCH PROJECTS. HERE I MEAN COLLABORATION ACE AMONG THE ICs. SO AS OUTSIDER FOR 33 YEARS, IT PUZZLES ME WHY NHLBI WAS FUNDING OBESITY RESEARCH, NCI WAS FUNDING OBESITY RESEARCH. NIDDK WAS FUNDING OBESITY RESEARCH AND MY COLLEAGUES WOULD HAVE GRANTS FROM EACH ORGANIZATIONS EVALUATING ESSENTIALLY THE SAME INTERVENTION BUT WITH THE OUTCOMES TAILORED TO WHICHEVER AGENCY WAS FUNDING THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT. SEEMS TO ME THAT WE WOULD OFTEN DO BETTER PERHAPS HAVING FEWER STUDIES BUT WITH MULTIPLE OUTCOMES OF INTEREST TO MULTIPLE AGENCIES WITH A LARGER BETTER DESIGNED PROJECT SO WE WANT TO WORK WITH OUR FRIENDS AT THE ICs TO TALK ABOUT WAYS OF DOING THAT. WE WANT TO IDENTIFY DOCUMENT AND SHARE BEST PRACTICES FOR RESEARCH COLLABORATIONS WITHIN NIH AND WITH OTHER PARTNERS. WE EXPECT THAT WE WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO CREATE SOME INFRASTRUCTURE, NEW PROCESSES TO FOSTER THAT KIND OF COLLABORATION SO WE'LL WORK ON THAT. THEN CERTAINLY WE WANT TO DEVELOP FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS TO ENCOURAGE THAT COLLABORATIVE WORK. OUR FIFTH PRIORITY IS RELATED TO OUR CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE TO IDENTIFY PROMOTE USE OF EFFECTIVE EVIDENCE-BASED INTERVENTIONS. SO THIS IS DISSEMINATION. AND THERE ARE TWO ASPECTS OF IT. CERTAINLY WE WANT TO PLAY A ROLE IN DISSEMINATING WHICH INTERVENTIONS ARE EFFECTIVE. WE ALSO WANT TO ENCOURAGE RESEARCH ON HOW TO DO DISSEMINATION PROJECTS MORE EFFECT THETIVELY SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENCE ASPECTS THERE. WE'RE NOT GOING TO START FROM SCRATCH AND REINVENT THE WHEEL. THERE'S A LOT OF WORK IN THIS AREA LIKE CDC SO WE PLAN TO BE POINTING QUITE OFTEN TO THE WORK THAT THOSE GROUPS HAVE DONE, KINDS OF LISTS THEY DEVELOP, RESOURCES DEVELOPED TO BRING ATTENTION TO THE INTERVENTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE EFFECTIVE. 6TH PRIORITY, TO INCREASE VISIBILITY OF NIH RESEARCH AT NIH AN ACROSS THE COUNTRY. WE WANT INTO CREASE THE VISIBILITY HERE, WITH -- FROM DR. COLLINS TO THE IC DIRECTORS THE ENTIRE ORGANIZATION AND MAKE THE GOOD THINGS GOING ON IN PREVENTION RESEARCH MORE PROMINENTLY FEATURED IN THE SORTS OF PRESENTATIONS THAT GROUPS GIVE ALL THE TIME. WE WANT TO COLLABORATE WITH OTHER STAKEHOLDERS WHO ARE ALSO INTERESTED IN PROMOTING THE VISIBILITY PREVENTION RESEARCH AND DO A BETTER JOB INTERACTING WITH THEM. COMMUNICATIONS TEAM WILL ALSO SUPPORT THE FIRST FIVE STRATEGIC PRY YOURS OUTLINED JUST IN THE LAST FEW MINUTES. THAT IS MY LIST OF SIX STRATEGIC PRIORITIES. DR. COLLINS GAVE PRELIMINARY OKAY TO THIS DRAFT PLAN JUST IN THE LAST TWO WEEKS. WE WILL BE POSTING IT THROUGH AN RFI FOR PUBLIC INPUT IN EARLY OCTOBER, GATHERING INPUT ON THE DRAFT PLAN DURING THE MONTH OF OCTOBER AND MAKE REVISIONS AND PRESENT FINAL PLAN FOR APPROVAL SOMETIME EARLY TO MID NOVEMBER SO WE'RE GETTING CLOSE. AND ANTICIPATING THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GO FORWARD WITH THESE THINGS WE HAVE STARTED WORKING NOT SITTING IDOLLY BY WAITING FOR FINAL APPROVAL BUT WE'RE WORKING ON A NUMBER OF INITIATIVES SO WE'LL BE OFF AND RUNNING WHEN THE FINAL PLAN IS APPROVED. HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. YES. >> I DON'T HAVE A QUESTION BUT JUST A COMMENT. WE HAVE NOT MET PERSONALLY BUT THROUGH THE INTERNET I'M LEVON BURTON FROM THE AMERICAN KIDNEY FUND. I WANT TO THANK THE OFFICE AND COUNSEL FOR OPPORTUNITY TO BE INVOLVEDDED IN THIS. IT IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO ORGANIZATIONS LIKE MINE THAT INTERACT WITH PATIENTS AN THOSE AT RISK. MOST HEALTH AGENCIES HAVE ONGOING EDUCATION PREVENTION ACTIVITY NOT ONLY ABOUT THE AMERICAN KIDNEY FUND BUT PATIENT ADVOCACY ORGANIZATIONS ACROSS THE BOARD. VERY OFTEN THE TOOLS THAT WE USED ARE CRUDE, LARGELY NOT EVIDENCE BASED SO THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH THE OFFICE WITH NIH TO DEVELOP BEAR TOOLS MORE ACCURATE TOOLS THAT ARE NOT ONLY ADD TO THE EFFECTIVENESS OF WHAT WE DO BUT ALSO ADDS TO OUR CREDIBILITY. >> I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT AS WE HAVE BEEN DEVELOPING THE PLAN. LUCERNE WITH WAS MEMBER OF OUR STRATEGIC PLANNING WORKING GROUP AND HAD INPUT ALONG THE WAY. OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. YES. >> THANKS, PETER HODES FROM BAILOR. I DIDN'T HEAR THE WORD CDC MENTIONED AT ALL. >> ACTUALLY I DID. AND CDC IS WOVEN THROUGH THE -- >> HOW DUD THAT WORK? >> CDC WILL BE A VERY IMPORTANT PARTNER WITH US FOR EXAMPLE ON PRIORITY FIVE, DISSEMINATION. THEY DO A GREAT JOB WITH DISSEMINATING THE RESULTS OF PREVENTION RESEARCH, WE'LL WORK WITH THEM ON THAT. I VISITED CDC IN JULY AND MET WITH MANY PEOPLE LEADERSHIP ESPECIALLY ON THE PREVENTION SIDE. SO WE'RE GOING TO BE COORDINATING WITH THEM. THEY HAVE FOR A LONG TIME HAD REPRESENTATION ON OUR PREVENTION RESEARCH COORDINATING COMMITTEE. WE INTERACT WITH THEM REGULARLY AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO. >> GRACE LAMASTERS. WITH EACH STRATEGIC PRIORITY, I THINK IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE WHAT IS THE BASELINE AND WHAT IS THE GOAL. IF YOU HAVE GOALS FOR THE ONE, THREE OR FIVE YEAR PLAN. FOR EXAMPLE, NUMBER SIX, THE IF YOU HAVE INCREASED COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO COORDINATE COMMUNICATION ABOUT DISEASE PREVENTION, WHAT'S THE BASELINE NOW AND WHAT IS THE GOAL WHERE YOU'RE GO SOMETHING >> RIGHT. SO JUST A LITTLE GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT EACH OF THE SIX PRIORITIES THEN COME TO THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION. WHAT I SHARED WITH YOU IS PRIORITY AND THE OBJECTIVES THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPED FOR EACH PRIORITY. UNDERNEATH THAT, WE HAVE A SET OF TASKS, SUBTASKS, TIME LINES, BENCHMARKS, RESOURCE THAT WILL BE PRESENTING TO THE LEADERSHIP IN MID NOVEMBER TO GIVE RESOURCES THAT WE'LL NEED TO IMPLEMENT ALL THIS. SO YOU'RE SEEING THE TOP LEVEL. NOT ALL THE DETAILS. JIM ONLY WANTED ME TO TAKE TEN MINUTES THIS MORNING SO GETTING THEM TO ALL THOSE DETAILS IS NOT POSSIBLE. WE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, OUR STARTING POINT IN TERMS OF COMMUNICATIONS ABOUT COLLABORATIONS WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO COORDINATE COMMUNICATION ABOUT DISEASE PREVENTION, THE BASELINE IS FAIRLY LOW. THE OFFICE HAS NOT BEEN TERRIBLY ACTIVE IN THIS REGARD SO WE WILL BE RAMPING UP THAT EFFORT, REACHING OUT TRY TO DO A GOOD BIT MORE THAN THAT. THIS IS A FIVE YEAR PLAN, LET ME MAKE THAT CLEAR, NOT A ONE YEAR PLAN. WE WILL TAKE EVERY BIT OF FIVE YEARS TO ACCOMPLISH THE GOALS THAT WE DESCRIBED HERE OR MAKE PROGRESS ON THESE OBJECTIVES. BUT FOR EACH OF THE OBJECTIVES WE HAVE TASKS AND SUBTASKS WE HAVE SPECIFIC BENCHMARKS THAT ARE MEASURABLE AND WE HAVE TIME LINES FOR MAKING PROGRESS AGAINST ALL THIS. I AGREE, THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. YES. >> JOYCE MITCHELL. I WANT TO FOLLOW-UP KIND OF ON WHAT GRACE ASKED ABOUT THE BENCHMARKS AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, SO I WAS LOOKING AT STRATEGIC PRIORITY NUMBER FOUR, WHEN YOU WERE GOING TO BE PROMOTING THE COLLABORATIVE PREVENTION RESEARCH ACROSS NIH AND PUBLIC PRIVATE ENTITIES AND WONDERING IF YOU HAVE ANY IDEA OF YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROCESSES THAT MIGHT ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN. AND AS BACKGROUND I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SEVERAL LARGE MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL BITS OF WORK AND RESEARCH ALONG THE WAY, IT TAKES INCREDIBLE AM OF TIME AND EFFORT TO COORDINATE AGAINST -- ACROSS NIH AGENCIES AND PULLING IN THE OTHER DHHS AGENCIES INCLUDING CDC, WAS HARD. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHETHER OR NOT YOU COULD USE SOME PROCESSES DEVELOPED BY OTHER AGENCIES TO HELP MOVE FORWARD? >> ACTUALLY BUILT INTO THE FIRST ONTIVE, THAT IS AT THE HEART OF THE BAD OBJECTIVE. IDENTIFIED FOR ENCOURAGING THAT KIND OF COLLABORATION. SO WE WANT TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT'S OUT THERE. ENTERAGENCIES AS WE GO FORWARD. SO YOU HAVEN'T LOOKED YET BUT PLAN TO. >> WE PLAN TO LOOK. WE ARE ALREADY WORKING ON DEVELOPING SOME FOAs THAT WILL CUT ACROSS ICs. MANY OF OUR FRIENDS IN THE PREVENTION COMMUNITY SAID THERE OUGHT TO BE A HOME FOR PHYSICAL ACTIVITY RESEARCH. THERE OUGHT TO BE A HOME FOR NUTRITION RESEARCH, THERE OUGHT TO BE A HOME FOR OTHER AREAS CENTRALLY IMPORTANT TO PREVENTION. WE'D BE QUITE HAPPY FOR ODP TO PLAY A COORDINATING ROLE, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GRANT -- AWARD GRANTS, WE'RE NOT FUNDING AGENCY PER SE BUT WE CAN BRING THE PEOPLE INTERESTED IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY TOGETHER AS WE'RE DOING TODAY. AND DEVELOP FOAs THAT WILL CUT ACROSS ICs AND HAVE ICs WORKING TOGETHER TO DEVELOP THOSE ANNOUNCEMENTS SO WE'RE WORKING ON PART OF IT NOW BUT THE PARTICULAR ITEM YOU IDENTIFIED IS SOMETHING TO BE DONE. FROM >> ONE MORE FOLLOW-UP, SEEMS LIKE THE COUNCIL OF COUNCILS IS DEFINITELY THE PLACE, BECAUSE WE WERE ALL APPOINTED TO HELP WITH THESE ENTERAGENCY COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS. >> WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE YOUR ADVICE AND COUNCIL AS WE COMPLETE THE PLAN AND START TO IMPLEMENT. YES. >> TO FOLLOW-UP ON THAT QUESTION, HOW MUCH COORDINATION INVOLVED INTRAMURAL VERSUS EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH? >> THE WORK SO FAR AS PRINCIPALLY BEEN ON THE EXTRAMURAL SIDE. IN THE AREA OF TOBACCO IS THE EXCEPTION SO FAR, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING BOTH ON THE INTRAMURAL SIDE AND ON THE EXTRAMURAL SIDE. BUT IN THE OTHER AREAS TO DATE IT IS PRIMARILY ON THE EXTRAMURAL SIDE. OUR HOPE WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD INCLUDE BOTH INTRAMURAL AND EXTRAMURAL WORK AS WE GO FORWARD >> AS THE MAIN OBJECTIVE TO COORDINATE AND DESIGN NEW RFAs OR IS IT TO NETWORK EXISTING RO-1 AND UO-1 AWARDS, WHAT ARE YOU ENVISIONING? >> ALL OF THAT AND MORE. WE HAVE A VERY AMBITIOUS VIEW OF WHAT OUR OFFICE CAN DO. WE WANT TO PROMOTE AND ENCOCOURAGE PREVENTION RESEARCH QUITE BROADLY ACROSS NIH AT A VARIETY OF LEVELS. OTHER QUESTIONS. >> VERY IMPORTANT. TO WHAT EXTENT WILL YOUR OFFICE BE INVOLVED IN THE OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT? I HAVE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR BUZZ PHRASES TO SO DONE SEE THAT IMBEDDED HERE BUT MAYBE IT IS. >> WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR IN TERMS OF OBJECTIVES OR PRIORITIES FOR SPECIFIC KINDS OF RESEARCH BUT WE'RE INTERESTED IN PREVENTION RESEARCH REALLY GENERALLY FROM DEVELOPMENT OF NEW MEASUREMENT TOOLS, NEW RESEARCH DESIGN AND ANALYTICAL METHODS, NEW INTERVENTIONS. POOLING DATA ACROSS STUDIES SO THE RANGE OF DEVELOPMENTAL ASPECT ALL THE WAY OUT TO DISSEMINATION. REALLY ACROSS THE RANGE. I APPRECIATE ALL THE INTEREST THAT Y'ALL HAVE IN PREVENTION RESEARCH. THAT'S HEARTENING TO ME. WE LOOK FORWARD TO IMPLEMENTING THE PLAN OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND WILL BE BACK ON A REGULAR BASIS TO GET UPDATES AND YOUR INPUT. THANK YOU. >> THANKS, DAVID. WE WILL SEND THIS DRAFT PLAN TO YOU, IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS SEND TO ME OR TO DAVID AND THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC RFI AND SITE FOR RESPONDING BUT IF YOU WANT TO SEND DIRECTLY TO US, THAT WILL BE FINE. ONE THING THAT I HEARD IS HOW IS HE GOING TO IMPLEMENT THIS. SO I WANT TO POINT OUT OUR DPSKPI OFFICES ARE RELATIVELY SMALL COMPARED TO ALL OF NIH SO WE DON'T INTEND TO IMPLEMENT EVERYTHING HE'S TALKING ABOUT BUT WE PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET EVERYBODY IN THE SAME ROOM AND AGREE ON WHAT PRIORITIES ARE AND COORDINATE SOLUTIONS. >> NOW WHERE WE ARE WITH SCIENCE EDUCATION. BACK IN MAY I PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL THE FISCAL YEAR 14 PRESIDENT'S BUDGET WHICH CALLS FOR BETTER COORDINATION OF THE COUNTRY'S STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS. YOU MAY RECALL THE AMERICAN PETES ACT CALLEDDED FOR OFFICE OF SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY POLICY TO FORM A TRANSGOVERNMENT AGENCY ON STEM EDUCATION CALLED CO-STEM. THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMITTEE WAS TO COORDINATE STEM EDUCATION ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS AT THE FEDERAL AGENCIES TO COORDINATE STEM EDUCATION ACTIVITIES AND PROGRAMS WITH THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET TO REVIEW STEM EDUCATION ACTIVITIES TO ENSURE THEY'RE NOT DUPLICATIVE AND DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT FIVE YEAR STEM EDUCATION STRATEGIC PLAN FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THESE WERE INFORMEDDED BY REPORTS OVER TEN YEARS CULMINATING IN THE STRATEGIC DRAFT PLAN LATE LAST FALL. THROUGHOUT EXPRESSION OF CONCERN OVER THE LARGE NUMBER OF FEDERAL STEM EDUCATION PROGRAMS AND RECOMMENDATION TO BETTER COORDINATE AMONG AGENCIES. WITHIN THE FISCAL YEAR 14 PRESIDENT BUDGET AT NIH PROGRAM SO LISTED HERE ARE THE GENERAL PLAN WAS TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PROGRAMS BY APPROXIMATELY HALF TO TERMINATE 78 PROGRAMS AND NINE AGENCIES AND TO FOCUS FOR DEVELOPING PROGRAMS IN THREE AGENCIES, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WHICH WAS ASKED TO TAKE OVER THE LEAD FOR THE OTHERS IN DESIGNING AND IMPLEMENTING K-12 INSTRUCTION. THIS SMITHSONIAN TO DEVELOP INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT STEM INSTRUCTION AND ENGAGEMENT AND ALSO IN FORMAL STEM ACTIVITIES NOT IN THE CLASSROOM. NSF WITH UNDERGRADUATES AND ABOVE. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. THE ELIMINATION OF FUNDS IS VERY SMALL COMPARED TO THE OVERALL ALMOST 3 BILLION FEDERAL INVESTMENT IN STEM EDUCATION BUT THAT'S WHERE WE WERE. SO WHAT HAVE WE DONE AT THIS POINT? WE HAVE IN FISCAL YEAR 13 WE'RE STILL IN FOR ANOTHER WEEK. IF THERE IS A FISCAL YEAR 14, THAT WILL BE IN A WEEK, WE HAVE PAUSED A NEW K-12 STEM EDUCATION GRANTS AND CONTRACTS AND WE HAVE HELD OFF ON REISSUING THE CEPA PROGRAM # ANNOUNCEMENT THAT EXPIRED LAST THAT WAS SUBJECTS TO 5% SEQUESTRATION. IN FISCAL YEAR 14 WE PLAN TO FUND NON-COMPETING CEPA AWARDS SO THOSE ACTIVE AS WELL AS OUTYEARS, NIH MET WITH THREE RECEIVING OR SO-CALLED LEAD AGENCIES TO DISCUSS ANY TRANSITION AND FUTURE COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS WE HAVE A GROUP THAT MEETS REGULARLY WITH THEM TO DEVELOP A PLAN HOW TO WORK WITH THEM TO BE CERTAIN SCIENCE RESEARCH EDUCATION IS STILL PROMOTED THROUGH THE OTHER AGENCIES. OR THERE ARE ACTIVITIES WE DO COORDINATED WITH THEIR LEAD BUT OFFICE OF SCIENCE EDUCATION WILL BE FACED DOWN, WE'LL KEEP IT AVAILABLE AND WEBSITE FOR THAT PHYSICAL AND DOWNLOADABLE MATERIALS WILL CONTINUE TO BE THERE. AND SO AT THIS TIME REMEMBER A YEAR AGO WE HAD ANTICIPATED WE WILL NOT PROCEED WITH IT THIS TIME. THAT'S WHERE WE ARE WITH STEM. QUICK UPDATE UP DATE ON THE CHIMPANZEE RESEARCH COUNCIL, THIS IS BACK IN AUGUST 15 AS NEW STANDING WORKING GROUP WITH COUNCIL S THIS GROUP WILL REPORT TO YOU PERIODICALLY ON THE APPLICATIONS FOR USE ON CHIMPANZEES AN RESEARCH. YOU AGREED TO ESTABLISH THIS IN AUGUST. THE PURPOSE OF CRUP, CRUP IS AN ODD NAME, NOT AS BAD AS THE ONE DAN CAME UP WITH, WHICH WAS CROCK. SO THAT'S THE NAME. THIS GROUP WILL CONSIDER REQUESTS THROUGH NIH FOR USE OF CHIMPANZEES IN RESEARCH TO ASSURE THAT THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE IOM PRINCIPLES AN CRITERIA. THEY WILL PROVIDE THEIR FINDINGS TO YOU AND YOU WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE INSTITUTE AND CENTER DIRECTORS WHO INTEND TO FUND GRANT USING CHIMPANZEES. THE MEMBERS AS KENT WAS OUR CO-CHAIR WITH DAN SIGN ACTIVIC EXPERS EXPECTED FOR APPLICATIONS, VETERINARIAN WITH EXPERT IN THE CARE OF NON-HUMAN PRIMATES PREFERABLY CHIMPANZEES, CLIMATOLOGISTS PREFERABLY WITH CHIMPANZEE EXPERIENCE. A BIOETHICIST OR SOMEONE WITH BIOETHICS EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE TO POINT THEIR ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES BEING CAN WORK BE ETHICALLY CONDUCTED IN HUMANS. IF SO, IT WOULDN'T BE NECESSARY TO DO IT IN CHIMPANZEES. STATISTICIAN, BECAUSE OF RECOMMENDATION STUDY SHOWER POWERED PROPERLY AND MODIFICATION TO THAT WE MOMENT IT'S SCIENTIFICALLY OR -- THERE MAYBE EXPERIENCE THAT PROVIDE VALID DATA WITH A COUPLE OF ANIMALS AND YOU WOULDN'T CONSIDER IT PROPERLY POWERED. TWO OR MORE PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES AND THERE A DEEP ROSTER IN THE COUNCIL OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES. NIH REALLY OUTSTANDING PEOPLE AND WE'LL START WITH THAT GROUP FOR PUBLIC MEMBERS. THEN AD HOC MEMBERS TO PROVIDE ON THE SCIENCE WITH APPLICATIONS WITH THE PURPOSE BEING THAT TO ANSWER SUCH QUESTIONS, ARE THERE OTHER MODELS THAT RESEARCH CAN BE CONDUCTED IN TO GIVE EQUALLY VALID RESULTS, USEFUL RESULTS. SO WHERE ARE WE? WE'RE WELL INTO DEVELOPING PROCESSES FOR RECEIVING APPLICATIONS HAVING A TENTATIVE ROSTER OF MEMBER. NO ONE IS INVITED YET. WE HAVE TWO CO-CHAIRS ACCEPTED FROM COUNCIL, BARBARA AND GILL HAVE AGREED TO BE OUR FOUNDING CO-CHAIRS OF -- AND WE PROMISE TO PROVIDE SUBSTANTIAL HELP AS WE SET THIS UP AND BRING YOU ON BOARD WITHIN THE NEXT MONTH HOW WE'RE DOING THAT. BUT IT'S TO BE INDEPENDENT OF OUR CURRENT REVIEW. SO THE APPLICATION FORM IS SEPARATE. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? AND IT'S REALLY BEING SET UP AS A PARALLEL PROCESS TO ADVISE THE IC DIRECTORS. TAKEN SOME TIME. HERE IS THE OVERALL WAY IT WILL WORK. PEOPLE CAN APPLY TO FOUR FUNDS TO USE CHIMPANZEES AND RESEARCH, THREE PATHWAYS, ONE ON THE TOP IS TYPICAL RO-1 APPLICATION WHICH GOES TO STUDY SECTION REVIEW AND ADVISORY COUNCIL, AND FEN IF AN INSTITUTE INTENDED OR FOUNDED POTENTIAL GRANT THEY POTENTIALLY FUND, THIS TRIGGERS REVIEW BY THE CRUP. SO THEY WILL -- IF THEY WILL USE A SEPARATE APPLICATION THAT ADDRESSES THE PRINCIPLES AND CRITERIA OF THE IOM, THIS GROUP WILL MEET AND ASK WHETHER THE RESEARCH DOES OR DOESN'T COMPLY WITH ALL OF THE CRITERIA AND ALSO IF INDIVIDUAL PARTS CAN BE MODIFIED OR ELIMINATED SO IT WOULD -- THEY'LL COME BACK TO YOU AND PROVIDE THEIR RECOMMENDATION, WHETHER IT COMPLIES OR NOTS AND THEN YOU WILL AGREE AND THE WAY WE DO IT IS AS CHAIR OF COUNCIL I WILL CONVEY THAT IN A LETTER TO REPRESENTING YOU TO THE IC DIRECTORS. AND THEY'LL USE THAT AS A SEPARATE INPUT INTO THEIR DETERMINATION WHETHER TO FUND A GRANT APPLICATION. THERE'S ALSO CONTRACTS. THERE'S A DIFFERENT PATHWAY BUT THEY ARE REVIEWED BY TECHNICAL REVIEW BOARDS, SO IT'S A SIMILAR PROCESS BUT AT CERTAIN POINT THERE'S INTENTION TO FUND THE CONTRACT, IT WOULD TRIGGER REVIEW BY THE CRUP. AND THEN THERE ARE INTRAMURAL PROGRAMS, SEVERAL AS KENT WILL REMEMBER DEALING WITH SEVERAL VIRAL ILLNESSES AND IF INVESTIGATORS INTEND TO DO THAT WORK IN THE FUTURE THEY'LL ALSO SUBMIT THEIR WORK, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM WRITES A REPORT AFTER THEY HAVE DONE THE WORK RATHER THAN GRANT AHEAD OF TIME. SO IN THIS CASE WE'LL HAVE THE SCIENTIFIC DIRECTORS OF EACH INSTITUTE RESPONSIBLE FOR HOW THE RESOURCES ARE SPENT ANYWAY. TO SAY YES FROM A SCIENTIFIC STANDPOINT THAT'S AN ACCEPTABLE EXPENSION IN OUR INSTITUTE AND THEN THAT WILL TRIGGER REVIEW BY THE CRUP AS WELL. SO NO MATTER THE PROCESS COMING IN, THIS HAS BEEN TRICKY FOR US TO CAPTURE ALL THIS AND TURN INTO ONE REVIEW PROCESS, LIT COME TO THE CRUP AND BACK TO YOU. SO AT THIS POINT THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THAT ARE -- THAT WE HAVE TO RESOLVE BEFORE WE CAN GET THERE. AND ONE IS THE DELIBERATIONS ONETH LOGICALLY APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTS. THIS WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF THE IOM, CHIMPANZEES USED FOR RESEARCH BE KEPT IN A PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT THAT WASETH LOGICALLY APPROPRIATE, NOT SPELLED OUT IN DETAIL, AGAIN, KENT WILL REMEMBER, SO WE WENT THROUGH A GREAT DEAL OF DELIBERATION COMING UP WITH A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT WOULD BE, HUMAN CHIMPANZEE INTERACTIONS WOULD BE, AND THE PHYSICAL CRITERIA OR STANDARDS FOR FACILITY, EVEN TO CLIMBING HEIGHT AND ONE PARTICULAR RECOMMENDATION WAS A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET FOR CHIMPANZEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY OUR DIRECTOR WITH THE REQUEST WE GO BACK AND LOOK IN MORE DEPTH AT THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR THAT RECOMMENDATION. SO WE'RE DOING THAT NOW. WE HAVE A PANEL OF EXPERTS ON BEHAVIOR AND CHIMPANZEES WHO ARE INDIVIDUALLY PROVIDING THEIR ADVICE. WE'RE DOING EXTENSIVE REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE THAT'S AVAILABLE THAT INFORMS CHIMPANZEE BEHAVIOR AND THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTS AND IT'S IMPORTANT WE THEN MAKE A DETERMINATION WHAT THAT PHYSICAL REQUIREMENT IS BECAUSE THEN WE'RE SET TO SAY PHYSICALLY --ETH LOGICALLY APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT IS. THE REASON TO DO THAT, IN ORDER TO SUPPORT RESEARCH IN A FACILITY, THE FACILITY HAS TO ASSURE THEY HAVE A PLAN TO BEETH LOGICALLY APPROPRIATE WITHIN FIVE YEARS. WHEN THEY DO THAT, WHEN WE TELL THEM WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS THERE ARE AND THEY TELL US THEY CAN DO IT AND WE ACCEPT THEIR PLAN THEN WE'LL FUND RESEARCH IN THAT FACILITY HUMAN BEINGETH COLLAGELY APPROPRIATE. DID I GET THIS RIGHT, KENT? SO THIS IS THE SLIGHT HURDLE IN THE PROCESS, WE HAVE TO ESTABLISH THAT AND THEN BE ASSURED OF FACILITIES THAT WILL MEET THAT STANDARD, THEN WE CAN FUND RESEARCH IN THOSE FACILITIES. SO IT'S STILL A FEW MONTHS OFF BUT SOMETHING WE PLAN TO DO FAIRLY SOON IS ISSUE AN NIH GUIDE NOTICE THAT WILL INFORM RESEARCHERS INTRAMURAL, WHAT THE PROCESS WILL BE AND THE TIME LINES, IT WILL ALSO OUTLINE THE RESEARCH THAT'S EXEMPT FROM YOUR REVIEW, THAT'S THINGS LIKE BIOSPECIMENS THAT HAVE BEEN COLLECTED ALREADY, OR SAMPLES FROM THE WILD OR SOME SAMPLES CHECKED IN ROUTINE VETERINARY EXAMS. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. I DON'T EXPECT YOU'LL SEE ANYTHING SO I'M NOT GOING TO PREDICT WHETHER JANUARY YOU'LL SEE SOMETHING OR NOT. POSSIBLY INTRAMURAL PROGRAM WILL MOVE AHEAD FASTER THAN GRANT APPLICATIONS. ANOTHER TOPIC WE'LL COVER NEXT WILL BE PROPOSAL FOR COUNCIL OF COUNCILS WORKING GROUP ON THE COMMON FUND PROCESS. BETSY WILL PRESENT THE BACKGROUND TO THIS, BUT JUST IN A -- TO SUMMARIZE, WE'RE NOW TEN YEARS INTO THE COMMON FUND STARTING WITH THE ROAD MAP IN 2004. THE WAY IT'S MANAGED HAS EVOLVED. THE ROADMAP WAS DIFFERENT FROM THE COMMON FUND WHICH IS A STATUTORY APPROPRIATION FOR HOW WE DO IT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING IT THE BEST WAY. IT'S A LARGE INVESTMENT, IT'S PRODUCING SPECTACULAR SCIENCE, IT'S A NEW WAY OF DOING SCIENCE ACROSS NIH AND DOING IT IN A LARGE COLLABORATIVE WAY. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH WITH YOU THE HISTORY OF THAT AND HOW WE DO IT NOW. AND THEN SET UP A WORKING GROUP TO REVIEW, BASICALLY INTERVIEW A LOT OF PEOPLE INVOLVED TO COME UP WITH WHAT'S THE BEST PRACTICE, WHAT DO WE THINK -- HOW SHOULD WE MANAGE THIS GOING FORWARD. SO THIS WILL CULMINATE WITH A REPORT HOPEFULLY IN JUNE, THE COMMITTEE WILL BRING BACK THEIR WORK TO YOU IN JANUARY. WE'LL WORK WITH OUR CO-CHAIRS ON THIS AND I'LL JUST TELL YOU, WE HAVE ALREADY -- WE HAVE TWO FOLK WHOSE I ? I WOULD BE IDEAL FOR THIS WHO WILL BE WITH US FOR SEVERAL MORE YEARS. THAT'S JANICE CLEMONS AND KENT AGAIN AGREED TO CO-CHAIR THIS VERY IMPORTANT ACTIVITY WITH US. THEY HAVE NO IDEA THAT WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO YET. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE FUN. OKAY. SO QUESTIONS. JIM. >> THIS IS A QUESTION ABOUT SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CEPA COMMUNITY GOT UP IN ARMS ABOUT THIS AND ADVOCATED WITH CONGRESS AND LANGUAGE FOR NON-EXISTENT FY 2014 BUDGET INCLUDES LANGUAGE REGARDING CEPA AND NOT LETTING THAT MONEY BE MOVED OUT OF NIH BECAUSE OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE WAY EDUCATION FOR EXAMPLE MIGHT ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM. >> WHAT'S CE PPA? >> SCIENCE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP, SCIENCE EDUCATORS PARTNERSHIP WITH REGARD TO SCIENCE EDUCATION. THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE CASE OF SEPA, THE PROJECTS ARE INITIATED BY SCIENTISTS AND CASE IN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION GENERALLY INITIATED BY SCHOOL SYSTEMS. SO THERE'S A VERY DIFFERENT FLAVOR AND CONSEQUENCE IN THE TERMS OF EFFECTIVENESS AND CONCERN -- CERTAINLY WITH RESPECT TO THEIR CONTENT. OBVIOUSLY THIS DEPENDS WHAT HAPPENS WITH FY 2014 BUDGET WHETHER THAT LANGUAGE STAYS IN AFTER -- WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACT AND HOW WOULD THAT SORT OF REGISTER ON THE ONGOING PROCESS OF DETERMINING THE PROGRAMS? >> I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR YOU. WE DO WHAT WE'RE TOLD. THE IDEA OF ACADEMIC FREEDOM DOESN'T EXIST HERE. WE'RE PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND OUR BOSS THE PRESIDENT SAID STOP THESE PROGRAMS. THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN UNTIL CONGRESS PASSES A BILL WHICH DIRECTS WHETHER THIS FUNDS WILL DO THAT. JUST READ THE PAPER, JIM. >> WHICH I'M DOING. >> WE ARE CURRENTLY WITHOUT DIRECTION. BUT I WILL SAY WE'RE WORKING WITH THESE OTHER AGENCIES TO TRY AND COME UP WITH A GOOD WAY FOR NIH'S INTEREST TO BE REPRESENTED IN THE PROGRAMS THAT THEY'RE TO LEAD. >> SURE. I GUESS ONE -- SORT OF THE SUBSIDIARY QUESTION IS, IF SUCH AN EVENT WOULD OCCUR, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE TO RE-ESTABLISH THESE PROGRAMS IN THE NIH, IF THAT WERE TO BE THE WILL OF CONGRESS? >> IT WOULDN'T TAKE LONG TO PUBLISH A ANNOUNCEMENT AGAIN. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FORMAL TO SAY BUT I SPECULATE THAT WE WOULD FORK -- EMORY IS THE -- WE ARE -- IF YOU LOOK AT HOW WE SPEND FUNDS HERE AT NIH AND WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO OUR MISSION, IT'S WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT IS THE UNIQUE THING THAT NIH HAS TO DO. WE SPEND A LOT ON FELLOWSHIPS AND TEAM PROGRAMS. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE SEPA PROGRAM COULD SUPPORT WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT BACK THROUGH K-12 SOMEHOW. I'M JUST GOING TO SPECULATE WE MIGHT RETHINK HOW THIS SEPA PROGRAM COULD BE ALIGNED WITH A LITTLE MORE WITH THE OVERALL NIH MISSION. BUT TO DO THAT AND TO GET SOMETHING OUT WOULDN'T TAKE LONG, WE JUST NEED SOME DIRECTION. >> THANKS. >> COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, ONE ABOUT THE -- JUST TO CLARIFY, TWO THINGS. FIRST, THERE'S NO NET FEDERAL SAVINGS FROM THIS ACTION, CORRECT? 176 MILLION GOING TO THESE AGENCIES MERELY GOING OVER TO THE THREE EXISTING AGENCIES TO MANAGE THESE PROGRAMS, CORRECT? >> THERE'S IN -- >> NO NET -- SECONDLY, THE MISSION GOALS OF SEPA FOR EXAMPLE, THE MONEY THAT WAS FUNDING IF YOU'RE AT THE NIH, WITH THOSE TERMINATED, THE MISSION AND GOAL AND SPIRIT OF THOSE PROGRAMS AREN'T REPLICATED THEN, IF THE NEW LOCATION WHERE THE FUNDING IS MOVING TO, CORRECT IN >> WE'RE IN DISCUSSION WITH LEAD AGENCIES ABOUT HOW OUR INTEREST AND EDUCATION CAN CONTINUE SO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY. >> OKAY. >> THAT'S HELPFUL. >> WE MEET REGULARLY. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION ABOUT THE CRUP. >> YES. >> WITH REGARD TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE WORKING GROUP REGARDING 1,000 SQUARE FEET, ONCE YOU AND YOUR GROUP NOW MAKE A DECISION AS TO GO FORWARD, WILL COUNCIL BE INVOLVED IN ANY OF THAT FURTHER IN TERMS OF IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATION SO ON, OR IS THIS ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND PROCESS THEREAFTER? >> MY ASSUMPTION IS IT'S AN NIH DECISION. THAT WILL DO IT THEN OUR FULL DESCRIPTION WILL BE SENT AND WE CAN FIND FACILITIES WILLING TO DO IT, ABLE TO DO IT WITHIN FIVE YEARS. >> DID I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY ON CRUP THAT STORED SPECIMENS WOULD BE EXEMPT? >> YES. COLLECTED UNDER APPROVED PROTOCOL OR COLLECTED BEFORE ALL THIS REVIEW PROCESS STARTED. WE'RE ALSO MAKING AN EFFORT IN ORUP AND HAROLD MIGHT BE HERE TO BETTER CENTRALIZE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SAMPLES NIH SUPPORTED IN MANY INSTITUTIONS. AND MAKE THAT MORE AVAILABLE TO INVESTIGATORS. >> OKAY. I THINK I WILL HAND IT OVER TO BETSY NOW. WE HAVE ALLOTTED PLENTY OF TIME FOR THIS TOPIC THIS MORNING AND THIS AFTERNOON AND I WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU PLEASE TO ASK A LOT OF QUESTIONS, AND MAKE COMMENTS SO WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING, WHAT YOUR CONCERNS AN PRY PRIORITIES ARE, SO WE SET OFF ON A PROCESS THE NEXT FEW MONTHS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR IN JANUARY AND IN JUNE. SO PLEASE, LOTS OF DISCUSSION. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, JIM. SO AS JIM MENTION WE ARE OUR 10TH YEAR BIRTHDAY FOR THE COMMON FUND. SO I THINK A GOOD TIME TO REFLECT ON ANY PROGRAM THAT IS TEN YEARS OLD THAT HAS SORT OF SPECIAL MEANING FOR THE COMMON FUND BECAUSE OUR PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN SET UP FROM THE BEGINNING TEN YEAR MAXIMUM LIFE SPAN. SO WHAT WITH WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME TODAY IS THAT MOST MATURE PROGRAMS ARE COMING TO AN END SO IT'S AN APPROPRIATE TIME FOR US TO ASK HOW ARE WE DOING. ARE WE LIVING UP TO THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAMS AND HOW ARE WE DOING IN TERMS OF MANAGEMENT. SO I WANT TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE LANDSCAPE OF THE COMMON FUND AS EXISTS TODAY. THIS IS A SLIDE THAT SHOWS WE HAVE ABOUT 30 PROGRAMS THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY SUPPORTING UP FROM ORIGINAL NINE WHICH I'LL TALK TO YOU ABOUT. OUR BUDGET HAS GROWN TO SIZE OF -- THIS IS FY 12 BUDGET I GUESS, ABOUT 540 MILLION WITH SEQUESTRATION BUDGET CUTS, LESS THAN THAT IN FY 13. YOU CAN TELL BY THE NUMBER OF PROGRAMS P IF YOU TAKE A GLANCE AT SOME OF THE TITLES, THE SCIENCE COVERS THE SPECTRUM OF WHAT THE NIH DOES SO IT'S A BIG COMPLICATED MIXTURE OF PROGRAMS, IT REPRESENTS A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT, FOR WHAT WE'LL BE THINKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF REVIEW HOW WE'RE DOING, IT DOES REFLECT A NEW WAY OF MANAGING SCIENCE. SINCE THE COMMON FUND WAS BEGUN IN 2004, WE SPENT OVER $4 BILLION ON THE PROGRAM. THE FY 13 BUDGET WAS $513 MILLION. SO THIS IS ABOUT THE SIZE OF A MID SIZED INSTITUTE AT THE NIH. IT'S NOT INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY. WE MANAGE THAT QUITE DIFFERENT IN THE WAY IC MANAGES FUNDS SO WE NEED A CAREFUL LOOK AT THAT. THE MANAGEMENT OF THESE PROGRAMS INVOLVES OVER 70 PEOPLE DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE NIH. WE HAVE A POOL OF PERSONNEL SLOTS WE MANAGE FROM OUR OFFICE. THAT PUTS EFFORT IN THE ICs WHERE EXPERTISE IS. SO WE TRY HARD TO GET RELEVANT EXPERTISE ENGAGED IN PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, IT CAN BE A BIT OF AN UNWIELDY PROCESS AT TIMES BUT WE THINK THE CURRENT FUND PROGRAMS AS SORT OF A VIRTUAL INSTITUTE THAT IS SPREAD ACROSS THE NIH. THOUGH WE HAVE ABOUT 70 PEOPLE THAT CONTRIBUTE HALF THEIR TIME, THERE ARE MANY, MANY MORE THAT ARE ENGAGED AT LOWER LEVELS THAT WE ALSO PROVIDE SUPPORT TO THE INSTITUTE. TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES THEY NEED TO PARTICIPATE IN THEIR PROGRAMS. WE WORK WITH MOST INSTITUTES IN THE NIH IN LEAD CAPACITY FOR OUR PROGRAMS. ONE THING I'LL MENTION LATER IS ALL OF OUR PROGRAMS INVOLVE TRANS-NIH COMMITTEES THAT CONTRIBUTE PERSPECTIVES TO ENSURE THE PROGRAMS MEET AND ADDRESS A TRANS-NIH WAY OF THINKING. FOR EACH PROGRAM WE HAVE TWO INSTITUTES THAT SERVE IN A LEAD CAPACITY. SO ACROSS THE COMMON FUND SPECTRUM OF PROGRAMS, MOST OF THE INSTITUTES SERVE AS LEAD FOR AT LEAST ONE OF OUR PROGRAMS. SO ONE NICE THING WORKING IN OUR OFFICE IS WE GET TO KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE ACROSS THE NIH IN A LOT OF INTERRING WAYS AND TALK ABOUT INTEREST SCIENCE. SO THIS IS REALLY FOR YOUR INTEREST AFTER LOOKING FOR YOUR SLIDES, WE HAVE A PARTICULAR INTEREST TAKING A LEAD ROLE IN OUR DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, SHOWS WHICH I Cs ARE ENGAGED AND WHICH PROGRAMS IN A LEAD CAPACITY. OKAY. SO THAT GIVES A SENSE WHERE THE COMMON FUND IS. SO WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO REFLECT WITH YOU FOR A MINUTE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY, AS JIM MENTIONED, THIS MATERIAL IS COVERED IN TWO PRESENTATIONS, I'LL GIVE AN OVERVIEW HOW WE OPERATE THIS MORNING AND TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT OUR PROGRAMS AND SOME OF THE ISSUES THEY FACE AND HOW WE APPROACH THOSE ISSUES AND THINK HOW TO EVALUATE OUR MANAGEMENT PROCESSES LATER IN THE DAY. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH WITH YOU, REVIEW COMMON FUNDS ORIGIN, THE RASH NATURAL FOR DEVELOPING THE ORIGINAL SET OF PROGRAMS, THE NIH ROAD MATT MAP. PROCESSES DEVELOPED ACROSS THE NIH IN TERMS OF PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT FOR THOSE ORIGINAL PROGRAMS AN CHANGES BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE 2006 REFORM ACT WHICH CREATED DPCPSI. I WOULD LIKE TO REVIEW WITH YOU UNUSUAL FEATURES OF THE COMMON FUND PROGRAM THAT (INDISCERNIBLE) (OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS) -- >> CAN I ASK YOU TO MUTE YOUR PHONE? THANK YOU. >> SORRY. >> NO PROBLEM. >> SO WE WOULD LIKE TO -- I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THE PLANNING PROCESS EVEN HOW OUR SISTER OFFICES DPKPSI STRATEGIC PLANNING. THE TEN YEAR LIFETIME, DISTRIBUTED MANAGEMENT HOW WE PARTNER WITH THE ICs TO MANAGE OUR PROGRAM. THEN GIVE AN OVERVIEW LATER IN THE DAY THREE COMMON FUND PROGRAM HOW THEY'RE DEVELOPEDDED, MANAGEMENT, WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO, HOW WE WORK WITH ICS TO IMPLEMENT THOSE PROGRAMS. FINALLY A DISCUSSION AND NEED FOR EVALUATION AND WHAT WE WANT TO KNOW. COMMON FUNDS ORIGIN, TEN YEARS AGO WHEN ELIAS CEREMONY WAS NIH DIRECTOR. -- ZERHOUNI WAS THE DIRECTOR, HE WAS ADAMANT NIH THINK CORPORATELY CHALLENGES NIH FACE AS A WHOLE. SO THERE WERE TWO CORE REASONS FOR LAUNCHINGING WHAT BECAME KNOWN AS NIH ROAD MAP. FIRST, SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGES. WHAT ARE THE MOST SIGNIFICANT BOLT NECKS IN RESEARCH AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE TO ADDRESS THEM. SO THE IMAGERY USED DURING THIS TIME WAS IMAGERY OF BOTTLENECKS AND TRAFFIC. WHEN THREE LANES COME TO ONE LANE AND RESULTING TRAFFIC JAM. SO HOW CAN CONCEPTUALLY HOW CAN THAT L NECK BE ALLEVIATED. AND THAT IMAGERY OF ROADBLOCKS LED THEN TO THE USE OF THE TERM ROAD MAP FOR UNDERSTANDING HOW TO OVERCOME THOSE ROADBLOCKS. IF WE'RE THINKING ABOUT SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGES THAT ADDRESS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ENTERPRISE AS A WHOLE, THERE REALLY WASN'T A WAY FOR THE NIH TO COLLECTIVELY THINK ABOUT CHALLENGES IN 2002. THIS QUOTE WAS A FAVORITE FROM DR. ZERHOUNI, 27 FINGERS WITHOUT A PALM IS NOT A HAND. SO THERE WAS A SENSE 12 YEARS AGO OR 11 YEARS AGO, THAT THE NIH WAS A DISCONNECTED SET OF TINKERS WITHOUT CENTRAL PALM TO BRING THEM ALL TOGETHER. SO ONE MAJOR REASON FOR ROAD MAP WERE ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGES. DR. ZERHOUNI ARTICULATED THISND GOT THE BALL ROLLING TO COORDINATE TRANS-NIH PLANNING. BUT IT WAS A CONCEPT BREWING FOR A WHILE. HAROLD VARMUS WHEN HE WAS NIH DIRECTOR INTEGRATED AD NEED FOR A MORE INTEGRATED APPROACH AND INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE WAS CONDUCTING A REVIEW OF THE NIH ORGANIZATIONAL CHALLENGES AT THE TIME AND CAME TO THIS REPORT ENHANCING VITALITY OF NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH PUBLISHED IN 2003 AND CAME TO SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS. SO ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS REPORT WAS TO ENHANCE AND INCREASE TRANS-NIH STRATEGIC PLANNING AN FUNDING. AND SPECIFICALLY THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED THE DIRECTOR BE GIVEN THE RESPONSIBILITY TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT WITH ICs SERIES OF TIME LIMITED TRANS-NIH INITIATIVES IDENTIFIED THROUGH BROAD BASE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS OPEN TO PARTICIPATION BY ALL INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS AND TRANSPARENT TO THE PUBLIC. THIS RECOMMENDATION IS SOMETHING THAT WE STILL WORK AND ISSOR OF A BASIS FOR HOW THE COMMON FUND IN THE ROADMAP AT THE TIME WAS DEVELOPED. THIS REPORT ALSO WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN PROVIDING SOME OF THE GUIDANCE THAT ULTIMATELY LED TO THE REFORM ACT AND REFLECT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THIS REPORT. SO THE ROADMAP PLANNING PROCESS ULTIMATELY LED TO NINE MAJOR PROGRAMS. WHICH WERE CLUMPED TO THREE THEMES WHICH I WILL TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN A MINUTE. BUT I WANT TO GIVE YOU LITTLE PERSPECTIVE HOW THESE INITIATIVES CAME TO BE. SO ROADMAP CHRONOLOGY BEGAN IN AUGUST 2002 ROBIN (INAUDIBLE) WAS ONE OF THE LEAD PEOPLE INVOLVEDDED IN THAT PROCESS SO SHE REMEMBERS THIS BETTER THAN ANYBODY ELSE IN THE ROOM. , PROBABLY THE ONLY PERSON IN THE ROOM THAT WAS INVOLVED. AUGUST 2002 DR. ZERHOUNI BEGAN THE PROCESS WITH OVER 100 THOUGHT LEADERS IN A SERIES OF WORKSHOPS TO THE ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS THAT THE CHALLENGING PROBLEMS. IN SEPTEMBER 2002 IN IC DIRECTOR LEADERSHIP FORUM, THE IC DIRECTORS BEGAN TO CONSIDER INPUT WE HAD GOTTEN TO THAT POINT. IN MARCH 2003 THERE WERE FORMATION OF 15 ROAD MAP WORKING GROUPS INVOLVING OVER 300 EXPERTS ACROSS THE NIH TO DEVELOP THESE CONCEPTS. THERE WAS A PRESENTATION TO THE COUNCIL OF PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES THAT SPRING. WORKING GROUP FORMED IN MAY TO DEVELOP PROPOSED ROAD MAP INITIATIVE AND PLANS. SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO REMEMBER OUR LYNN GO CORRESPONDS MORE TO PHASE 2 STRATEGIC PLANNING. THERE WAS IC DIRECTORS RETREAT JUNE 2003, PRESENTATION TO ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE DIRECTOR AND I LIKE THIS TERM ADAPTIVE IMPLEMENTATION THAT WAS COINED FOR MOVING THE PROGRAMS BEYOND THE TRANS-NIH PLANNING INTO INDIVIDUAL IMPLEMENTATION AN OVERSIGHT. THE ADAPTIVE IMPLEMENTATION I THINK REALLY WAS INTENDED TO CONVEY THAT EACH PROGRAM WOULD BE IMPLEMENTED IN A WAY MOST SUITABLE FOR IT. UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTE DIRECTORS THAT TOOK THEM ON. IN A PLANNING PROCESS THE ROAD MAP PARTICIPANTS WERE ASKED WHAT ARE TODAY'S SCIENTIFIC CHALLENGES. WHAT ARE THE ROADBLOCKS TO PROGRESS. WHAT DO WE NEED TO OVERCOME THE ROADBLOCKS AND WHAT CAN'T BE ACCOMPLISHED BY A SINGLE INSTITUTE BUT IS RESPONSIBILITY OF NIH AS A WHOLE. THIS MATRIX WAS ONE THAT FOR THOSE OF US WHO ARE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING SOME OF THE CONCEPTS BEHIND THESE INITIAL PROGRAMS, I THINK SOME PEOPLE LIKED IT, SOME DIDN'T LIKE IT SO MUCH. BUT WHAT DR. ZEHOUNI ASKED IS EVERYTHING ABOUT THE PROGRAM BE REPRESENTED ON THIS BLOCK OF BLOCKS SO YOU CAN SEE IN THE LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER THE SHORT TERM GOALS OF ONE TO THREE YEARS PRETTY EASY WERE DEFINED AS ULTIMATE GOAL OF THE PROGRAM. THE TIME FRAME FOR THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF THE ULTIMATE GOALS WAS 8 TO 10 YEARS. SO ONE OF THE WAYS THAT THE COMMON FUND PROGRAM PLANNING HAS EVOLVED OVER TIME IS WE TRIED TO MAKE THIS SCOOTED MORE TOWARDS THE FIVE YEAR MARK TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES THAT CAN BE ACHIEVED IN A SHORTER TIME FRAME. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE FROM STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY GROUP THAT CAME TO ULTIMATELY IMPLEMENTED AS STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY OF MEMBRANE PROTEINS PROGRAM. THIS WAS DESIGNED FROM ZERHOUNI MATRIX. IF YOU TAKE THE TIME TO READ THE GOALS OF PROGRAM AT THIS POINT YOU CAN SEE IT'S VERY BROAD. THE ORIGINAL VIEWS FOR CHALLENGES TO STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY ENCOMPASS MUCH OF WHAT ONE WOULD THINK OF STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY THAT MIGHT BE ACCOMPLISHED WITH A LARGE BUDGET OVER EXTENSIVE PERIOD OF TIME. ADS THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM EVOLVED IT CAME TO HAVE A FOCUS ON MEMBRANE PROTEINS AND SPECIFICALLY ON METHODS AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS MEMBRANE PROTEINS. IT PROVIDES GOOD EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION OF A BROAD TOPIC DOWN TO SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY ACHIEVABLE WITHIN A FIVE TO TEN YEAR TIME FRAME SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO REMEMBER CRITERIA WE CURRENTLY USE FOR COMMON FUND PROGRAM, THESE LOOK FAMILIAR TO YOU >> THESE WERE ROADMAP, CONSIDERATIONS NIH LEADERSHIP USED IN THE INITIAL SET OF ROAD MAP PROGRAMS. HOW OR WHAT BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH IS IN THE NEXT DECADE. THIS REMAIN IT IS PRIMARY CRITERION WE THINK ABOUT PROGRAMS. WITH OUTCOMES FROM THE INITIATIVE USED SYNERGIZE THE WORK OF ICs. AGAIN STILL A CORE CRITERION. CAN THE NIH AFFORD NOT TO DO IT? THIS IS DIFFICULT TO OPERATIONALLIZE IN TERMS OF HOW THIS WAS USED. THAT PARTICULAR CRITERION CHANGEDDED. WILL INITIATIVE BE COMPELLING TO STAKEHOLDERS AND INITIATIVE POSITION NIH UNIQUE DOING SOMETHING NO OTHER ENTITY IS LIKELY TO DO. HERE IS CRITERIA AS THEY APPEAR TODAY. YOU CAN TELL THEY REALLY HAVE MORE SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS. SO THE ORIGINAL PROGRAMS, ORIGINALLY 15, THEY CONDENSE AND MODIFY A LULL BIT TO NINE, WHAT THEY DISCOVERED IS THEY FELL WITHIN THREE BROAD THEMES. ONE NEW PATHWAY TO DISCOVERY. THESE REFLECTED SERIES OF PROGRAMS THAT GOT BASIC FUNDAMENTAL MECHANISMS DEVELOPING TOOLS EXPLORE BASIC MECHANISMS, THEY INCLUDE PROGRAM BUILDING BLOCKS PATHWAYS ANNETTE WORKS. PROTEOMICS PROTEIN CALLED NATIONAL TECHNOLOGY CENTERS FOR NETWORKS AND PATHWAYS, THIS INITIATIVE IS CURRENTLY IN ITS TENTH YEAR AND WILL BE ENDING. MOLECULAR LIBRARIES AND IMAGING IMPLEMENTATION GROUP DEVELOPED A SERIES OF INITIATIVES FOR -- TO ENABLE SMALL MOLECULE SCREENING AGAINST A VARIETY -- VERY, VERY DIVERSE SET OF ASSAYS ALSO ONE THAT CONTINUED AND EXITING THE COMMON FUND. STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY MEMBRANE PROTEINS LIKE WE DISCUSSED, THERE IS A BIOPIN FORMATIC AND COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY PROGRAM THAT IS HAVING A CONTINUATION IN TERMS OF BD 2K THOUGH THAT'S MUCH BIGGER AN BROADER THAN THIS PROGRAM WAS. NANOMEDICINE. AND THEN ANOTHER THING CALLED RESEARCH TEAMS OF THE FUTURE. THIS REFLECTED THE FACT THAT ONE PRIMARY CHALLENGE THAT AFFECTS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ACROSS THE BOARD IS OUR WOKE FORCE. WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES THAT AFFECT OUR WOKES FOR, WHAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO DO THE MOST INNOVATIVE AND TRANSFORMATIVE SCIENCE AND HOW CAN WE SUPPORT THE WORK FORCE TO ENABLE THAT SCIENCE TO BE CONDUCTED. OUT OF THIS CAME HIGH RISK HIGH REWARD SET OF PROGRAMS WHICH STARTEDDED WITH THE PIONEER PROGRAM. WE TALK ABOUT THAT INITIATIVE WITHIN THIS COUNCIL BEFORE. MANY ARE PA FAMILIAR WITH IT. THERE'S MAJOR EFFORT TO FOSTER INTERDISCIPLINARY REMERGE TERMS OF PROVIDING FUNDS FOR NEW INTERDISCIPLINARY ACTIVITIES BUT TO CONSIDER WHAT ARE TO INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH EXTRAMURALLY AND INTRAMURALLY, POLICIES NIH HAD IN PLACE AT THE TIME THAT IMPEDED INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH AND COULD WE ADJUST THOSE. THIS WAS A BROAD-BASED EFFORT TO FOSTER INTERDISCIPLINARY APPROACHES ACROSS THE BOARD. THERE WAS ALSO AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS TO BE ESTABLISHED. THE FINAL THING RE-ENGINEERING THE CLINICAL RESEARCH ENTERPRISE. WHICH WAS A SERIES OF INITIATIVES, DESIGNED TO BOLSTER CLINICAL INVESTIGATORS TO INCREASE NUMBER OF CLINICAL INVESTIGATORS TO HARMONIZE POLICIES FOR CLINICAL RESEARCH FROM AGENCY TO AGENCY. OUT OF THIS PARTICULAR THEME CAME THE CTSA PROGRAM. AND TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH CORE SERVICES AND OTHERS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO TELL YOU HOW THESE PROGRAMS WERE MANAGED BECAUSE IT BECOMES RELEVANT TO HOW WE MANAGE OUR PROGRAM TODAY. AND TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT HOW IT WAS EVOLVED. THIS WAS A DIAGRAM SHOWING THE STRUCTURE OF ROADMAP IN 2004. WITH DIRECTOR AT THE TOP WORKING WITH INSTITUTE AND CENTERRER DIRECTORS, WITH DEPUTY DIRECTOR TO PROVIDE JEFF OVERSIGHT TO THE SERIES OF PROGRAMS. A PHYSICIAN CALLED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR NIH ROAD MAP COORDINATION WAS CREATED WITHIN OFFICE OF DIRECTOR, DR. (INDISCERNIBLE) SERVED IN THAT ROLE FOR A FEW YEARS. AND DUSHANKA HAD A STAFF OF ONE PERSON, ELLE MERSIA STILL WITH US TODAY AND DEEP HISTORY WITH THE ROAD MAP P AND THE ROLE OF THE OD AT THIS POINT WAS TO WORK CLOSELY WITH THE COMMITTEE CALLED NIH ROAD MAP IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATION COMMITTEE. THIS COMMITTEE INCLUDED THE CHAIRS OF THE NINE WORKING GROUPS, NINE PROGRAMS DEVELOPED TO THE ROADMAP AS WE AS REPRESENTATIVES FROM OD OFFICES. DUSHANKA WORKED CLOSELY WITH SERIES OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH OF THE ICs TO CONVEY INFORMATION ABOUT THE ROAD MAP TO THE ICs, AND GET FEEDBACK FROM IC BACK TO THE OD. SO THIS COMMITTEE WHICH WAS CALLED THE RICK FOR ROADMAP IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATION COMMITTEE, HAD INSTRUMENTAL ROLE TO PLAY IN HOW ALL THE PROGRAMS DEVELOPED THROUGH THE ROADMAP HOW THEY WERE IMPLEMENTED. TWO TO THREE CHAIRS FOR EACH OF THE NINE PROGRAMS, CHAIR AN INSTITUTE DIRECTORS. SO THIS WAS A SMALL VERSION OF INSTITUTE AND DIRECTOR COMMITTEE. IT PROVIDED GOVERNMENT FOR THE OVERALL ROADMAP. THIS SET POLICY AND OVERSIGHT PROCEDURES, IT REVIEWED ALL FISCAL AND HUMAN RESOURCES NEEDS. SO THOSE PERSONNEL SLOTS THAT I MENTIONED WERE INITIALLY MANAGED BY THIS COMMITTEE OF INSTITUTE DIRECTORS. FACILITATING COORDINATION COMMUNICATION AMONG THE WORKING GROUPS. TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE WAS UNIVERSAL WAYS OF OPERATING, UNIVERSAL WAYS OF DOING THINGS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THIS RICK, IT PROVIDED GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION OF OVERALL ROAD MAP BUT NOT FOR INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS. GUIDANCE FOR EVALUATION OF INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS WAS LEFT TO THE INSTITUTE AND CENTER DIRECTORS THAT RAN THOSE INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS. THE WORK FOR FUNNING LEVELS PROJECTED FY '04 TO FY '09. ONE OF THE FEATURES THAT THE ORIGINAL ROADMAP WAS BUDGET ENVELOPE WAS SET FOR FIVE YEARS AND IT WAS FIXED. SO THE RICK WORKED WITHIN THOSE FUNDING LEVELS PROJECTING FIVE YEAR TIME FRAME. OFFICE OF DIRECTOR WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE RICK AND WITH ROADMAP WORKING GROUP. EACH OF THEM -- THE RICK MEMBERS WORKED WITH THE WORKING GROUP HAD ONE TO THREE PROGRAM COORDINATORS MULTIPLE TEAM LEADERS FOR EACH INITIATIVE, MANY WORKING GROUP MEMBERS FROM ICs, THERE WAS ONE BUDGET POINT OF CONTACT THAT MANAGE BUDGET FOR EACH INITIATIVE. EACH GROUP WORKED INDEPENDENTLY. THIS IS A THEME THAT I WOULD LIKE TO COME BACK TO. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES FOR THINKING THE ROADMAP COLLECTIVELY WAS THAT EACH OF THE PROGRAMS THAT WAS DEVELOPED AS THEY BECAME IMPLEMENTED, BECAME STATIC WITH SILOED BUDGETS. LIMITED FLEXIBILITY TO DONNING NEW. TO RESPOND TO CHANGING SCIENTIFIC LANDSCAPE. SO THERE WAS NO CLEAR ROOT FOR EACH AREA TO PLAN FOR OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES. INCREASINGLY AS THE PROGRAM BECAME MORE MATURE, INFORMATION FLOWED BETWEEN OFFICE OF DIRECTOR AN ICs LIMITED. HIGHLY ENGAGED WITH PEOPLE IN EACH PROGRAM SO SOME OF THE PROGRAMS OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR INFORMATION WAS GOOD, SOME WAS LESS ROBUST. INCONSISTENT. TO THINK ABOUT SET OF PROGRAMS AS A WHOLE, THE OD REQUIRED INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROGRAM BUT NO REAL STRUCTURE TO GATHER THAT EVALUATIVE INFORMATION. ALL THAT EVALUATION ABOUT INDIVIDUAL PROGRAMS WAS DONE BY THE GROUPS SO EACH CONDUCTED SELF-EVALUATION. ALL WAS POSITIVE. AT SOME POINT IN THIS PROCESS I BECAME INVOLVED WITH THIS AND IT'S GREAT. ALL THE PROGRAMS WERE DOING GREAT SCIENCE. I AM ON BOARD WITH THAT CONCLUSION BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY IF ONE HAS TO MAKE PRIORITY CALLS IN TERMS OF ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES, AND THE IF ONE WANTS TO ASSESS DEFINED DELIVERABLE TO ACHIEVE, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT THE DELIVERABLE SHOOTING FOR AND THAT WAS GREAT SCIENCE IN SOME OTHER WAY WAS ACHIEVED. NO WAY TO GET THAT INFORMATION. THERE WERE CHALLENGES BUT INITIAL ASSESSMENT THAT WAS DONE I BELIEVE IN 2006 OR 2005, MOST PEOPLE THOUGHT WE'RE OFF TO A GOOD START. THIS WAS A QUOTE THAT I LIKED FROM AN -- THAT EVALUATION THAT WAS DONE THIS TIME. THIS WAS AN EVALUATION OF THE PROCESS ASKING STAFF ACROSS NIH HOW THEY THINK IT'S GOING. THIS PARTICULAR PERSON FOUND IT WAS A GREAT EXPERIENCE, GOT TO MEET PEOPLE ACROSS NIH THAT THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE MET, TALENT WAS IMPRESSIVE. I THINK PEOPLE ENYOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT CHALLENGES FACING BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT THOSE. CONGRESS LIKED IT. THIS WAS A QUOTE FROM 2004 APPROPRIATION. AND AUTHORIZING -- APPROPRIATING FUNDS TO CONTINUE TO ROADMAP. THEN OF COURSE IN 2006, THE NIH REFORM ACT WAS PASSED. LET ME JUST STOP HERE A SECOND AND P I'M TALKING AND TALKING. ARE THERE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF ROADMAP BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SECOND PHASE OF IT? (OFF MIC) >> AT THE TIME THE EVALUATIONS WERE DONE THAT WERE POSITIVE WAS THERE SOME SENSE THEN PEOPLE REPORTING THESE FROM OUTSIDE THEIR SILOS? WAS THE RECOGNITION OF THAT OR WERE THINGS GOING WELL ENOUGH WITHIN THEIR OWN ECOSYSTEMS THAT THAT JUST DIDN'T OCCUR? >> I THINK THERE WERE TWO THINGS. I THINK THERE WAS GENERAL RECOGNITION THE SCIENCE THAT WAS BEING CONDUCTED THROUGH THESE PROGRAMS WAS VERY HIGH QUALITY. FROM OFFICE OF DIRECTOR PERSPECTIVE, PROBABLY TAKING BIG LIBERTY HERE TRYING TO SPEAK FOR DR. ZERHOUNI, BUT I WAS INVOLVED TO SOME EXTENT AT THE TIME, THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER THE INITIAL GOALS OF THE PROGRAM WERE BEING MET. WHETHER EXCEPTIONAL SCIENCE IN GENERAL WAS BEING CONDUCTED. THE INDIVIDUAL EVALUATIONS FOR EACH OF THE PROGRAMS I WAS REFERRING TO WERE INTENDED TO BE HELD AT A MID COURSE OF THE FIRST FIVE YEARS SO DONE AT YEAR THREE TO FOUR, TOWARDS THE SECOND HALF, ABOUT MIDWAY OF THE FIRST FIVE YEARS. AND DECISION NEEDED TO BE MADE WHETHER EACH OF THE PROGRAMS WAS GOING TO CONTINUE. IT WAS A DIFFICULT CALL BECAUSE ALL THE EVALUATION WERE POSITIVE AND ALL NINE DID CONTINUE. I THINK THERE WAS JUST A QUESTIONING OF IF THE EVALUATIONS WERE DONE DIFFERENTLY, WOULD WE HAVE A DIFFERENT SENSE OF WHETHER DEFINED OBJECTIVES HAD ACTUALLY BEEN MET. I THINK MOST PART THEY WERE. >> PETER HODES. THE LAUNCH OF THE ROADMAP INITIATIVE TEMPORALLY SEEMS TO BE COIN SIDES MORE OR LESS WITH THE LAUNCH OF THE WHOLE SYSTEMS BIOLOGY MOVEMENT, MORE OR LESS THE TIME THAT INSTITUTES AND CENTERS AN PREPONDERATES AND SYSTEMS BIOLOGYIES WERE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON LEE INSTITUTE AND ONE AT SATURDAY MEDICAL SCHOOL AND DR. KERSHNER'S DEPARTMENT. HAS THERE BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO LINK THE SYSTEMS BIOLOGY MOVEMENT WHICH INCLUDES COMPONENTS OF NIH ROAD MAP, MOLECULAR IMAGING AND OTHERS TO THAT MOVEMENT. IS THERE -- IS IT PLAUSIBLE TO MAKE A LINK AND HAS IT BEEN LOOKED -- >> IT'S PLAUSIBLE TO MAKE A LINK. WE HAVEN'T HAD A STRATEGIC OR CONCERTED EFFORT TO MAKE THAT LINK. INTERDISCIPLINARY SCIENCE IS FUNDAMENTAL TO SYSTEMS BIOLOGY. RESEARCH WORKING GROUP, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY YES, PART OF WHAT WE DID ENABLED SYSTEMS BIOLOGY TO BECOME EASIER TO DO BECAUSE IT INVOLVES SO MANY PEOPLE WORKING ACROSS DEPARTMENTS AND ACADEMIC INSTITUTIONS. THEY WERE HAPPENING IN PARALLEL. AND THE ROAD MAP PROBABLY HELPED SYSTEMS BIOLOGY AND FEEDING OFF EACH OTHER. NOT SURE WE CAN MAKE A DIRECT LINK. >> REASON IT COULD BE HELPFUL, TRYING TO DECIDE WHAT THE NEXT TEN YEARS LOOKS LIKE TO CONVENE THOUGHT LEADERS JUST MENTIONED IN SYSTEMS BIOLOGY, WHERE DO YOU THINK THE FIELD IS HEADING OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS AND WHAT'S RELEVANT, WHAT COULD BE MODIFIED. >> DIFFERENT COMPONENTS OF SYSTEMS BIOLOGY ROUTINELY COME THROUGH OUR STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS. OF COURSE THE LINKS PROGRAM WE SUPPORT NOW IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THAT. JIM, YOU WANTED TO PROVIDE A COMMENT? >> I THOUGHT THERE WAS GOOD INSIGHT. COMMON FUND PROGRAMS ARE ORIENTED AT RESOLVING FUNDAMENTAL ROADBLOCKS IN THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT AN AREA. SO THAT CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF HIGH THROUGH PUT STUDIES, COMPUTATIONAL APPROACHES AND SYSTEMS WHAT ARE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY WE'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING OR THE DEPTH, DIMENSIONS OF SCIENCE THAT WE NEED TO EXPAND SO EVERYONE CAN WORK ON ANISH HUMAN THAT IS GOOD INSIGHT SIGHT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEFINE PROJECTS GOING FORWARD BUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, WE HAVE SEEN AN EVOLUTION IN HOW WE IMPLEMENT SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR INPUT ON THE BEST WAY TO TO ACCOMPLISH BIG PROJECTS LIKE THIS. >> YES. >> GRACE LAMASTERS. I APPRECIATE THE NEED TO LOOK AT FUNDAMENTAL ROADBLOCKS BUT I FIND IT QUITE REVEALING THAT SOME OF THE CONSIDERATIONS DON'T HAVE FUNDAMENTAL MAJOR HEALTH PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE FACING IN THE U.S. WITH A BIG PICTURE LOOK HOW TO ADDRESS THEM. THINKING OF FETAL AND INFANT DEATH. THE U.S. RANKS STARTLING HIGH ON INFANT DEATH COMPARED TO OTHER COUNTRIES LIKE FINLAND, SWEDISH COUNTRIES. I NOTICE ALSO THAT FOR EXAMPLE, SOME MAJOR ICs LIKE NICHD HAS NO FUNDING FOR THAT. A MAJOR FUNDAMENTAL HEALTH PROBLEM IN THE U.S. IS THE EPIDEMIC ON ADDICTION. THAT WE'RE FACING AND AGAIN, I DON'T SEE THESE HEALTH MAJOR CROSS CUTTING HEALTH ISSUES THAT IS NOT A FOCUS OF THE COMMON FUND. IF I WAS GOING TO ADD A CRITERIA FOR THE FUTURE I WOULD CERTAINLY ADD THAT, THAT THERE'S A FUNDAMENTALLY LARGE HEALTH PROBLEM CROSS CUTTING ISSUES ACROSS ICs THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN LARGE PROJECTS, TO GET THE FETAL INFANT DEATH RATE DOWN IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS TO RANK AT LEAST IN THE ABOUT FIVE BEING THE BEST INSTEAD OF 17 FOR EXAMPLE. >> I APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT T. WAY WE THINK ABOUT THIS, IS THAT THE PROGRAMS THAT WE SUPPORT, WE TRY TO MAKE THEM RELEVANT TO MANY DISEASES, SO YOU MENTIONED ADDICTION. ONE OF THE PROGRAMS WE SUPPORT WHERE NIDA IS ONE OF THE LEAD INSTITUTES IS EPIGENOMICS PROGRAM. AND THE REASON FOR THIS IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND MECHANISMS OF ADDICTION AND WHETHER EPIGENETIC MODIFICATIONS UNDERSTOOD LIE ADDICTIVE PROCESSES. SO THEY'RE VERY INTERESTED IN THE EPIGENOMICS PROGRAM AND THE RESOURCES THAT IT HAS PROVIDED TO THEIR COMMUNITY, PARTICULARLY EPIGENOMICS IMAGING TO DETERMINE WHETHER TO SEE EPIGENETIC MODIFICATIONS IN THE BRAIN, IS IT CORRELATED WITH ADDICTIVE PROCESSES. SO I THINK THE ISSUES OF SPECIFIC DISEASES IF ONE BREAKS DOWN CHALLENGES THAT UNDERLIE FETAL DEATH WITH ADDICTION, HEART DISEASE, TRY TO WHAT YOU KNOW IS IMPEDING PROGRESS FOR THOSE DISEASES, MANY CASES THE SAME BASIC CLASS OF TOOLS OR INFORMATION. SO OUR PROGRAMS PROVIDE THOSE TOOLS AND INFORMATION NOT ONLY TO PREVENT FETAL DEATH BUT MANY OTHER THINGS. THE MICROBIOME PROGRAM IS ANOTHER EXAMPLE WHERE IT HAS PROVIDED INSIGHT INTO DEATH OF PREMATURE INFANTS FOR INSTANCE. SO THAT PROGRAM CERTAINLY DIDN'T HAVE A GOAL ADDRESSING PREMATURE DEATH OF INFANTS BUT -- THIS IS HOW WE GET AT DISEASE RELEVANCE BUT POINT IS WELL TAKEN. YES. >> FOLLOW-UP. I DO APPRECIATE THOSE ISSUES IN THE PROGRESS MADE IN THAT DIRECTION. I HAVE DONE SOME EPIGENETICS RESEARCH ALSO. BUT POINT IS, HAS ADDICTION DECREASED? NO, IT'S HIGHLY ON THE INCREASE. HAS FETAL AND INFAN MORTALITY MADE A -- INFANT MORTALITY MADE A LARGE IMPROVEMENT? NOT REALLY. SO IF WE'RE JUDGING THESE PROGRAMS IN TERMS OF WHAT IMPACT WE HAVE ON THE NATION'S HEALTH, MAYBE WE'RE NOT THERE YET, BUT FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS CAN WE SAY THEN THAT IT REALLY DID DECREASE ISSUES RELATED IN JUST THE TWO I PICKED FETAL -- INFANT MORTALITY AND ADDICTION. I THINK IF WE WE ADDED ANOTHER IMPORTANT CRITERIA, WE MIGHT GET AT THE BIG CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES, MORE DIRECT -- MAYBE EVEN -- I KNOW WE'RE GETTING MORE INDIRECTLY BUT THEN PERHAPS MORE DIRECTLY TOO IN TERMS OF PREVENTION. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> I KNOW YOU'RE GOING GET TO THIS BUT AS YOU WERE SAYING MANY PROGRAMS ARE COMING TO AN END. YOU'RE AT THE TEN YEAR MARK. IS THIS PROCESS GOING TO BE REINVIGORATED TO LOOK AT NEW QUESTIONS? IS THAT PART OF THE WORKING GROUP TO SET PROCESSES IN PLACE TO MAKE THOSE THAT NEXT GROUP OF DECISIONS AND DECIDE WHERE IT'S GOING? WITH KENT, I'M NOT SURE WHAT OUR CHARGE IS. IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S MAINLY LOOK TAG ADMINISTRATION BUT TO ME THAT AS A SCIENTIST THAT'S NOT VERY SATISFYING. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW BY DOING THAT WE CAN BROADEN THE EVALUATION AND SAY WHAT HAS IT ACCOMPLISHED AND WHAT DO WE WANT TO SEE FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. THAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. >> WE'LL GET TO WHAT WE WANT TO TO KNOW AND EVALUATION MORE SPECIFICALLY GOING TO ADDRESS LATER BUT LET ME JUST ANSWER YOUR QUESTION NOW THAT WE HAVE ENGINEERED THE PROCESS SO WE HAVE AN ANNUAL PROCESS OF PLANNING SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THE TEN YEAR MARK TO DEVELOP NEW PROGRAMS. BUT IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION OF WHETHER THE PROCESS THAT WE USE RESULTS MANY THE BEST SCIENCE TO BE SUPPORTED. SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE TO DO IS THINK ABOUT HOW WE PLAN AND HOW WE MANAGE, THE ARTICULATION OF SPECIFIC GOALS AND WHAT WE DO TO ENSURE THOSE ARE MET TO OUR PROGRAM BECAUSE THEY'RE GOAL DRIVEN SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING. SO ONE OTHER ISSUE, TEN YEARS AGO WE WERE IN A VERY DIFFERENT PLACE FOR NIH RESEARCH COMMUNITY THAN WE ARE NOW. I'M WONDERING WHETHER THAT'S CONSIDERED PART FOR THE COMMON FUND. , WE'RE DEALING WITH FLAT BUDGETS AND THINGS LIKE THIS SO THIS IS A LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT MAYBE IMPORTANT TO PLAY OTHER ROLES TO, IS THAT CONSIDERED? JUST BECAUSE OF WHERE THE INTRAMURAL AND EXTRAMURAL PROGRAMS ARE. FROM BEING PART OF THE EXTRA COMMUNITY AND HOPKINS BEING ONE OF THE BIG BENEFACTORS OF NIH FUNDING THE FEELING IS NOT VERY POSITIVE. AND OUR JUNIOR PEOPLE WORK HARD TO BUILD AND SUPPORT AND READY TO LAUNCH ARE BAILING OUT. WE HAVE MORE REGISTRATIONS LAST YEAR THAN EVER SEEN. SO THE COMMON FUND IS VALUABLE, LARGE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THE KNEW CRISES ARE, IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH. I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T SEE THAT PART OF THIS. THIS SEEMS MORE LIKE TECHNICAL ANALYSIS OF PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES WHICH FROM SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW AREN'T NECESSARILY SATISFYING. JIM, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CHARGE? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MOST COMPELLING PROJECTS ARE GOING TO BE IN TEN YEARS. WHAT OUR HOPE WAS TO REVIEW THE PROCESS WE USE TO CAPTURE THE RIGHT PROJECTS EACH YEAR, THE MOST COMPELLING PROJECTS HAD BEEN IMPLEMENTED IN THE BEST WAY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BEST PROJECT IS GOING TO BE NEXT YEAR BUT L LIKE TO WORK WITH A PROCESS THAT I FEEL TOUCHED THE RIGHT BASES, DONE THINGS THE RIGHT WAY SO WE FIND THOSE PROJECTS AND DO THEM RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, NOT YOU SHOULD BE WORKING ON X. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WE'RE GOING TO FIND X IN THE RIGHT WAY. >> PART OF THE ORIGINAL PROGRAMS -- WE'RE REALLY THE NEW INVESTIGATOR IN TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH AWARDS AND EARLY INDEPENDENTS AWARDS, SEEM TO ME CURRENT. IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW WHETHER THEY WORKED AND IF THAT IS AN AREA WHERE WE SEE WE NEED TO BUILD WORK FORCE. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE BEST IDEAS ARE BUT WE DO KNOW IT WILL COME OUT OF THE NEW YOUNG -- >> STATUTORY EMPHASIS ON YOUNG INVESTIGATORS. >> THE REFORM ACT INCLUDED EMPHASIS ON YOUNG INVESTIGATORS. AND IN PART BECAUSE OF THE REFORM ACT IN 2007, COMMON FUND BUDGET WAS FIRST YEAR APPROPRIATED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE COMMON FUND, 80 MILLION-DOLLAR SET ASIDE FOR NEW INVESTIGATOR PROGRAM. ABOUT A THIRD OF OUR BUDGET GOES TO INVESTIGATOR INITIATED HIGH RISK HIGH IMPACT AWARDS. ADS YOU REVIEWED A PROCESS, ONE OF THE OUTCOMES OF PLANNING COULD BE WE NEED ADDITIONAL EMPHASIS ON YOUNG INVESTIGATORS. THIS HAPPEN AD COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND RESULTED IN THE LAUNCH OF EARLY INDEPENDENCE AWARDS. IT IS POTENTIAL OF THE OUTCOME PROCESS, WE NEED TO CAPTURE THAT MOST PRESSING NEEDS AT THE MOMENT. >> IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY AT THIS POINT TO REVIEW THE COMMON FUND CRITERIA THEMSELVES? SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I'M HEARING ARE NOT SO MUCH ABOUT AND COMMENTS ARE NOT ABOUT WHICH SPECIFIC PROJECTS BUT HOW WE ASSESS THE OVERALL ENTERPRISE. I DON'T SEE THE ISSUE OF WHAT IMPACT ON HEALTH STATUS. A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION AND I DON'T SEE THE CRITERIA DEALT WITH THIS SO IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY AT THIS JUNCTURE TO TALK CRITERIA ITSELF? >> THE CRITERIA ARE NOT PART OF THE CHARGE AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE CRITERIA OVER THE TEN YEARS AND SPENT A LOT OF TIME COMMUNICATING WITH CONGRESS ABOUT THESE CRITERIA. BUT JIM, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO IS THAT >> CRITERIA ARE BROAD AS THEY ARE. AS BEEN BROUGHT UP MORE RELEVANT HEALTH PROJECTS COULD BE INCORPORATED THROUGH THE PROCESS HOW WE FIND PROJECTS NOT BY CHANGING THE CRITERIA. >> YES. >> THANK YOU FOR THIS REPORT. WE'RE GETTING INTO A GOOD DISCUSSION HERE AND I HAD THE QUESTION I WAS GOING TO SAVE TO TEND BUT I THINK WE ARE GETTING TO SOME INTERESTING POINTS RIGHT NOW. MANY OF US HAD THE CHANCE TO SKIM AHEAD SOILY ASK MY QUESTION NOW. I THINK THIS SAN IMPRESSIVE PROGRAM AND WHAT I'M SEEING AND AS YOU DESCRIBED IT, IS AN EMPHASIS IN LOOKING AT THE PLANNING, THE DEDICATION OF OPPORTUNITIES, THE MANAGEMENT, THOSE ARE ALL REALLY IMPORTANT. BUT IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ARE AT THE TEN YEARS POINT. WOULDN'T BE WORTHWHILE INVESTMENT IN A MORE SYSTEMATIC WAY. IN OTHER WORDS RECOGNIZE THE DIFFICULTY OF THIS BUT RETURN ON IMPACT OR MAYBE THE VALUE, IMPACT DIVIDED BY COST LOOKING AT THE SCIENCE THAT WAS DONE, MEASURE THE TRADITIONAL METRICS ASSIGN ACTIVIC PRODUCTIVITY BUT ALSO THINGS LIKE PATENTS AND SO ON LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE NIH TO IMPROVE HUMAN HEALTH OR MAYBE PATIENT CARE AND SEE WHAT EXTENT THESE PROJECTS AT THE TEN YEAR MARK HAVE DONE THAT. AS A WAY OF GUIDING WHERE YOU MAKE YOUR NEXT INVESTMENT. MY QUESTION DO YOU CONTEMPLATE THAT BEING PART OF THIS PROCESS GOING FORWARD. >> AT THE INITIAL PROGRAMS HAVE APPROACHED THEIR TEN YEAR MARK OR SOME HAVE ENDED, EACH PROGRAM HAS UNDERGONE AN EVALUATION INCLUDING OUR OFFICE AN EXTERNAL, NOT JUST SELF-EVALUATION TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT WHAT HAS COME OUT OF THE PROGRAM RETURN ON INVESTMENT IS A HARD TOPIC. AS YOU KNOW WITH THOSE BROAD PROGRAM TITLES AND THE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED, A LOT OF THE ROAD MAP DESIGNED TO ADDRESS FUNDAMENTAL BASIC BIOLOGICAL PROGRAM PROBLEMS THAT UNDERCUT A LOT OF CLINICAL ISSUES. SO I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO TRY TO ASSIGN A DOLLAR VALUE OR CURE VALUE TO EARLY PROGRAMS. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE GRAPPLED WITH IS WHAT THE RIGHT TIME HORIZON IS TO ASSESS ULTIMATE IMPACT. WE THINK OF THESE PROGRAMS AS CATALYTIC TO INVESTIGATOR INITIATED PROJECTS THAT WOULD USE THEM FOR SPECIFIC DISEASES. IF YOU'RE DEVELOPING TOOLS, METHODS, DATA THAT CAN BE WIDELY USED BY THE WHOLE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY TO ADDRESS BIG PROBLEMS, THEN YOU DON'T ASSESS IMPACT AT INITIAL INVESTMENT ON TOOLS AT THE END OF THE DEVELOPMENT TIME OF THE TOOL, YOU LOOK A LITTLE BIT LATER. I THINK THAT'S A REALLY RELEVANT POINT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE. THIS PARTICULAR EVALUATION ISN'T DESIGNEDDED TO GET AT THAT. >> WE HOPED TO DO THAT. >> IT'S ONLY THE TEN YEARS OUT AND WE ADD PROGRAMS EACH YEAR SO WE DON'T HAVE OUTCOMES. EVALUATION OF ALL PROGRAMS BUT TO THE EXTENT WE CAN, IS THE PROCESS WORKING, YOU HAVE TO SEE WHAT'S DELIVERED. SO THE EXTENT WE CAN WE'LL DO THAT FOR THE WORKING GROUP, SAY HERE IS WHAT CAME OUT OF THAT, NOW COULD IT HAVE BEEN DONE BETTER. BUT I WISH WE CAN DO IT BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA YET. >> (INAUDIBLE) MAYOR CLINIC. I RECOGNIZE -- MAYO CLINIC. YOU TRIED TO DO IT IN THE TRENCHES SO I KNOW THAT. THIS IS A DISCIPLINE USED IN THE PRIVATE STORK ALL THE TIME WHEN -- SECTOR ALL THE TIME WHEN INVESTMENTS ARE MADE IN RESEARCH. WE SHOULD DO OUR BEST TO TRY TO USE THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT WHERE WE SUCCESSFUL BUT IT'S ABOUT IDENTIFYING THOSE AREAS THAT HAVE THE HIGHEST POTENTIAL FOR FURTHER INVESTMENT IN THIS AREA. AND EVEN IF YOU'RE DEVELOPING TOOLS THERE ARE ALL KINDS OF STANDARD METRICS INCLUDING PATENTS AS AN EXAMPLE FOR ASSESSING THE RETURN. I HOPE -- AND I REALLY HOPE YOU WILL INCLUDE IT IN THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD BECAUSE TEN YEARS IF YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT OR NOT TRYING TO DO THAT, TO ME THAT'S A MISTAKE. >> WE CAN DO THAT WITH A SUBSET WHICH WE'LL AGREE WHAT THAT SUBSET IS, PROBABLY LONGER STANDING PROGRAMS, WE HAVE DONE IN GREAT DETAIL WITH THE PIONEER AWARDS. YOU HAVE SEEP THAT OUTCOME COMPARES WITH RO-1s AND WITH HOWARD HUGHES AND OTHERS. >> SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE DO HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATIONN'T UTILITY OF OUR TOOLS. SO THE STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY OF MEMBRANE PROTEINS, FOR INSTANCE, WE HAVE QUITE A CATALOG OF PEOPLE WHO ARE USING THOSE TOOLS AN METHODS TO ANALYZE MEMBRANE PROTEINS EVERY DAY. WHETHER THOSE STRUCTURES BEING DETERMINED AS A RESULT OF OUR PROGRAM ARE LEADING TO BETTER DRUG DESIGN FOR DRUGS THAT HIT THOSE MEMBRANE PROTEINS, I THINK IS A LITTLE EARLY TO ASSESS THAT SORT OF THING, WE DO HAVE QUITE A LOT OF EVIDENCE ABOUT THE UTILITY OF THE TOOLS THAT WERE DEVELOPED. >> THESE PROGRAMS, SO THIS IS A MANAGEMENT ISSUE, THEY'RE HEAVILY MONITORED. THEY HAVE EXTERNAL EXPERT PANELS THAT COME AND LISTEN TO PROGRESS EVERY YEAR AND GIVE US REPORTS. SO WE DO HAVE, CAN'T TELL YOU PATENTS OUT OF EVERY PROJECT BUT WE HAVE EXTENSIVE EVALUATIONS. AND WE CAN DO -- IT'S A LOT. WE CAN DO WITH A SELECT NUMBER SO PEOPLE UNDERSTAND WHAT GOT DELIVERED, IS IT WORKING AND COULD YOU HAVE DONE THAT A BETTER WAY. TO DO IT YOU CAN'T DO IT NOW IN THIS PROCESS. >> I WANT TO BUILD ON THIS ROI ISSUE WHICH IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT. FOR EACH ROADMAP PROJECT THERE WAS A CONVERSATION OF WILL THE INITIATIVE BE COMPELLING TO STAKEHOLDERS, ESPECIALLY THE PUBLIC. AND I THINK YOU CAN MEASURE THE TRANSFORMATION OR THE TRANSLATION OF THE CURRENT PROJECTS NOW BY DOES THE PUBLIC BELIEVE AND STAKE HOLDS BELIEVE IT'S WORKING. I WONDER IF AND HOW YOU DO THAT. THAT CAN RELATE TO BUDGET OF NIH IF PUBLIC DEMANDS THIS IS GOING WELL AND MORE SHOULD BE INVESTED, THAT CAN GET CONGRESS MOVING. I THINK THAT'S A MEASURABLE QUANTITY ALONG WITH OTHER VARIABLES THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED NOW. >> OBVIOUSLY TO BE CONSIDERED IS MICROBIOME, THE MEDIA COVERAGE, CONSTANT AT THIS POINT, THAT WAS A REALLY CATALYZED BY THE COMMON FUND. IN SIX YEARS THAT WAS AN AMAZING CHANGE IN THE WAY PEOPLE COULD DO RESEARCH ON THE MICROBIOME. (OFF MIC) >> GET THE M TIMES TO SAY IT MORE. >> CHRONIC PROBLEM BUT TO COME BACK TO THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT TEN YEAR MARK AND WHERE THINGS ARE GOING, THE FACT WE'RE IN A DIFFERENT GEE LOGICAL TIME, ANTICIPATING THIS FAMINE IS NOT GOING TO EASE UP ANY TIME SOON, ONE QUESTION THAT IS BEFORE THE NIH AND THOSE WHO HAVE TO STEER THIS EPIC IS TO COME BACK TO THIS RETURN ON INVESTMENT, WHAT'S THE RETURN ON INVESTMENT COMMON FUND PROJECTS RELATIVE TO THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH. THERE IS TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE CONSERVATISM OF THE TRADITIONAL PATH, YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT WORKED OUT BUT IT HAS TO BE SUPER NOVEL, ET CETERA. THERE'S THIS GAUNTLET. AND THIS IS ONE-HALF PERCENT APPROXIMATELY OF THE NIH BUDGET OVER A TEN YEAR PERIOD. SO ASSIGN ACTIVIC QUESTION SETTING UP THE COMPARISON BETWEEN PROGRAMS FUNNED THROUGH THIS KIND OF APPROACH, AND MONEY ASSOCIATED WITH ITCI AND DEDICATED TO THAT DESIGNING THE COMPARETOR WHICH IS NOT A TRIVIAL ISSUE BUT CAN BE DONE. MOST DATA ARE UP IN NIH REPORTER, IT'S A QUESTION OF GETTING METHODOLOGISTS TO THINK THROUGH WHAT'S THE COMPARABLE TRADITIONAL INVESTMENT AND PERHAPS WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IS THIS NEEDS TO BE A MAJOR EXPANSION THAT ALLOWS GREATER RISK TAKING AND GREATER INVESTMENT IN INDIVIDUALS WITH EXTRAORDINARY PRORATHER THAN GOING THROW EXTREMELY LONG AND DISHEARTENING PROCESS MAKING MANY DECIDE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING TO PURSUE. >> >> COMMENTS GO DIRECTLY TO THE REASON THE PIONEER PROGRAM WAS STARTED. SO ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF THE COMMON FUND ARE LARGE COORDINATED EFFORTS THAT DEFINE THIS HAS TO HAPPEN AND WE'RE GOING TO ORGANIZE THE FOLKS TO GET IT DONE. BUT A THIRD IS INVESTIGATOR INITIATED AND THERE ARE EXPERIMENTS TO FUND SCIENCE AND PIONEER, IS THE PROGRAM WE HAVE THE DEEPEST QUANTITATIVE EVALUATION THAT YOU CAN FIND ON THE WEBSITE. >> SUCCESSFUL, THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH MORE SHOULD BE EXPANDED. >> WE AGREE. >> HOW DO YOU DOCUMENT THAT. THAT SHOULD BE THE MAJOR IRAREA OF EXPANSION. >> THIS IS CURRENTLY A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AMONG FRANCIS AND THE INSTITUTE DIRECTORS, WHAT'S THE PROPER RATIO OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF FUNDING. SHOULD WE BE USING MECHANISMS THAT ALLOW RISK, THE POINT YOU BROUGHT UP, ACTIVELY DISCUSSED. YOUR FEEDBACK IS QUITE WELCOME AND TIMELY. >> KENT. >> TWO THINGS. ONE IN RESPONSE. I AGREE, THE OTHER SIDE OF THE EQUATION HAS TO BE EVALUATED. IN ORDER TO EXPAND YOU NEED TO CONTRACT ELSEWHERE BECAUSE TOTAL POT IS NOT FLAT T. SECOND THING, BETSY YOU'LL GET INTO THIS, CLEARLY ROADMAP ADDRESSED ISSUE LIKE BOTTLENECK YOU MENTIONED, YOU TALK ABOUT TRANSITION ROADMAP TO COMMON FUND WHAT FURTHER BOTTLENECKS ARE IDENTIFIED AND CREATED BY THE ROADMAP. WHICH THAT ARE TRYING TO BE RESOLVED AND SOLVED BY THE COMMON FUND. BY LOOKING FORWARD DO YOU SEE ADUGGAL PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE WHERE NEXT GENERATION COMMON FUND AND EVOLUTION CAN RESOLVE. SO PERHAPS YOU'LL GET TO THIS NOW IN TERMS OF THIS TRANSITION, BECAUSE I SEE FROM THE SLIDE YOU'RE MOVING TO MORE A DISCUSSIONING ABOUT THE COMMON FUND. >> SO I HADN'T PLANNED TO TALK HOW THE COMMON FUND WILL ADDRESS ROAD MAPS GENERATED -- ROADBLOCKS GENERATED BY ROAD MAPS BUT AN ISSUE IS BIG DATA. A NUMBER OF PROGRAMS GENERATE A GOB OF DATA AND THE COMMON FUND A KEY CONTRIBUTOR TO THE BIG DATA TO KNOWLEDGE PROGRAM NOW MOVING FORWARD IN PART TO DEAL WITH DATA. THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING EVERYWHERE. NOT JUST THE ROADMAP PROGRAM. IT IS A GOOD TRANSITION POINT TO THE REST OF MY PRESENTATION, IS LARRY NOT HERE SO I CAN GO? OKAY. WE'LL FINISH THIS -- >> WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AND RECONVENE WHEN LARRY IS HERE AT 10:30. WE HAVE THE AFTERNOON FOR THIS TOPIC TOO. WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED HERE. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE PRINCIPLE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NIH H, DR. LARRY TABAK. HE HAS SOME TOPICS TO DISCUSS AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TIME FOR ANY QUESTIONS. LARRY. >> THANK YOU, JIM. GOOD MORNING TO ALL OF YOU, DR. COLLINS IS IN CALIFORNIA TODAY, SENDS HIS BEST REGARDS. IT'S MY PLEASURE TO STAND IN FOR HIM AND GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON A NUMBER OF TOPICS. SO I WOULD LIKE TO COVER THESE FOUR ITEMS FIRST WHAT'S ON EVERYBODY'S MINDS IS THE BUDGET SO WEAL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT. UPDATE EFFORTS ON BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH WORK FORCE, TOUCH UPON A NEW INITIATIVE, THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, THOUGH I AM AWARE YOU WILL HAVE A TALK, A SCIENTIFIC TALK ABOUT THIS SHORTLY AND END WITH COMMENTS ABOUT THE BIG DATA INITIATIVE. THERE'S A LOT OF FEEDBACK. ARE YOU HEARING A FEEDBACK OR IS IT JUST ME? IF IT DOESN'T BOTHER YOU -- I'LL WALK OVER HERE. THE BUDGET UPDATE, EVERYBODY NEEDS TO LOOK THROUGH A OF DOLLAR SIGNS. I APPRECIATE THAT. THE FULL LEVEL FOR 2013 AFTER SEQUESTER IS $29.1 BILLION. Y'ALL APPRECIATE THAT SPENDING OUTSIDE OF NIH CONSTITUTES ROUGHLY 84% OF OUR ENTIRE RESOURCE SET. AND I THINK YOU ARE ALSO FAMILIAR WITH THESE DATA BUT I THINK THEY BEAR REPEATING BECAUSE TOO OFTEN MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATION AN INDEED THEIR STAFFS ASK WITH ALL SINCERITY, WHY DO WE STILL NEED NIH? THERE'S ALL THIS GREAT RESEARCH GOING ON AT THE UNIVERSITIES IN OUR DISTRICT. AND THAT AT SOME LEVEL IS AMUSING BUT AT ANOTHER LEVEL IS CAUSE FOR GRAVE CONCERN. SO WE PROVIDE THESE DATA TO YOU FRANKLY TO HELP YOU INFORM MEMBERS OF YOUR DELEGATIONS WHAT THE REALITIES ARE. SO AGAIN, YOU'RE ALL PAINFULLY AWARE OF THIS, THE BLUE BARS ARE THE ABSOLUTE DOLLARS, THE YELLOW BARS ARE CONSTANT DOLLARS INDEXED TO 1998. IT'S CLEAR WE ARE EFFECTIVELY UNDOUBLED. BECAUSE THE OTHER REFLEX THING WE HEAR ON HILL IS NIH WAS DOUBLED. YOU HAVE GOT YOURS, THAT WILL GO AWAY BUT POINT OF FACT, IN TERMS OF BUYING POWER WE'VE EFFECTIVELY BEEN UNDOUBLED. THEN OF COURSE ISSUED RELATED TO SEQUESTER WHICH Y'ALL APPRECIATE WAS A MECHANISM PUT INTO PLACE THAT WAS JUDGED TO BE SO ONEROUS THAT IT WOULD NEVER, EVER BE IMPLEMENTED. HERE WE ARE. SO JUST AGAIN, TO INFORM YOU TO BEST EQUIP YOU TO HAVE THESE DISCUSSIONS WILL L KALLEY, -- LOCALLY GOING FORWARD. AND AGAIN, YOU LIVE THIS. SO I NEED NOT BELABOR IT BUT SUCCESS RATE PROJECTED IS AT AND ALL-TIME LOW. PART OF THIS REFLECTS THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS WE RECEIVE IN FAIRNESS. AND THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS HAS GROWN. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. I THINK THAT'S A TESTAMENT TO THE HEALTH AND THE BREADTH AND DEPTH OF THE BUY MEDICAL RESEARCH ENTERPRISE BUT WE ARE AT A PLACE MOST ARE UNCOMFORTABLE W. MOST FEEL IF YOU SUPPORT ROUGHLY A THIRD OF THE APPLICATIONS THAT YOU RECEIVE, THAT'S PROBABLY THE HEALTHY PLACE. WE ARE WAYst THAT. AGAIN, TO >> YOU WITH FORGETS AND THE INFORMATION. -- THE FACTS AND THE INFORMATION. THIS IS PERHAPS THE MOST CHILLING OF THE BUDGET SLIDES THAT I WILL SHARE WITH YOU. DR. COLLINS ACTUALLY NOW LEADS A GROUP CALLED HEADS OF INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH ORGANIZATIONS, THE ACRONYM IS HEROES. I'LL LET YOU DECIDE WHAT THE MEETING OF THAT IS. BUT THE RECENT MEETING THEY HELD, WHAT HE LEARNED IS THAT PEOPLE -- ALL THESE ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THE WORLD READ THE NIH PLAY BOOK AND HAVE INCREASED DRAMATICALLY R&D FUNDING 2012 TO 2013 AND ONLY CANADIANS AND WE IN THE UNITED STATES POINT TO THIS DOWNWARD EFFORT. THIS IS REAL. SO AGAIN, AS YOU -- YOU'LL HAVE CONVERSATIONS, LOCALLY. ONE OF THE PLACES PREEMINENT THIS IS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, IF WE ARE TO MAINTAINEN THE PREYES, MA'AM INNOCENCE, THIS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. THEY'RE NOT STANDING STILL. ALL THESE NEIGHS TO THEIR CREDIT. WE NEED TO CELEBRATE THEIR DRAMATIC INCREASE. IT'S A WONDERFUL THING. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT. LET'S TALK ABOUT WORK FORCE THIS IS THE STRANGEST OF TIMES. I GO AROUND THE COUNTRY AND I ASK TO SPEAK OFTEN TO TRAINEES, FELLOWS, YOUNG FACULTY. THEY HAVE THIS SORT OF TROUBLE COUNT -- THIS IS FROM THEIR MOUTHS. THE SCIENTIFIC OPPORTUNITIES HAVE NEVER BEEN GREATER. IF YOU REFLECT FOR A MOMENT BACK TO THE TIME WHEN YOU WERE ALL IN TRAINING, AND YOU COMPARE WHAT YOU CAN DO THEN TO WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW, IT'S EXTRAORDINARY, THE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE HAVE. IN ALL SCIENTIFIC FIELDS NOT JUST ONE OR TWO. ARE SO EXCEPTIONAL WE ARE POISED TO MAKE BREAK THROUGHS ON SO MANY FRONTS BE IT FUNDAMENTAL RESEARCH, TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH, ACTUAL STUFF INTO CLINICAL PRACTICE, AND YET AT THIS VERY MOMENT IN TERMS OF SCIENTIFIC OPPORTUNITY, IN TERMS OF NEED THIS IS THE TOUGHEST TIME OF ALL TO RECRUIT, ATTRACT AND RETAIN YOUNG PEOPLE TO OUR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH WORK FORCE I CAN PERSONALIZE THIS A LITTLE BIT. MY YOUNGER SON IS A POST DOC AND HE GREW UP WITH THIS WHOLE BUSINESS. AND HE SHARES WITH ME THE DEEP CONCERNS THAT HE AND HIS COHORT HAVE ABOUT THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE. AFTER HOWEVER MANY YEARS TRAINING YOU GO THROUGH, THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM. IF YOU MOVE THAT BACK IN THE METAPHORCAL PIPELINE TO PEOPLE WHO ARE CONTEMPLATING SHOULD WE ATTEND GRADUATE SCHOOL OR NOT THESE ARE BRIGHT YOUNG PEOPLE. THEY'RE SMART, THEY'RE DOING THE ALSO ULUS. -- CALCULUS. OR OTHER PROFESSIONS WHERE ANALYTICAL SKILLS ARE EQUALLY VALUED AND THE FINANCIAL REWARD AND THE STABILITY ARE GREATER. SO NO DOUBT WE NEED TO ATRACK AND RETAIN THE BEST AND BRIGHTEST. WE NEED MORE INDIVIDUALS NOT LESS. THOSE WE NEED TO EYE TRACT REFLECT BETTER OUR SOCIETY AS A WHOLE WITH REGARD TO GENDER, RACE, DIFFERENT SPECIALTY AREAS. SCIENCE HAS BECOME A TEAM SPORT, THAT'S A CHANGE WHEN I WAS COMING UP THROUGH THE RANKS WHERE RUGGEDDED INDIVIDUALISTS SURVIVE. IT'S BECOMING A TEAM SPORT. THAT ACTUALLY IS A GREAT ATTRACTION FOR MANY YOUNG PEOPLE TODAY. BUT IF WE'RE NOT CAREFUL, THE JUXTAPOSITION OF THE BUDGETARY ISSUES, CAN COMPROMISE OUR ABILITY GOING FORWARD. SO AGAIN, THE CHALLENGE -- AND Y'ALL ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH THESE, IT'S BECOMING INCREASINGLY DIFFICULT TO LAUNCH THE TRADITIONAL CAREER, THE ONE MANY OF YOU AREN'T THE TABLE HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN NAVIGATING. WE HAVE LOTS OF Ph.D.s BUT WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ESTABLISHED VISITORS REMAINING IN THE FIELD LONGER. AT LEAST OF THIS NATION. THESE LONG TRAINING PERIODS, THE -- PARTICULARLY THE INITIAL SALARY RANGE WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER PROFESSIONS, FRANKLY IS NOT VERY COMPETITIVE. THEN WE ARE PERSIST IN TRAINING PEOPLE IN OUR OWN IMAGE. THEN DRAW HANDS UP WHERE THEY DON'T COME OUT EXACTLY LIKE WE DO, TENURED PROFESSORS IN A UNIVERSITY SOMEWHERE, WHEN UNFORTUNATELY INCREASINGLY THERE'S FEW OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES. WE ARE AND HAVE BEEN MAKING EFFORTS TO DIVERSIFY THE WORK FORCE BUT I THINK THE REPORT CARD THERE IS WE HAVEN'T SUCCEEDED. WE HAVE MANY, MANY, MANY EXAMPLES OF SUCCESS BUT THEY'RE INDIVIDUAL STORIES OF SUCCESS. AND AS Y'ALL APPRECIATE THE MULE OF ANECDOTE IS NOT DATA. WHAT WE NEED IS AN INSTITUTIONAL CHANGE, WE NEED A CULTURAL CHANGE. IT'S GREAT WE HAVE INDIVIDUAL STORIES OF SUCCESS BUT THEY'RE NOT NEARLY ENOUGH. SO A SERIES OF ADVISORY GROUPS TO THE DIRECTOR OF NIH HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF THESE TASKS, ONE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH WORK FORCE RECOMMENDED THESE FOLLOWING THINGS. TRADE GRADUATE STUDENTS WITH GREATER BREATH, GET THEM READY FOR MULTIPLE CAREER OUTCOMES, THE OUTCOMES THEY INDEED EXPERIENCE. SHORTENED THE PATH WHICH OF INDEPENDENT CAREER, WE HAVE TO DO A MUCH BETTER JOB OF TRACKING OUR TRAINEES. WE SORT OF IDENTIFIED THEM AT THE BEGINNING BUT IF THEY TEMPORARILY DROP OUT OF OUR UNIQUE SYSTEM WE LOSE TRACK OF THEM. AND IT BECOMES DIFFICULT TO RE-ESTABLISH CONNECT WITH THEM AN THOUGH WE DO RECONNECT LINKING BACK TO TRAINEES BECOMES COMPLICATED. WE HAVE TO DO BETTER AT THAT. OBVIOUSLY THE NEED TO DIVERSIFY THE WORK FORCE REQUIRES URGENT ATTENTION. A SEPARATE STUDY RELATED CLINICIAN SCIENTISTS IS UNDERWAY AS INITIAL ANALYSIS FOCUSED ON INDIVIDUALS TO RECEIVE THEIR Ph.D.s IN THIS COUNTRY. ENHANCED TRAINING, THE SO CALLED BEST PROGRAM BROADENING EXPERIENCE AND SIGN ACTIVIC TRAINING, THIS IS A PROGRAM THAT SEEKS INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO COMPLIMENT TRADITIONAL RESEARCH TRAINING THAT Y'ALL ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH. INSTITUTIONS ARE ENCOURAGED TO LEVERAGE FUNDS WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS, LOCAL RESOURCES PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AS APPROPRIATE BUT IMPORTANTLY, WE ARE ENTERING AN ERR RA WHERE THERE'S INCREASED EMPHASIS ON ACCOUNTABILITY IN ORDER TO BE ACCOUNTABLE YOU HAVE TO MEASURE THINGS. ANY APPROACHES INCLUDE ANALYSIS TO DEMONSTRATE THE IMPACT, THESE ARE EXPERIMENTS AND AS IS TRUE WITH ALL GOOD EXPERIMENTS SOME WILL SUCCEED AND SOME WILL FAIL. BUT AGAIN WITH ALL GOOD EXPERIMENTS YOU WILL LEARN FROM SUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENTS AND YOU WILL ALSO LEARN FROM THE UNSUCCESSFUL EXPERIMENTS. IF AN ONLY IF YOU TAKE STEPS TO DO THE APPROPRIATE ANALYSES. THIS SHOULD BE LAUNCHED. IT WILL BE FASCINATING TO SEE WHAT APPROACHES INSTITUTIONS COME UP WITH AROUND THE COUNTRY. THE DIVERSITY OF THE WORK FORCE GREAT PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COMMON FUND AND INSTITUTES AND CENTERS AT NIH, FOUR INTERRELATEDD APPROACHES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED GOING FORWARD. THE NIH BUILD PROGRAM, BUILDING INFRASTRUCTURE LEADING TO DIVERSITY A NATIONAL RESEARCH NETWORK. NUMEROUS STEPS TO ENSURE FAIRNESS IN PEER REVIEW AND INCREASED ENGAGEMENT BY THE NIH LEADERSHIP. FINALLY AS MENTIONED EARLIER THE INITIAL ANALYSIS WAS DONE Ph.D.s, THERE IS NOW WORKING GROUP ON THIS PHYSICIAN SCIENTIFIC WORK FORCE, THE ASTERISK IS WHEN WE SAY PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS WHAT WE REALLY MEAN TO SAY IS PHYSICIAN DENTISTS AND VETERINARIANS I BROKERED THIS DEAL AS HE TOKENED DDS WITHIN OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR. WHAT IS NEEDED HERE OF COURSE IS ASSESSMENT OF THE UNIQUE ISSUES RELATED TO PHYSICIANAL,ICALLY SESSION SCIENTISTS, THERE ARE MANY INCENTIVES BUT THERE ARE ALSO BARRIERS. THIS IS QUITE IMPORTANT TO ASSURE WE ARE ABLE TO SUSTAIN OUR CLINICAL RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE, THE FINAL REPORT WILL GO TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE DIRECTOR IN JUNE OF NEXT YEAR. JUST A COUPLE OF WORDS ABOUT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. I THINK Y'ALL APPRECIATE HOW COMPELLING THE NEED IS. BRAIN DISORDERS ARE THE NUMBER ONE SOURCE OF DISABILITY OF THE COUNTRY, OVER 100 MILLION AMERICANS ARE AFFECTED. THOSE RATES ARE INCREASING DUE TO THESE VARIOUS DISEASES AND CONDITIONS. SADLY I SUSPECT TOUCH EACH AN EVERY ONE OF YOU IN THIS ROOM IN SOME WAY OR ANOTHER, PERSONALLY OR THROUGH A RELATIVE, LOVED ONE, FRIEND, COLLEAGUE. CONCOMITANTLY THOSE INCREASES ARE THE CRUSHING COSTS ACCUMULATING THE ANNUAL COSTS ARE NOW ESTIMATED AT $200 BILLION WHICH ALREADY COST OF CANCER AND HURT DISEASE TOGETHER. SO THIS IS REAL, THIS IS URGENT AND WE NEED TO DO MORE. TO ADDRESS THIS. THE INITIATIVE, THE BRAIN RESEARCH TO ADVANCING INNOVATIVE NEUROTECHNOLOGIES, THE BRAIN INITIATIVE HAS A GOAL TO ACCELERATE NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO PRODUCE REAL TIME PICTURES OF COMPLEX NEURAL CIRCUITS TO VISUALIZE INTERACTIONS AMONG THE CELLS IN REAL TIME, ULTIMATELY AT THE SPEED OF THOUGHT, THE GOAL IS TO OPEN UP A NEW RANGE OF UNDERSTANDING NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH HOW BRAIN FUNCTION LINKS TO SUCH INCREDIBLY COMPLEX THINGS AS BEHAVIOR AND LEARNING. THE PROCESS HAS BEEN LED BY A WORKING GROUP ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE DIRECTOR YOU HAVE MEMBER OF COUNSEL OF COUNCILS DR. BROWN, WHO WAS ON THIS -- IS ON THIS BRAIN WORKING GROUP. AND DR. UGURBIL WILL BE SPEAKING TO YOUR COUNCIL SHORTLY. SO YOU WILL HEAR MUCH MORE FROM AN EXPERT. ABOUT THIS. THIS WAS -- THIS IS A WORLD CLASS GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS, THEY HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY MANY EXPERTS THEY DELIVERED AN INTERIM REPORT JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO, THE FINAL REPORT WILL BE ISSUEDED IN JUNE OF 2014. ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO DIRECTOR WILL BE INTERESTING ON MANY FRONTS. STAY TUNED TO THAT ONE. YOU CAN INTERROGATE THIS WEBSITE FOR VARY VERY CLEAR AND FREQUENTLY UPDATED EVENTS RELATED TO THIS INITIATIVE. LAST NIH-WIDE INITIATIVE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO IS SO CALLED BIG DATA INITIATIVE. FOR ME IT'S NOW ALMOST SIX YEARS AGO. I SPOKE TO GROUP NOT DISSIMILAR TO YOUR OWN, CHANCELLORS, PROVOSTS AN VICE CHANCELLORS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SYSTEM. THEY HAVE ASKED ME TO COME AN UPDATE ON NIH AND A LITTLE BLUE SKY. ONE THING I OPTED BLUE SKY ABOUT WAS THE NEED FOR NIH TO GET SERIOUS ABOUT BIG DATA. THERE WERE CHUCKLES ALL AROUND THE TABLE. UNBEKNOWNST TO ME THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF THE PROVOSTS AND VICE CHANCELLORS WERE ASTRO PHYSICISTS AND P HIGH ENERGY PHYSICS PEOPLE. THEY HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH BIG DATA FOR DECADES. THEY PATTED ME ON THE HEAD AND SAID IT'S NICE YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THIS BUT YOU GUYS ARE STILL IN YOUR INFANCY AND DON'T OR WORRY, WE'LL HAVE THIS SOLVED BY THE TIME YOU GET TO NEED REALLY BIG DATA. I'M HERE TO REPORT TO YOU THE NOWTURE IS NOW. WE HAVE TRULY BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH. TRULY ENTERED THE BIG DATA AGE IF YOU NEED ANY CONFIRMATION OF THAT BOTH ONE WORD JOURNALS HAVE POSITED THIS WITH COVERS. SO IT HAS TO BE TRUE. WHAT'S DRIVING THIS? MYRIAD DATA TYPES AN EACH CONTRIBUTES TO THIS. THERE'S ALL THE OMICS DATA. LARGELY GENOMICS. IF YOU THINK GENOMICS DATA IS COMPLICATED SEE WHAT THE DOWNLOAD IS FROM A PROTEOMICS RUN AND THEN IF YOU IF ANYBODY WANTED TO, ACTUALLY ADD THE PROSTHETIC GROUPS THAT DECORATE THE PROTEINS, CARBOHYDRATES AND SO FORTH, IT BECOMES EXTRAORDINARY COMPLEXITY. AGAIN, EXPLOSION OF VARIOUS IMAGING TECHNOLOGIES, BOTH ON THE BASIC SCIENCE SIDE, AS WELL AS CLINICALLY, ADDS ENORMOUSLY TO THE DATA THAT WE ARE ACCUMULATING. THEN OF COURSE WHAT USED TO BE RELATIVELY STRAIGHT FORWARD PHENOTYPING, BLOOD PRESSURE MEASUREMENT, HEIGHT, WEIGHT, HAS BECOME INCREDIBLY MORE SOPHISTICATED. THAT ALL ADDS TO THIS. FINALLY THERE'S THIS ELECTRONICAL MEDICAL RECORD, NOW WHEN YOU VISIT YOUR PHYSICIAN, YOU SEE THE TOP OF HIS OR HER HEAD. BECAUSE THEIR NOSE IS BURIED IN ONE OF THESE OR SOME OTHER ELECTRON UK DEVICE, THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE. THAT'S GOING TO ONLY ACCELERATE. IF YOU LOOK AT EACH OF THESE DATA TYPES IN ISOLATION, THAT WOULD BE COMPLEX ENOUGH BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THE HOLY GRAIL IS. THE HOLY GRAIL IS TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ALL THESE DISPARATE DATA SETS AND INTEGRATE THEM ACROSS THOUSANDS, TENS OF THOUSANDS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF INDIVIDUALS AND MAKE SENSE OUT OF IT AND BY WAY YOU HAVE TO DO IT REAL TIME SO YOU HAVE TO FACE EXTRAORDINARY CHALLENGES. PROBLEMS TO SOLVE. WHERE IS THE DATA SO EVERYONE WHO PUBLISHES WORK AND I SUSPECT, I DON'T WANT TOO INACCURATE. I SUSPECT YOU PUBLISH ABOUT 10 TO 20% OF THE DATA YOU ACTUALLY GENERATE. ALL THE REST IS NEATLY I HOPE FILED AWAY SOMEWHERE. BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOUR DATA YOUR COLLEAGUES TO RIGHT OR LEFT SO WE NOT GETTING THE MAXIMUM VALUE OUT OF THOSE DATA. EVEN IF I KNEW ABOUT IT, IF THERE WAS A SIGN WHICH SAYS I HAVE 80% OF MY DATA ABOUT THE TOPIC, KNOWING THAT ALONE IS INSUFFICIENT I HAVE TO ACCESS THAT DATA. OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE DEALING WITH PATIENT DATA, CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUES. THEY CAN BE OVERCOME OF COURSE. WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH MICE, CONFIDENTIALITY ISSUES ARE MUCH LESS COMPLICATED. SO WE NEED POLICIES AND PRACTICES THAT WILL ENHANCE AND ENABLE DATA SHARING, ALL DIFFERENT TYPE OF SCIENCE. AND ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL, WHAT WORKS FOR PRE-CLINICAL MOUSE STUDIES ISN'T GOING TO WORK FOR A CLINICAL TRIAL. BUT THERE ARE APPROACHES TO THESE THINGS AND WE NEED TO WORK TOWARDS A COHEREIN SET OF POLICIES AN PRACTICES. THAT ENABLE DAYTIME DATA SHARING. NOW I KNOW WHERE IT IS, HOW TO GET IT, NOW I HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO DO WITH IT. SO I'M NOT EMBARRASSED TO SAY I DID MOST TRAINING WITH A SLIGHT RULE. I CAN SEE THE BUBBLES OVER SOME PEOPLE'S HEADS PARTICULAR GOING WHAT IS -- BUT SOME OF THESE PEOPLE THOUGH, I'M NOT EQUIPPED TO HANDLE THIS EXTRAORDINARY AMOUNT OF COMPLEX DATA I NEED A WAY OF MANAGING AND PROCESSING IT. THAT LEADS TO NEW METHODS TO DO THIS BECAUSE SOME HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE AND WE HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH OF CRITICAL MASS OF INDIVIDUALS WHO CAN HELP ME ANALYZE ALL THAT DATA. GOODNESS KNOWS EEL NEVER KNOW BUT I NEED TO KNOW ENOUGH TO AT LEAST ASK THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. WE'RE TACKLING THIS, WE HAVE A LEADERSHIP POSITION IN ACTIVE RECRUITMENT FOR. THE ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR DATA SCIENCE, THE ACRONYM IS AS, THAT HAS NOT ESCAPED US. WE HAVE INTERNAL GOVERNING AND OVERSIGHT BODIES TO LOOK BOTH HOW WE ARE DEALING WITH DATA EXTERNAL AS WELL AS DATA INTERNAL. WE HAVE ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF DATA WITHIN THE NIH, WHICH IS VERY ROUGH P AND CAN TELL US THINGS IF WE ONLY KNEW HOW TO BEST MINE IT. AND THERE'S A NEW TRANS-NIH INITIATIVE BIG DATA TO KNOWLEDGE, BD 2K BD 2K LAUNCHED IN FISCAL 24. IT WAS DESIGNED TO FACILITATE BROAD USE AN SHARING OF LARGE DATA SETS. DEVELOPMENT OF POLICIES RESOURCES AN STANDARDS, IT WILL SUPPORT THE DEVELOPMENT AND DISSEMINATION OF NEW ANALYTICAL METHODS AND SOFTWARE, ENHANCE THE TRAINING OF SCIENTIST COMPUTE ENGINEERS, STANDARDS OF EXCELLENCE TO ADDRESS SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OF BIOMEDICAL ANALYTICS. COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY AND MEDICAL INFORMATICS. SO WITH THAT I'M GOING TO STOP, OPEN UP FOR ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF YOUR COUNCIL MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT PETER HODES FROM BAYLOR. REALLY APPRECIATED HOW DAN DID YOU ARE WHAT'S HAPPEN -- CANDID YOU ARE WITH YOUNG PEOPLE AND SCIENCE, NOT SURPRISING, I'M SEEING FEWER MEDICAL STUDENTS THINKINGN'T GOING INTO SCIENCE. AND UNDERGRADUATES AS WELL. WE ARE NEXT TO RICE UNIVERSITY AND WE'RE SEEING FEWER THINKING ABOUT SCIENTIFIC CAREER. YOU HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GIVE A LOT OF THOUGHT WRITING ABOUT IT AND I KEEP COMING BACK TO THIS VERY INTERESTING SURVEY THAT RESEARCH AMERICA IS RECENTLY COMPLETED. THAT FINE FINDS 7 #% AMERICAN CONSIST NOT NAME A LIVING SCIENTIST. 59% CANNOT NAME AN INSTITUTION WHERE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH IS CONDUCTED. AND ONLY 9% EVER HEARD OF THE NIH. IF WE THINK CONGRESS REFLECTS U.S. PUBLIC MORE AND MORE SEEMS TO BE THE CASE, WE SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISED WONDERING HOW MUCH OF THIS IS OUR OWN FAULT THAT WE HAVE AS SCIENTISTS NOT BEEN EFFECTIVE OR INTERESTED IN EPIENGAGING THE PUBLIC SO I HAVE BEEN PUSHING MY YOUNG FACULTY TO GET OUT THERE AND SOCIAL MEDIA P AND START BEING ENGAGED, WRITING FOR THE PUBLIC, START WRITING FOR THE PUBLIC, THINKING NEW TYPES OF POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWSHIPS AN SCIENCE ADVOCACY THAT WE SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT MAYBE EMBEDDINGING, NO JOBS Ph.D. SCIENTISTS BIOMEDICAL SCIENTISTS AT UNIVERSITIES, AND RECRUITING IN HIGH SCHOOLS AND START BUILDING THINGS UP FROM THERE GIVEN THE STATE OF HIGH SCHOOL SCIENCE TEACHERS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS BUT I THINK IT LEADS TO SOMETHING ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL TO REALLY ADDRESS THIS GAP IN SCIENCE POLICY. Q. THIS HAS TO BE DONE LOCALLY, COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY. ALL POLITICS ARE LOCAL. THAT REALLY IS THE TRUISM SADLY IF YOU LOOK AT THE WAY SCIENCE IS PORTRAYED, IN LITERATURE AND MEDIA, TELEVISION SHOW, THERE'S ONLY ONE -- MAYBE TWO SHOWS ON TELEVISION NOW THAT PURPORTEDLY DEPICT SCIENTISTS AND SO WE WILL STEREO TYPE THE FUMBLING NERD WHO CAN'T FUNCTION IN THE REAL WORLD. THIS SORT OF THING. BUT WE HAVE ONLY OURSELVES AS SCIENTISTS TO BLAME. WHEN IS THE LAST TIME YOU SPOKE AT A NON-SCIENTIFIC GATHERING IN THE MIDWEST THE ROTARY CLUBS. LOCAL HOUSE OF WORSHIP. ALL THESE DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE THE PUBLIC TO EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT IT IS WE COLLECTIVELY ALL DO. IT WAS FASCINATING. PEOPLE ARE INTENSELY INTERESTED INTERESTED IN THEIR OWN HEALTH AND THE HEALTH OF THEIR LOVED ONES. BUT SADLY THEY DON'T CONNECT THAT WITH WHAT RESEARCH BRINGS TO THE TABLE. WHERE DO THE MEDICINES IN YOUR MEDICINE CABINET COME FROM? DRUGSTORE. NOT ANY DIFFERENT THAN WHERE DO THE TOMATOES COME FROM, THEY COME FROM THE SUPER MARKET. SO WE REALLY DO NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB. AND THE IRONY IS, MOST COLLEAGUE WHOSE ARE BRILLIANT AND ABLE TO ARTICULATE THE VERY MOST COMPLICATED THINGS, PUT THEM UP IN FRONT OF A LAY AUDIENCE, AND REGULARS TURN TO JELLY. SO YOU CAN LEARN HOW TO SPEAK TO A LAY AUDIENCE. THAT IS THE SORT OF THINGS I HOPE PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AROUND THE COUNTRY TAKE ON MORE AGGRESSIVELY. TO OFFER THE TRAINING AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCHERS TO ENGAGE WITH THE LAY COMMUNITY. WE ARE ONE OF THE BEST KEPT SECRETS NOT ONLY NIH BUT SCIENCE IN GENERAL. IT'S GOT TO BE DONE LOCALLY. WE CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH HERE AT NIH. CONGRESS SAYS THEY'RE TRYING TO FEATHER THEIR OWN NESTS. IT HAS TO BE DONE LOCALLY. SO THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS. I HOPE BOTH AT THE INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL AND PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES YOU WILL HAVE AT LEAST THIS DIALOGUE TO SEE WHAT MORE CAN BE DONE TO ENGAGE THE IMMUNITY AT LARGE. -- COMMUNITY AT LARGE. >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE DRIVING. BUT THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. >> SUSAN (INAUDIBLE) HEALTH SCIENCE EDUCATION REPRESENTING COPR. THE DIVERSITY OF THE WORK FORCE AND THE PRESENTATION IT SEEMED VERY WEAK IN TERMS OF SPECIFIC PLANS. AS YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE BIG DATA AND SETTING UP CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE TO ADDRESS THE BIOMEDICAL ANALYTICS, I JUST WONNERRED IF THERE WOULD BE OPPORTUNITIES TO TARGET MINORITY SERVING INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION AS AS PLACE TO DO THIS. IF WE WANT TO INCREASE DIVERSITY, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE INTENTIONAL. YOU TALKED ABOUT IT BEING SYSTEMIC, NOT JUST ONE PERSON AT A TIME. IF IT'S A NEW THING THAT'S BEING SET UP, HOW CAN WE BE INTENTIONAL ABOUT THAT AN THINK ABOUT COMBINING THESE TWO? >> SO I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT PROVIDING MORE DETAIL BUT THERE'S ENORMOUS DETAIL LIKE BOTH INITIATIVES AVAILABLE. WITH REGARD TO THE POINT YOU'RE MAKING, OF TARGETING. SO THE BUILD PROGRAM IS NEUTRAL WITH REGARD TO RACE AND ETHNICITY. WE WILL BE SOLICITING APPLICATIONS FROM THOSE INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE ABLE TO ENHANCE DIVERSITY OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH WORK FORCE. AND THEY WILL BE INSTITUTIONS BELOW A CERTAIN THRESHOLD AND NIH SUPPORT BECAUSE WE HAVE LEARNED THROUGH ANALYSIS THE MOST DIVERSE STUDENT BODIES ARE TYPICALLY SERVED BY INSTITUTIONS THAT DO NOT GARNER A GREAT DEAL OF NIH SUPPORT. THESE LEAD INSTITUTIONS WOULD BE EXPECTED TO PARTNER WITH SEVERAL TYPES OF INSTITUTIONS TO CREATE A CONSORTIUM. SO LET'S SAY THE PRINCIPLE INSTITUTION HAS EXPERTISE IN BIOLOGY BUT THEY DON'T HAVE EXPERTISE IN MATHEMATICS. OBVIOUSLY I'M MAKING THIS UP. SO THE EXPECTATION WOULD BE THEY PARTNER WITH AN INSTITUTION THAT COULD COMPLIMENT THEIR STRENGTHS SO THAT ANY STUDENTS WHO ARE ENGAGED IN THIS PROGRAM, WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WIDENED BEYOND JUST THE STRENGTH OF THE PRINCIPLE HOME INSTITUTION. IN MANY CASES THEY WILL LIKELY PARTNER WITH A RESEARCH INTENSIVE INSTITUTION. BUT AGAIN, THE DRIVER WILL BE THE PRINCIPLE INSTITUTION SO CALLED HAVE NOT NIH NOT TO HAVE. THERE WILL ALSO BE OTHER INSTITUTIONS ENGAGED WHOSE GOAL IS TO HELP PROMOTE THE ENTRY LEVEL OF INDIVIDUALS INTO THE METAPHORCAL PIPELINE. SO FOR EXAMPLE, COMMUNITY COLLEGES WHICH INCREASINGLY HAVE BECOME THE FEEDER, IF YOU WILL, OF INDIVIDUALS FROM GROUPS THAT ARE TYPICALLY UNDER-REPRESENTED IN THE SCIENCES. A GREAT DEAL OF THOUGHT HAS GONE INTO THIS. IF YOU INTERROGATE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE DIRECTORS WEBSITE THE REPORTS, PLURAL, WHICH OUTLINE THIS IN EXCRUCIATING DETAIL ARE AVAILABLE AND CERTAINLY I WOULD INVITE ANYBODY WHO IS INTERESTED TO DO THAT, AND IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS WE CAN CONNECT YOU WITH THE LEADERS OF THESE INITIATIVES, IF YOU REQUIRE OR ARE INTERESTED IN LEARNING MORE. YES, PLEASE. >> NANCY HAGUEWOOD. THANK YOU FOR THIS INTERESTING PRESENTATION, PARTICULARLY STRUCK BY THE ISSUES CONCERNING BOTH TRAINING FOR AND JOB OPPORTUNITIES FOR Ph.D.s AS WELL AS FRANKLY RESEARCH TIME FOR CLINICIAN, PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS, AND WASHINGTON EVERY TIME I FLY TO WASHINGTON I THINK ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT. I REALIZE THIS IS NIH, NOT CONGRESS. BUT I REALLY HAVE A QUESTION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN TRY TO THINK ABOUT THE EARTHQUAKE THAT JUST TOOK PLACE WITH THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT BEING ENACTED. WHAT WE ARE STARTING TO SEE TO CHANGE THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS DELIVERING HEALTHCARE AND MEDICAL EDUCATION WHICH OF COURSE HAS DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS ON JOBS. AND TIME FOR RESEARCH. IF AND HOW NIH HAS OR CAN TAKE A LEADERSHIP ROLE IN A BROADER DIALOGUE AND ABOUT THE EFFECT OF WHAT IS TO ME A SYSTEMIC CHANGE. >> THIS IS THE ECOSYSTEM WE'RE DEALING WITH. AS ALL GOOD ECOLOGISTS TELL YOU, IF YOU PERTURB ANY ASPECT POSITIVELY OURANG TUFOLI ANY PERTURBATION, YOU HAVE OTHER CHANGES YOU CAN ANTICIPATE TO THE ECOSYSTEM. THINGS ARE SO FLUID NOW, SO MUCH IN FLUX NOW. EVEN THE MOST INFORMEDDED EXPERT WOULD HAVE A DIFFICULT TIME REALLY BEING MUCH HELP IN TERMS OF PROGNOSTICATION. THE SUGGESTION, IF I UNDERSTAND TO BE -- TO SERVE AS A FORUM, FOR CONVERSATIONS OF THIS TYPE, WHERE INDIVIDUALS FROM VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS AROUND THE COUNTRY CAN SHARE AT LEAST THEIR EXPERIENCES. SURE, THERE'S VALUE THERE. I WOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED, MAYBE I INCORRECTED THIS ASSUMPTION, I WOULD HAVE ANTICIPATED PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES COGGER, APLU, AAMC, WOULD BE ENGAGED IN THAT SORT OF THING. WE SHOULD PERHAPS WORK TOWARDS ADDRESSING THAT. BUT I THINK THERE IS SO MUCH IN FLUX NOW AND Y'ALL READ THE PAPER THIS MORNING. WE LIVE THIS ON AN HOURLY BY HOURLY. BUT I DO TAKE YOUR POINT OF THE NEED FOR DIALOGUE AND IFSOR SOME REASON THE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZES ARE NOT DOING THAT, IS THAT TRUE THEY'RE JUST NOT PROVIDING THE APPROPRIATE FORUM FOR THAT? THERE'S SOME SHAKING HEADS. SO WE'VE HEARD WHAT YOU SAID. BUT YOU MAY HAVE -- PERHAPS ALREADY HAVE BUT REACH OUT TO YOUR PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AS WELL. BECAUSE THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT WE ARE ARE PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. CERTAIN THINGS WE CAN AND CANNOT TOOK PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES BECAUSE WE OPERATE IN A DIFFERENT SPACE, CERTAIN THING THEY CAN TACKLE SO PROBABLY NEED A BIT OF BOTH. >> I'M CERTAINLY NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT. IN ANYWAY WHATSOEVER. I APPRECIATE THIS IS A DIFFICULT SITUATION. JUST THAT WE MAY HAVE OUTSTANDING PROGRAMS FOR TRAINING. BUT IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT'S GOING ON. >> I DO UNDERSTAND. >> I APOLOGIZE TO YOU AROUND THE TABLE IF THIS IS TOO BIG A QUESTION TO BRING UP HERE. >> NO. IT IS A PERFECTLY REASONABLE QUESTION. I'M A LITTLE SURPRISED PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS HAVEN'T BEEN A BIT MORE PROACTIVE CREATING A SUITABLE FORUM FOR THE KINDS OF DISCUSSIONS, IF THEY ARE, FOR SOME REASON NIH ISN'T AT THE TABLE WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THAT AND TRY AND REDRESS IT. >> SWITCHING GEARS A LITTLE BIT. FIRST I WANT TO SAY, AS THE TOKEN VETERINARIAN OF THE ROOM I APPRECIATE THAT VETERINARIAN AND PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST WORKING GROUP AND DISCUSSIONS AN RECOMMENDS BECAUSE YOUR BUDGET GOES TO SUPPORT EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH, HALF IS INVOLVING ANIMALS. SO BEING ENSURING THAT YOU HAVE VETERINARIANS AT THE TABLE BUT TRAINED AS COMPETITIVE SCIENTIST, LEADING PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATORS IS VERY IMPORTANT. SO THANK YOU. THE SECOND THING, DIFFERENT TOPIC, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE ABLE TO ADDRESS IT BUT THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION INCLUDING COMMENTS ABOUT THE DIRECTOR REGARDING REPRODUCIBILITY OF DATA, REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS IN THE LITERATURE. SO WHAT'S GOING ON IN THAT AREA? >> SO IN FACT, I HAVE SPOKEN TO SEVEN COUNCILS ON THIS. BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN HELPING TO COORDINATE BUT JIMND I THROUGH PRIOR DISCUSSION DETERMINE JIM AND I WILL BE DISCUSSING WITH YOUR COUNCIL TODAY, THIS AFTERNOON. SO I WOULD ASK YOU STAY TUNE WHAT WILL BE A FASCINATING DISCUSSION. I HAVE NO DOUBT THE SAME THING WILL PLAY OUT HERE. EACH COUNCIL HAS A LIGHTLY DIFFERENCE TAKE AN THEY HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY USEFUL. SO I LOOK FORWARD TO HEARING ABOUT THE DISCUSSION THAT Y'ALL HAVE. >> WE'RE LOOK YOUR INPUT ON THESE ISSUES AS NIH IS FORMULATING HOW TO APPROACH THIS. WE HAVE PLANS GOING FORWARD BUT WE ARE LOOKING FOR INPUT FROM ALL ADVISORY COUNCILS. BARBARA, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> AS A LISTENING PERSON IN THE PHYSICIAN STUDY, OUR CLINICAL SCIENTISTS THAT HAVE THEIR OWN POPULATION THAT THEY HANDLE AND TO LEAD WITH A PHYSICIAN KIND OF REINFORCES SOME OF THE BIAS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING OVER CENTURIES. SO I WOULD LIKE TO EBB COURAGE PEOPLE TO RETHINK THIS AND ADDING OTHER PEOPLE VERSUS CLINICAL SCIENTISTS. >> >> IT WAS A VERY FURIOUS DISCUSSION THAT IS NOW DONE. I KNOW WORDS MEAN THINGS, THE CONCERN THAT PEOPLE HAVE WITH THE TERM CLINICIAN SCIENTIST, WHICH TO MANY OF US, MYSELF INCLUDED, WAY OF THINKING WOULD BE MORE INCLUSIVE IS THAT THERE ARE MANY PHYSICIANS AND DENTISTS WHO ARE BASIC SCIENTIST WHOSE HAPPEN TO HAVE CLINICAL DEGREES. THERE WAS A CONCERN YOU LEAF THAT LARGE GROUP OUT. IN TERMS OF NUMBERS MDs OVERWHELMINGLY -- SHEER NUMBER. >> WHEN YOU THINK SHEER NUMBERS ANDY VERSETY -- >> I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE GROUP WAS IN THERE WITH ME. THE GROUP IS FULLY COGNIZANT OF THE NEED TO ADDRESS THE UNIQUE ATTRIBUTES OF THE DIFFERENT PROFESSIONAL GROUPS, NOT JUST PHYSICIANS, IT'S JUST BECOMES IN THE MINDS OF SOME TOO AWKWARD TO LIST EVERYTHING AT ONCE AND THEY DID WANT TO LIST PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS. I DO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUER SAYING. I HAVE LIVED PART OF WHAT YOU ARE ALLUDING TO. PART OF WHAT IS BEING ALLUDED TO. BUT I DON'T THINK IT WILL GET IN THE WAY BECAUSE THE COMMITTEE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT WHAT WORKS FOR PHYSICIAN MAYER MAY NOT WORK FOR VETERINARIAN, MAY OR MAY NOT WORK FOR NURSE, PSYCHOLOGIST OR DENTIST, SO FORTH. SO WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS. >> THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT ALL GROUPS BUT AGAIN, IN ORDER TO DO ANALYSES, YOU NEED DATA. AND THAT'S WHERE THE NUMBERS GAME COMES IN. THEY HAVE MORE DATA FROM CERTAIN GROUPS THAN OTHERS. AND SO I'M NOT ON A COMMITTEE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS IS. BUT THEY WILL CERTAINLY TRY FOR THE RESPONSIBILITY OF CONSIDERING ALL GROUPS. NOT JUST PHYSICIANS ALONE. >> LARRY, DO YOU HAVE TIME FOR ONE MORE QUESTION FROM STEVE? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> THAT'S AFTER I DO POINT OUT THAT THE DIVISION IS THE PROUD HOME FOR SUPPORT OF DBM RESEARCHERS. >> BACK TO TWO THINGS THAT YOU HAD MENTIONED PUT THEM TOGETHER AND THEN ASK IF YOU CAN GIVE US FEEDBACK. I KNOW EVERYONE IS GREATLY APPRECIATES YOUR COMING TO TALK TO US ABOUT THIS. ONE COMMENT WAS VIEW OF CONGRESS I HEARD SEVERAL TIMES. IF THEIR VIEW THE NIH HAS GOTTEN THEIRS AND THEY'RE ON TO OTHER AREAS. THE SECOND HAD TO DO WITH THAT GRAPH THAT SHOWED THE PERCENT RISE FALL OF RESEARCH BUDGETS FOR DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. IF WE LOOK AT REAL DOLLAR PAYMENTS THE THIRD PIECE YOU SHOWED US, WE'RE STILL IN GOOD SHAPE WITH RESPECT TO AMOUNTS OF DOLLARS WE SPEND. ONE QUESTION I HAVE GOTTEN REPEATEDLY FROM FACULTY AT OUR INSTITUTION WHO LOCK TO DEAN'S OFFICE TORY PLACE MONEY AS THINGS GO DOWN AND THE BUSINESS PEOPLE WHO WANT TO KNOW WHY WE'RE PUTTING MONEY HIRE INSTEAD OF HERE, IS HOW MUCH IS ENOUGH. AND THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT YOU COULD USE MORE MONEY AT ALL TIMES TO MAKE THINGS HAPPEN. SO AT A TIME WHEN WE LIVE THROUGH THE GREAT 3% PER YEAR INCREASE OVER MOST CAREERS, THE ISSUE IS HOW DO WE RESET FOR WHAT MAY NOT BE THE SAME, AT LEAST A DECADE DEPENDING WHEN IT'S OUR TIME AGAIN AND HOW DO WE HELP WITH THE DECISIONS REGARDING WHAT OUGHT TO HAPPEN IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET BACK 30% FUNNING IN THE FUTURE. IF E EAR NOT ABLE TO FIND JOBS EVEN AS WE'RE DESPERATE FIGURE HOW TOQUET PUTTING SMART -- KEEP PUTTING TRAINED PEOPLE INTO THE BUSINESS. >> SO OBVIOUSLY NON-TRIVIAL ISSUES YOU RAISE -- >> I WAS GRATEFUL THAT -- WITH REGARD TO LATTER IN TERMS OF ABSOLUTE DOLLARS CHINA IS EXCEEDING R&D INVESTMENT IN TERMS OF ABSOLUTE DOLLARS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS PERCENTAGES. SO YOU'RE RIGHT. WE ARE STILL INVESTING HEAVILY IN R&D. NOW, THE FACT THAT CHINA IS EXCEEDING, OKAY, LET'S CELEBRATE THAT. BUT WHAT CAN WE DO FACING THE REALITY WHERE THE RESOURCE SET DOESN'T EVER EXPAND? I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION. THAT'S ON THE TABLE. AND AGAIN, IT'S AN ECOSYSTEM. IF YOU LOOK AROUND THE COUNTRY, INSTITUTIONS VARIEDED IN THEIR RESPONSE TO VARIOUS MS. PERDUE: BASES PLUS AN MINUS. -- PERTURBATIONS, PLUS AND MINUS OVER THE YEARS. AT SOME INSTITUTIONS, DURING THE DOUBLING DEANS WOULD BRAG HOW MANY CRANES THEY HAD ON THEIR CAMPUS. THERE WERE SEVEN CRANE DEAN OR FIVE CRANE DEAN SO FORTH. WE HAD THE AMAZING ONE TIME ONLY BOLUS OF RESOURCES, RECOVERY ACT. SOME INSTITUTIONS DRAMATICALLY INCREASED FACULTY NUMBER. NOT NECESSARILY PERMANENT FACULTY BUT DRAMATICALLY INCREASED INDIVIDUALS WHO NOW ARE BEGINNING TO LOOK AROUND, WHERE IS OUR SUPPORT COME FROM. SO I THINK WHAT'S NEEDED IS A SERIOUS DIALOGUE BETWEEN OUR CLIENTS, IF YOU WILL, THE CONSUMERS, AND THE FUNDING AGENCY. SO WE CAN RESET THE CONTRACT THAT WAS MADE BETWEEN NIH AND ACADEMIC HEALTH CENTERS PRINCIPALLY MANY YEARS AGO. THE NOTION, I'M NOT SAYING WE SURE SHOULDN'T, I'M BEING AGNOSTIC. BUT THE NOTION THAT NIH SHOULD BE EXPECTED TO SUPPORT A SIGNIFICANT PERCENTAGE OF FACULTY MEMBER'S SALARY, I THINK THAT AT LEAST NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED. AGAIN, NOT SAYING IT SHOULDN'T OR SHOULDN'T BUT AT LEAST NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED. POLICY MAKERS NOT NIH BECAUSE WE DONE CONTROL AND DIRECT RECOVERY RATES. POLICY MAKERS HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE ARE APPROPRIATE INCENTIVES OR INCENTIVES THAT SOMEHOW MAYBE LEADING TO UNTOWARD EFFECT. THAT'S A CONVERSATION THAT NEEDS TO BE HAD BETWEEN THOSE INDIVIDUALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT AND THE EXTRAMURAL COMMUNITY. THE EXTRAMURAL COMMUNITY HAS TO COME TO GRIPS WITH NOTION DO WE WANT TO KEEP THE QUOTE MERITOCRACY WHERE STRONGER GETS STRONGER OR DO WE NEED TO CONSIDER ENSURING A BROADER INFRASTRUCTURE IS STRENGTHENED BY BEING A BIT MORE EGALITARIAN. SOME PEOPLE WORRY THAT THE TOP 30 CAN BECOME THE ONLY 30. IF WE'RE NOT CAREFUL I SUSPECT NOBODY WANTS TO SEE THAT, EVEN PEOPLE TOP 30. SO THERE ARE JUST SO MANY ISSUES AND SUBISSUES HERE. I THINK IT REQUIRES A CANDID CONVERSATION ABOUT THESE ISSUES. AND YOU HAVE TO BE WILLING EVERYBODY, NOT JUST EXTRAMURAL COMMUNITY, NIH, OTHER PARTIES HAVE TO BE WILLING TO CONSIDER ALL ISSUES. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. THE OTHER DYNAMIC TO KNOW IS MEDICAL SCHOOLS ARE LOOKING AT HOW THEY TRAIN PEOPLE AND THAT WE MAY GO AWAY FROM TRADITIONAL WAY OF PAYING BASIC RESEARCHERS TO TEACH BECAUSE THEY SHOULD BE TRAINED IN PEDAGOGUE OF -- MED SCHOOLS ARE STAGGERING TOWARD A NEW MODEL THOUGH NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IT IS, WHERE SHOULD THESE CONVERSATIONS TAKE PLACE THAT YOU DESCRIBED IN IS THAT A ROLE FOR THE NIH AS THE STIMULUS? SHOULD IT GO TO AAMC? SHOULD INDUSTRY BE INVOLVED, BECAUSE WE TALK AND KNOW ABOUT IT. YOU ARE READY TO DISCUSS IT. BUT WE I DON'T WANT TO USE THE SILOED TERM BUT DISCUSSIONS AND KNOWLEDGE DON'T SEEM TO CROSS THE PLACES THAT OUGHT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION YOU JUST MENTIONED. >> SO AGAIN NOT DISSIMILAR TO THE CONVERSATION WE JUST HAD, EQUALLY IMPORTANT. DEPENDING UPON WHO THE CON VIE NOR IS, FLAMES THE BOUNDARIES OF THE DISCUSSION. SO IF THE PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS ARE THE CON VIE NORS AND NIH IS -- CONVENEORS AND NIH IS INVITED YOU HAVE ONE FRAMEWORK. IF NIH IS CON VIE NOR, AND WE INVITE -- CONVENER, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT FRAMEWORK. SO IT'S CONTINGENT UPON THE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH COMMUNITY TO DECIDE HOW LARGE YOU WANT THE FRAME OUT TO BE. AND GET THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO HELP WITH THAT. >> MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE IT'S THOUGHT TO BE NIH AS CONVENER, COUNCIL -- BECAUSE YOU ARE THE ONES THAT AFFECT GREATEST CHANGE WITHIN THIS NEW DIALOGUE. MEDICAL SCHOOLS WILL TAKE WHAT YOU GIVE THEM, (INAUDIBLE) BUT IF THERE'S GOING TO BE BALANCE TOUGH SET THE TONE FOR THAT. >> I WILL ACCEPT THAT. >> (INAUDIBLE) IT WILL START OR (INAUDIBLE) >> AS PART OF THAT DIALOGUE REGARDLESS OF WHO CONVENES, SCHOOLS OF MEDICINE IN PARTICULAR, THOUGH OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ARE INFLUENCED BY THIS, HAVE TO COME TO GRIPS WITH THE ONLY PERSON WE REWARD WITH TENURE, WHATEVER THAT MEANS, THE PERSON WHO IS PI ON THE GRAND. OR WE REWARD TEAM MEMBERS. THERE'S A HOST OF ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE ON THE TABLE AND AGAIN, DEPENDING WHO THE CONVENER IS, IT GETS FRAMED DIFFERENT WAYS BUT YOUR IS FOR THE NIH TO BE THE FRAMEWORK. >> AS YOU RECOMMEND, I'M GOING TO PUT BONDRIES ON THE DISCUSSION. THANK YOU, VERY MUCH. WE COULD CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION FOR A LONG TIME. BUT ABRAHAM AS PROMISED IS GOING TO INTRODUCE OUR SESSION. >> TODAY I WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT A SHORT OVERVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM WHICH IS ADMINISTERED BY THE DIVISION OF COORDINATION -- I'M SORRY, BY OFFICE OF RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM, PART OF THE DPCPSI. THIS PROGRAM, THIS PROGRAM ARE UNIQUE IN THE SENSE THAT ARE REPRESENTING THE SOLE PROGRAM THAT PROVIDE NIH RESEARCHER WITH FUNDS TO ACQUIRE STATE OF IMPLEMENTATION TOO EXPENSIVE TO BE INCLUDEDDED IN TO A GRANT OF AN INDIVIDUAL GRANT. THE PROGRAM IS CRITICAL FOR ACHIEVING THE NIH MISSION IN THE SENSE THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING ESSENTIAL INSTRUMENTATION, TO KEEP THE COMPETITIVE EDGE ALREADY FUNDED RESEARCH. THE PROBLEM IS EXECUTED THROUGH TWO -- IS EXECUTED BY TWO PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENT,ED INSTRUMENTATION GRANT WHICH THE OTHER AMOUNT OF TWO, STARTED IN 1982 AND PROVIDES FUNDING BETWEEN $100,000 TO $600,000 AND ANNOUNCED ANNUALLY OVER THE YEAR DUE TO DEMAND FOR SPECIAL INSTRUMENTATION, THE IN 2002 THE HIGH INSTRUMENTATION WAS INITIATED PROOFING FUNDS BETWEEN 770K TO $2 MILLION. THIS ANNOUNCEMENT IS COMING ONLY ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS. IN ORDER TO ACHIEF GOOD -- ACHIEVE GOOD -- IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE GOOD EFFECTIVENESS OF THESE FUNDS, COUPLE OF REQUIREMENTS ARE INTRODUCED. WHICH ARE FORMING THE BASE OF THE REVIEW, THE MERIT REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION. FIRST AN INDIVIDUAL ENVIRONMENT INTRODUCED REQUIRING GROUP OF THREE (INDISCERNIBLE) NIH SUPPORT, USUALLY AN AVERAGE GRANT TO HAVE NIH FUNDED USERS. APPLICATION SHOULD DEMONSTRATE THE NEED OF THE NEW INSTRUMENT CONDUCT INVENTORY OF SIMILAR INSTRUMENTATION AT THE INSTITUTE AND TO SHOW THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE OTHER INSTRUMENT AND HOW MUCH OVERLAP MAY HAPPEN, IT NEEDS ALSO TO DEMONSTRATE THE NEED OF THIS PARTICULAR INSTRUMENT AND COMPARING ME TO OTHER MODELS OF THE INSTRUMENT. THE APPLICATION SHOULD SHOW HOW THE REQUESTED INSTRUMENTATION ENHANCE THE NIH FUNDED RESEARCH PROJECT. IT SHOULD DEMONSTRATE APPROPRIATE (INDISCERNIBLE) REQUIRED THROUGH PROPER ACTIVATION OF THE INSTRUMENT. IT SHOULD SHOW UP TO HAVE A PLAN TO ADMINISTER THE GRANT TO HAVE A SOLID FINANCIAL PLAN AND ASSURE CRITICAL USE. FINALLY, ALL THE GRANTS SHOULD BE SUPPORTED, SHOULD BE BACKED BY AN INSTITUTIONAL COMMITMENT TO PROVIDE ACCESSORY THE NECESSARY -- NECESSARY INFRASTRUCTURE SOMETIMES FUTURE COMMITMENT INCLUDE SOME COST SHARING. AND SUPPORT FOR TECHNICAL PEOPLE. OTHER FEATURE OF THE STREW MINTAGE PROGRAM PROVIDE NOT FOR DEVELOPMENT BUT DEVELOPMENT OF STRUM AND THE FUNNING FOR THE PURCHASE OF INSTRUMENT ONLY NOT SUPPORTED SERVICE PERSONNEL, THERE IS NO LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF APPLICATION PER INSTITUTION. COST SHARING BY INSTITUTION SNOT REQUIRED. AND WHAT CHARACTERIZE THIS -- IN THE CORE FACILITY WHERE EXPERTISE IS AVAILABLE AND ALSO CHEAPER TO ACHIEVE AND REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION IS CONDUCTED BY 18 DIFFERENT STUDY SECTION IN CSR DUE TO THE DIVERSITY OF THE REQUESTED INSTRUMENTATION. WHAT ARE THE CHALLENGES OF FACING THE PROBLEM. FIRST THE WHOLE NEW SCIENCE, EMERGING NEW SCIENCE THAT REQUIRES ADVANCED INSTRUMENTATION, DR. TABAK JUST MENTIONED THE OMICS AND THE DATA. ALL THE DATA ARE PRODUCED BY THIS KIND OF INSTRUMENTATION PARTICULARLY THE (INDISCERNIBLE) THAT PROVIDE SOMETIMES MEGABYTE OVER COUPLE OF MINUTES. THE SECOND CHALLENGE FACING THIS PROGRAM IS THE SENESCENCE OF THE INSTRUMENTATION, CONTINUOUS TECHNOLOGICAL L ADVANCES IN THE FIELD OF MICROELECTRONICS IN FIELD OF SENSORS, IN THE FIELD OF OPTICS. MATERIAL AND SEMICONDUCTORS. SO OFTEN THE INSTRUMENT ACCIDENT STILL GOOD CONDITION HOWEVER THE RATE AND THROUGH PUT IS VERY LOW AN REQUIRE REPLACEMENT. THE THIRD PART IS BECAUSE OF THIS TECHNOLOGY THIS IS A NOVEL TECHNOLOGY AND THE PRICE OF THE INSTRUMENT IS GOING HIGHER AND HIGHER THAT FORCED US TO INCREASE THE UPPER LIMIT OF THE INSTRUMENTATION PROGRAM OVER THE YEAR FROM 250K TO UP TO $600,000. THE FIRST CHALLENGE FACING THE FIRST THING -- THE OPERATION OF THE INSTRUMENT IS BECOMING MORE COMPLEX AND THEREFORE ALSO IS MORE EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE. NOW SOME STATISTICS THIS SHOWS THE FUNDING APPLICATION VIS-A-VIS (INDISCERNIBLE) AND HERE WE SEE THE LAST SIX YEARS THE FUNDING HERE WE THE INFLUX OF $300 MILLION GIVEN THROUGH RECOVERY ACT CAUSED INCREASE NUMBER OF APPLICATION. YOU SEE THE NUMBER OF APPLICATION WE ARE RECEIVING IS DOWN TO THE PREVIOUS LEVEL, STILL HIGHER THAN WHAT WE HAVE AT THE 2002. THE SUCCESS RATE IN THIS PERIOD IN 2009 WAS AROUND 30%. WHICH ACTUALLY AND TODAY WE ARE IN SUCCESS RATE OF AROUND 21 OR 22%. HIGH END INSTRUMENTATION SHOWS SIMILAR SUCCESS RATE ON TOP IT LOOKS LIKE 26%, 21% IS VERY IDEAL AND EXCELLENT ONE BUT ONE HAS TO REMEMBER THAT IN IS A MODEST SUPPORT CONSIDERING THE FACT THIS IS GIVEN TO THE 26% OF THE 20% THAT (INAUDIBLE) SO WE ARE FOLLOWING HERE INVESTMENT OF NIH THE PROBLEM IS HOW TO LOOK AT THE NUMBER AND I WOULD LEAVE THAT TO YOU. HERE I'M PROVIDING THE THE BUDGET, MOST RECENT AWARD FOR THE YEAR (INAUDIBLE). FINISHED JUST NOW. SO THE BUDGET FOR THE PROGRAM THIS YEAR IS $67.2 MILLION, AND WOULD SHARE 2 TO 1 BETWEEN THE (INAUDIBLE) PROGRAM AND THE HIGH INSTRUMENTATION PROGRAM. WE WON TWO AWARDS. AND THE AVERAGE COST COME TO 400 -- 450. HIGH INSTRUMENTATION ABOUT 16 MILLION AWARD AND AVERAGE COST IS $1.4 MILLION. APPLICATIONS THIS YEAR. HERE IS IS SHOW IT IS IMPACT OF THE INSTRUMENT ON NIH INSTITUTE. I DIDN'T MENTION THAT THE -- THIS IS ALSO A KIND OF TRANS-NIH PROGRAM, MAYBE THIS IS A REASON WHY THIS PROGRAM WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR ORGANIZATION THIS HAPPENS WITH THE SOLUTION OF NCRR. WE SEE THE INSTITUTE OF -- THE INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICINE IS GETTING -- HAS THE MOST IMPACT MORE THAN 300 PROJECTS ENJOY SUPPORT OF IMPLEMENTATION, FOLLOWED BY THE AL ALREADY JOY IMMUNE DISEASE CANCER HEART LUNG AND BK SO WHAT WE HAVE FOLLOWS MORE OR LESS THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE RESEARCH GRANT OF THIS INSTITUTE. THIS PROGRAM COVERS A LARGE NUMBER OF INSTRUMENT, DIFFERENT TYPE OF INSTRUMENT. WE SEE IN THE TOP THIS PROPORTIONAL TO NUMBER OF APPROXIMATE MY CASES RECEIVED. AND WE SEE THE TOP WITH OPTICAL MICROSCOPE WHICH ARE HAVE LARGE DEMAND DUE TO VERY RECENTLY ADVANCED OPTICS AND HIGH -- DIFFERENT HIGH RESOLUTION MICROSCOPE AN CON FOCAL MICROSCOPE, FOLLOWED BY THE MASS SPECTROMETER AND FOLLOWED BY THE BIOMEDICAL IMAGE AND THE BIOMEDICAL IMAGE IS THE WHOLE VOCABULARY OF INSTRUMENTATION WHICH INCLUDES CT ASPECT AND MRI. TO FOLLOW OUR SPEAKER WILL ACTUAL HI SPEAK TO US NOW ABOUT THE IMIMPACT OF THIS KIND OF INSTRUMENTATION, HIS LINE OF RESEARCH. HOW THE INSTRUMENTATION AFFECTED IT. SO OUR NEXT SPEAKER, DR. UGURBIL , IS CURRENTLY A CHAIRED PROFESSOR AND DIRECTOR OF CENTER OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE RESEARCH UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA FROM 2003 TO 2008 HE WAS ALSO DIRECTOR OF THE MAX PLANK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL CYTOGENETICS IN GERMANY. HE WAS ELECTED TO INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE IN 2007 AND AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SIGNS IN 2005. -- SCIENTISTS IN 2005. HE WAS THE FIRST FELLOW INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE, HE'S FELLOW AND -- SOCIETY OF MAGNETIC RESIDENCE MEDICINE. HE SERVES CURRENTLY ON AN NIMH BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC ADVISER. AND MEMBER OF THE NIH INITIATIVE AND CO-PI HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT. HE ALSO AUTHOR OF OVER 400 PEER REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS. DR. UGURBIL IS CONSIDERED A WORLD READER IN THE ULTRAHIGH FIELD MAGNETIC RESONANCE METHODOLOGY FOR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING AND SPECTROSCOPY. HE HEADED ONE OF THE FIRST TWO LABS THAT REPORTED FMRI FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGES WHICH HAVE AND STILL HAVE MEASURE IMPACT ON GRAND RESEARCH. EARLY ON WHEN FMRI WAS IN ITS INFANCY IN CURRENT BIOLOGY OF 1992 THIS IS EXACTLY THE YEAR FMRI WAS FIRST RECEIVED IN HIS PAPER HE -- DR. UGURBIL ENVISIONS A FUTURE AND IMPACT OF FMRI. IN PART OF HIS RESEARCH EFFORT INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVEMENT OF STREW MINTAGE P AND IMAGE ACQUISITION METHODS THAT PUSHES THE BOUNDARIES OF NEUROIMAGING. PARTICULARLY AS RELATED TO BRAIN FUNCTION AND CONNECTIVITY. AND TODAY HE WILL SHARE WITH US SOME OF HIS OBSERVATIONS. >> FIRST, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE INTRODUCTION AND FOR THE INVITATION, IT'S A PLEASURE AND HONOR TO TALK TO YOU TODAY ABOUT THE ROLE OF INSTRUMENTATION IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH. I SHOULD SAY FROM THE OUTSET THAT I AM A MEMBER OF THE BRAIN WORKING GROUP I WASN'T TALKING ABOUT THE BRAIN WORKING GROUP PER SE, THE QUESTIONS AT THE END I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ADDRESS THEM. AND MY TASK WAS TODAY TO TALK ABOUT ADVANCES ACHIEVED THROUGH NOVEL INSTRUMENTATION AND GIVING EXAMPLES FROM MY OWN RESEARCH WHICH DEALS WITH NEUROIMAGING TO ENHANCE BRAIN ANATOMY FUNCTION AND CONNECTIVITY. SPECIFICALLY I SHOULD SAY THAT THE WORLD OF MRI AND TECHNOLOGY I USE IS MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING. IN THE WORLD OF MRI IN FACT DEVELOPMENT OF MRI AS DIAGNOSTIC TOOL THAT WE RELY ON TODAY IN EVERY DAY CLINICAL PRACTICE IS EXTREMELY GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW INSTRUMENTATION EFFECTS BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND PATIENT CARE ULTIMATELY. I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT FOCUS ON CHANGES THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE, THAT HAVE REVOLUTIONIZED OUR WAY OF LOOKING AT OR STUDYING HUMAN BRAIN FUNCTION SINCE INTRODUCTION OF FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE OR FMRI THAT ABRAHAM HAD ALLUDED TO. SO FMRI WAS INTRODUCED IN 1992. AND FIRST PAPER SHOWED UP IN 1992 AND IT WAS INTRODUCED BY TWO LABORATORIES MGH AND WERE CARRIED OUT IN OUR GROUP. SINCE THEN OF COURSE THERE HAS BEEN MANY, MANY ADVANCES AND LAST YEAR WE CELEBRATED TWO DECADES OF FMRI. BACK TO INTRODUCTION OF FMRI, WE CAN SEE THE EFFECT OF INSTRUMENTATION RIGHT THERE. WHAT PEACE NED TWO LABS CAPABLE OF DEMONSTRATING BRAIN IMAGING OR BRAIN ACTIVITY IN THE HUMAN BRAIN WERE TWO MAJOR INVESTMENTS IN INSTRUMENTATION. OUR CASE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA WE INSTALLED HUMAN CAPABLE MR INSTRUMENT, AT A TIME WHEN INSTRUMENTS OPERATE AT ONE AND A HALF TESTS. NGH THEY TESTED BUT CAPABLE OF ULTRA PASS IMAGING AT A TIME WHEN ULTRA FAST IMAGING WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT (INAUDIBLE) MACHINES. TODAY WE COMBINE HIGH MAGNETIC FIELDS, HIGHER I WILL TELL YOU LATER, WE COMBINE HIGH MAGNETIC FIELDS AND ULTRA FAST IMAGING TO OBTAIN THE BEST RESULTS WE CAN GET. SO THIS IS OUR FIRST PAPER INTRODUCING FMRI. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS THE SUBJECT IS LYING IN THE MAGNET, AND IT IS DARK, THE LIGHTINGS COME ON AND COME OFF AND WE LOOK AT IMAGES AN COLLECTING ONE IMAGE AFTER ANOTHER AS FUNCTION OF TIME AND THEN LOOK AT SIGNAL INTENSITIES IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE BRAIN, HEARSAY THE HUMAN VISUAL CORTEX, SOME AREAS ARE RESPONDING TO THE LIGHT AND THEY ARE CHANGING THE SIGNAL INTENSITIES AND OTHER AREAS OF THE BRAIN DO NOT. WE CAN TAKE A DIFFERENCE IN THESE AREA, THESE POINTS BECAUSE THEY CORRELATE WITH THE LIGHTS ON AND THEN FUNCTIONAL IMAGE SHOWN HERE. IN THE HUMAN PAIN PRIMARY VISUAL CORTEX IN RESPONSE TO LIGHT EXPOSURE. THIS IS AT THE TIME INTRODUCED DISRUPTIVE TECHNOLOGY AND WE WERE VERY MUCH AWARE OF ESSENTIALLY THE POTENTIAL OF THE TECHNOLOGY STUDYING HUMAN BRAIN. WHAT WE ULTIMATELY WANT TO DO IS LINK NEURONAL ACTIVITY WHICH FMRI PROVIDES TO BEHAVIOR AND PERCEPTION AND WE WANT TO USE THIS THING TO STUDY PATHOLOGICAL CHANGES IN BRAIN DISEASES. SO THAT BEGS THE QUESTION, HOWEVER, AT WHAT SCALE OF THE BRAIN ACTIVITY THAT WE REALLY SHOULD BE AIMING FOR. BRAIN OPERATES AT BRAIN ORGANIZATION IS VERY COMPLEX AND OPERATES MANY DIFFERENT SCALES. WE WERE VERY MUCH AWARE OF THE FACT THAT ULTIMATELY WE HAVE TO GO TO SCALABLE LARGE NETWORKS THAT SPAN MOST OF THE BRAIN AS SHOWN OVER HERE. AND THE WHOLE BRAIN TO STUDY BRAIN ACTIVITY. BUT THERE IS ANOTHER SCALE, ON THE OTHER EXTREME THAT WE ARE ALSO AWARE OF AND THEN WE HAD QUESTIONS WHETHER WHETHER WE COULD REACH IT OR NOT. SO IN THE BRAIN THERE ARE BILLIONS OF NEURONS AND SYNAPSES THAT CONNECT THEM. THIS IS A SCALE THAT WAS CLEARLY AT THAT TIME BEYOND ABILITY FOR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING TO REACH BECAUSE OF SPATIAL SENSITIVITY LIMITS AND SPATIAL RESOLUTIONS. AND THE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE BRAIN WE THOUGHT WE COULD POSSIBLY REACH AS WELL WHICH ARE CAN BE REGARDED ADS ELEMENTARY COMPUTATIONAL UNITS. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ROOK AT IMAGE DEPICTING GRAY AND WHITE MATTER THIS GRAY RIBBON HERE IS THE CORTEX AND THE WHITE METHOD IS THE WIRING THAT CONNECT IT IS THE VARIOUS PARTS OF THE GRAY MATTER AREAS. THIS CORTICAL RIBBON IS APPROXIMATELY TWO TO THREE MILLIMETERS THICK. WE KNOW THIS CORTICAL RIBBON IS COMPOSED OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF CELLS, DIVIDED INTO SIX LAYERS, THIS IS THE TOP OF THE BRAIN, THIS IS THE WHITE MATTER SO IT WOULD BE FOR EXAMPLE GOING FROM HERE TO HERE IN THIS PARTICULAR IMAGE. THERE ARE CONNECTIONS THAT ARE VERY LAYER SPECIFIC. FOR EXAMPLE IN THE VISUAL CORTEX THE INPUT FROM THE OUTPUT OF THE EYE COMING MIDDLE LAYERS AND THESE OTHER LAYERS AND THE BRAIN MADE CONNECTIONS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE BRAIN. ON TOP OF THAT, WE HAVE ORGANIZATIONS, SO CALLED CORTICAL COLUMNS SO VISUALIZED ON THE SURFACE, INTO PATTERNS LIKE THIS. THIS IS AN IMAGE FROM THE MONKEY CORTEX BY OPTICAL IMAGING. THIS IS ORIENTATION DOMAINS THAT HAVE BEEN MAPPED IN THE BRAIN OF A MONKEY. THESE ARE SEASONALLY THESE LINES DEPICT SO CALLED CORTICAL COLUMNS OR OCULAR DOMINANCE COLUMN, THIS IS A POPULATION OF NEURONS HERE RESPOND TO ONE EYE AND HERE RESPOND TO THE OTHER EYE. THE COLOR CODE IS ESSENTIALLY POPULATION OF NEURONS THAT RESPOND TO A PARTICULAR ORIENTATION. SO FOR EXAMPLE, THIS PARTICULAR ONE HERE RESPONDS ORIENTATION LIKE THIS AND THESE WOULD BE RESPONDING TO ORIENTATION LIKE THIS. THESE ARE CALLED ORIENTATION DOMAINS. AND THE SCALE IS APPROXIMATELY FOUR MILLIMETERS SO THESE OUR DISTRIBUTION OR ENSEMBLES OF CELLS WHICH ARE IN THE SUBMILLIMETER REGIME WHICH ENCODE FOR REDUCED PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT SOMEHOW AT THE END APPEARS INTEGRATED. THEY APPEAR SOMEWHAT GENERAL FROM THIS REVIEW ARTICLE, FROM ANIMAL MODEL STUDIES IN THE MONKEY COLUMN ORGANIZATIONS FOR HIGHER ORDER FUNCTIONS SUCH AS RECOGNIZING THE FACE OF ANOTHER MONKEY OR OTHER OBJECTS LIKE THAT. SO THIS WAS A SCALE WE CAN REACH WITH FUNCTIONAL HAS BEEN NETTIC RHYTHMS. WHISKER MAPS ONE TO ONE TO A COLUMN BRAIN STEM, THALAMUS AND SO MAT SENSORY CORTEX. SO EACH DOT HERE IN THE BRAIN THALAMUS BRAIN STEM CORTEX COMPOS OF SEVERAL THOUSANDS NEURONS THAT ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IN FACT LISTENING TO IF YOU LIKE OR MONITORING THE INPUT FROM EACH OF THESE (INAUDIBLE). THE QUESTION WAS I MENTION CAN WE GET TO THE SCALE IN IMAGING AND RESTRICTED TO SOMEWHAT A COURSER SCALE. AND TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH ANOTHER QUESTION, FIRST QUESTION WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IS ESSENTIALLY FUNCTIONAL ACTIVITY AT LEVEL OF CORTICAL COLUMNS AND LAYERS. LET ME EXPLAIN WHY THE TERMS CEREBRAL PHYSIOLOGY HERE. IN FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING WE DONE MONITOR ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY DIRECTLY. UNLIKE ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY YOU STICK IN AN ELECTRODE AND SEE THE ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY. HERE WE LOU ARE LOOKING INDIRECTLY. WE ARE LOOKING THROUGH THE DEOXYHEMOGLOBIN IN THE BLOOD IN OUR BLOOD VESSELS. VOXELS IN THESE VOXELS IN THE BRAIN THERE ARE MANY BLOOD VESSELS. IN THESE BLOOD VESSELS CAPILLARIES AN VAINS WE HAVE DEOXYHEMOGLOBIN. S THAT A STRONGLY MAGNETIC MOLECULE. SO WHEN IT IS PRESENT THE MAGNETIC FIELD AROUND IT IS DURINGED SO WHEN THE SUBJECT IS IN MAGNETIC FIELD THE MAGNETIC FIELD WILL BE UNIFORM HERE BUT AROUND THIS BLOOD VERSUS SYSTEM NON-UNIFORM BECAUSE OF DEOXYHEMOGLOBIN. WE CAN DETECT THIS IMAGING, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DETECTING. COUPLED TO THAT IS ANOTHER PARAMETER THAT IS IMPORTANT. INCREASED NEURONAL ACTIVITY RESULTS IN INCREASE IN REGIONAL BLOOD FLOW AND THAT INCREASE IN BLOOD FLOW RESULTS LOWER DEOXYHEMOGLOBIN CONTENT BECAUSE OXYGEN CONSUMPTION DOESN'T CHANGE AS MUCH WHEN NEURONAL ACTIVITY CHANGES. SO WITH THIS PHYSIOLOGY AND THEN SENSITIVITY DEOXYHEMOGLOBIN WE MAP BRAIN ACTIVITY. BUT THEN WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE ISSUE THEN HOW IS THIS REGULATED SPATIALLY? THE MOST IMPORTANT PARAMETER IS THIS REGION OF BLOOD FLOW, THAT'S CONTROLLED BY THE BLOOD VESSELS. LET ME ILLUSTRATE WHAT I MEAN BY WHY THAT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION. SO SAY THIS IS A CORTICAL COLUMN. THAT WE WANT TO ACTIVATE AND WE ACTIVATE BY PARADIGM. BLOOD SUPPLY IS CONTROLLED BY VASCULATURE. IF THE TAP THAT CONTROLS THE BLOOD FLOW OVER HERE, WE TURN ON THAT TAP, AND WE FLOOD THIS AREA WITH INCREASED BLOOD FLOW. WE'LL DETECT SOMETHING HERE AND NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFIC TO OVER HERE. AT THAT TIME THERE WAS A CONCEPT THAT BRAIN BORDERS THE ENTIRE GARDEN FOR THE SAKE OF THIRSTY FLOWER WHERE THE THIRSTY FLOWER IS THIS CORTICAL COLUMN OVER HERE. THIS CAME FROM LITERATURE OF OPTICAL IMAGING AS WELL AS OUR UNDERSTANDING HOW BRAIN BLOOD FLOW IS CONTROLLED. WE HAD -- WE TACKLED THIS, IN ORDER TO TACKLE THIS QUESTION WE NEEDED THE NEW INSTRUMENTATION. THIS INSTRUMENT WAS FIRST OF ITS KIND, 31 SEN METER SYSTEM FOR ANIMAL MODEL STUDIES, INSTALLED IN 1994 FUNNED BY SHARED STREW MENNATION GRANT AND FUNDS FROM KEN FOUNDATION UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA. THIS ENABLED US TO DO A UNIQUE EMPERIMENT IN ANIMAL MODEL. THIS IS IN THE CAP VISUAL CORTEX. SO I MENTIONED TO YOU THE ORIENTATION COLUMNS AND SO WE ASKED OURSELVES THE QUESTION, WELL CAN WE ACTUALLY MEASURE BLOOD FLOW AT THE LEVEL OF THOSE ORIENTATIONS COLUMNS? THIS IS A FUNCTIONAL IMAGING IF YOU LIKE BUT NOT BASED ON DEOXYHEMOGLOBIN, WE CAN MAP BLOOD FLOW DIRECTLY WITH MR SO WE SET OUT TO DO THAT IN THIS ANIMAL SYSTEM WITH ENHANCED SENSITIVITY THIS INSTRUMENT ENABLED US TO DO. SO THE ANIMAL IS LOOKING AT A -- ORIENTATION, THE GRATING IS MOVING BACK AND FORTH AND WE GET THESE MAPS, WITH OTHER IMAGING TECHNIQUES CONFIRM THESE ARE ORIENTATION DOMAINS WE CAN OBTAIN BY THIS PARTICULAR STIMULUS. WHEN WE DO THAT, -- SORRY, WRONG DIRECTION. WHEN WE DO THAT WE MEASURE WITH MR BLOOD FLOW CHANGES. IN THESE AREAS BLOOD FLOW CHANGE IS 60%, OUTSIDE BLOOD FLOW IS CHANGING BUT MAKE ORTHOGONAL STIMULATION AND THIS PLOT CHANGES AS WELL. THESE AREAS ARE 60% T THE OTHER AREAS IN RED, 20% S THE CONCLUSION OF THAT STUDY WHICH WAS PUBLISHED IN PNAS IN TUAN, THAT CEREBRAL BLOOD FLOW WE ARE INTERESTED IN REGULATED AT LEVEL OF COT CORTICAL COLUMNS. BRAIN WATERS THE ENTIRE GARDEN FOR SAKE OTHER CITY FLOWER, THIS CONCEPT WAS PROVEN WRONG -- THIRSTY FLOWER, BRAIN WATERS THE THIRSTY FLOWER WHILE SPRINKLES GENEROUSLY AROUND IT. THIS WAS MADE POSSIBLE WITH THIS INSTRUMENT AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. I MENTIONED TO YOU THAT PARTICULAR STUDY WAS BLOOD FLOW MEASUREMENT, WE CAN PERFORM IN HUMAN SUBJECTS WE WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. WE WOULD HAVE SAID OKAY GREAT. WE HAVE A METHOD OF IMAGING AT THE ELEMENTARY LEVEL IN THE HUMAN BRAIN. THAT IS NOT THAT SENSITIVE AND WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO MEASURING BLOOD FLOW THROUGH INDIRECTLY THROUGH THE DEOXYHEMOGLOBIN CHANGES. BECAUSE OF THE EARLY RESULTS WE WERE ABLE TO SEE IN FMRI. SO THIS IS THE WORK THAT I SHOWED YOU FROM OUR INTRODUCTION OF FMRI, THIS IS FROM COLLEAGUES. SO ONE AND A HALF TESLA BUT RAPID IMAGING AND FOUR TESLA. YOU CAN APPRECIATE THE DIFFERENCES IN THE SPATIAL RESOLUTION THESE IMAGES PROVIDE. HERE WE HAVE RELATIVELY HIGH SPATIAL RESOLUTION AND SPECIFITY AND THE CHANGES ARE RESTRICTED TO THIS CORTICAL REGION. THEY DONE PENETRATE TO WHITE MATTER WE DON'T EXPECT TO SEE THEM. AS YOU CAN SEE OVER HERE. BUT HERE, WE HAVE SOME COURSE RESOLUTION THAT APPEARS TO SMEAR THIS ACTIVITY OVER LARGER AREAS. WE KNEE AND EXPECTED THIS BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT WE UNDERSTOOD THE ROLE OF MAGNETIC FIELDS IN FUNCTIONAL IMAGING. THE REASON THAT MAGNETIC FIELDS ARE IMPORTANT, LET ME SUM RIDES ESSENTIALLY AS I MENTIONED WE ARE LOOKING AT DEOXYHEMOGLOBIN WHICH RESIDES IN BLOOD VESSELS. THE CORTICAL RIBBON HAS HIGH CAPILLARY DENSITY, WHITE MATTER DOESN'T HAVE HIGH CAPILLARY DENSITY, WE EXPECT THE ACTIVITY CHANGES TO TAKE PLACE OVER HERE BUT DEOXYHEMOGLOBIN NOT ONLY RESIDES IN CAPILLARIES BUT ALSO ON THE DRAINING VEINS SO WE HAD TO ACTUALLY ELIMINATE THE DETECTION OF THESE DRAINING VEINS WRITE NOT VERY DENSE, IT WOULD SMEAR OUR ACTIVITY. WE NEED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THESE BLOOD VESSELS. AND THAT FROM OUR MODELING STUDIES, WE KNEW REQUIRED EVEN HIGHER MAGNETIC FIELD WE WERE WORKING AT FOR TESLA, OUR MODELING STUDY SUGGEST WE SHOULD GO THE 7 TESLA OR HIGHER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SENSITIVITY TO THESE BLOOD VESSELS AND INCREASE ACCURACY OF OUR IMAGING TECHNIQUE. AND WE WERE ABLE TO DO THAT BEFORE I GO TO THAT LET ME MAKE HOUR THIS ONE, LATER MODELING STUDIES WHERE WE MODEL MUCH MORE ACCURATELY THAN THER DAYS AND IN FACT CONFIRM THAT. THIS PAPER WE PUBLISH WHERE THE LARGE BLOOD VESSELS WE DON'T LIKE, THEIR CONTRIBUTION DECREASES AS A FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC FIELD AND THE SMALLER BLOOD VESSELS WE WANT TO SEE, THEIR CONTRIBUTION INCREASES WITH THE MAGNETIC FIELD. THIS IS THE CONTRIBUTION THEY MAKE TO THOSE FUNCTIONAL IMAGING SIGNALS WE DECK. YOU CAN SEE THEY LEVEL AROUND TEN TESLA OR SO. BUT CERTAIN ALREADY GOING UP CONSIDERABLY, CONVENTIONAL FIELDS LIKE ONE AND A HALF TESLA OR THE FIRST MAGNETIC HIGH FIELD WE WERE WORKING AT FORTES -- AT FOUR TESLA. OTHER INSTRUMENTATION DEVELOPMENT SHARED INSTRUMENTATION GRANT ALL FROM NSF AND NIH HIGH IMPLEMENTATION GRANT, P-41 GRANT, WE WERE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER THE FIRST INSTRUMENT WHICH IS 7 TESLA 90 SEN METER BOARD CAPABLE OF HUMAN IMAGING. THIS IS MY COLLEAGUE MIKE GARBUD WHO LOOKS VERY YOUNG AT THAT TIME AND HAS CHANGED ALONG WITH THE MAGNETIC FIELD. THIS PARTICULAR STRUM THAT ALLOWED US TO RIGHT AWAY DEMONSTRATE THAT -- WHICH WE EXPECT FROM OUR MODELING STUDIES BUT EMPERIMENTALLY WE WERE ABLE TO SHOW WHEN WE GO FROM 4 TO 7 TESLA WE IN FACT GAIN QUITE A BIT IN OUR ABILITY TO IMAGE. SO THESE ARE FUNCTIONAL IMAGING, IGNORE THESE NUMBERS. THEY'RE A PARAMETER THAT DETERMINES HOW TO ACQUIRE THEM. BUT IN PRINCIPLE HERE AND HERE THIS IS THE SAME INDIVIDUAL, SAME STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE, WE DETECT MORE ACTIVITY AT 7 TESLA AND FOUR TESLA. WITH THESE WERE ABLE TO GO AND DO WHAT WAS ONLY POSSIBLE IN THE ANIMAL MODEL WITH MONKEY OPTICAL IMAGING DATA OR ORIENTATION COLUMNS, TO HUMANS. WHERE WE WERE ABLE TO SHOW THE SAME ORGANIZATION IN THE HUMAN BRAIN, DOMINANCE COLUMNS WITH THESE MAPS HERE AN ORIENTATION COLUMNS MAPPED IN THIS COLOR REPRESENTATION REPRESENTING A 360-DEGREE ORIENTATION POINTS OF SING LAYERTY SHOWN HERE. OF COURSE, THIS IS INVASIVE MEASUREMENT, YOU HAVE TO OPEN UP AND HAVE DIRECT VIEW INTO THE BRAIN. THE INVASIVE MEASUREMENT ON THE MAP WHAT IS AVAILABLE ON THE SURFACE OF THE BRAIN SMALL WINDOW BUT IN MR WE CAN MAP MORE THAN THAT. WE OBTAINED IMAGES IS THE VISUAL CORTEX AND PRIMARY VISUAL CORTEX HERE, THESE ARE OCULAR DOMINANCE COLUMNS THESE ARE ORIENTATION COLUMNS, WE CUT OUT A SECTION OF THAT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THE MONKEY DATA. YES NOW ABLE TO DO THIS KIND OF WORK NOT ONLY ON THE SURFACE AS MENTIONED ON THE MR. CORDER: TEXT BUT FUNCTION OF LAYER, I MENTIONED LAYERS ARE ALSO EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF BRAIN ACTIVITY. THIS IS A HUMAN BRAIN SLICED THE DATA HAS BEEN JUXTAPOSED THE WHITE AND GRATE MATTER AND WE CAN CONTAIN HIGH RESOLUTION DATA BOTH ACROSS THE LAYERS AND ALSO WHAT HAPPENS ON THE SURFACE AT EACH DIFFERENT LAYER. S THAT PAPER WE RECENTLY PUBLISHED IN COLLABORATION WITH OUR COLLEAGUES AT UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS SHOWING ORGANIZATION OF MOTION SELECTEDDED FEATURES IN HUMAN AREA, IT'S A SMALL AREA RIGHT OVER HERE, SENSITIVE TO MOTION AND WE CAN SEE THE MAPS ORIENTATION SELECTIVITY AS A FUNCTION OF THE DIFFERENT LAYERS ACROSS THE CORTICAL THICKNESS. GOING FROM OUTSIDE OF THE BRAIN TO INSIDE THE BRAIN. THESE FEATURES RESPOND TO SOMETHING AS SIMPLE AS THAT. YOU CAN SEE ORIENTATION, THE DOTS ARE MOVING AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE NEURONS ARE RESPONDING TO. THEY ARE HIGHLY TUNED. THEY WERE A TUNING CURVE, IN THIS CASE FOR EXAMPLE RESPONDING TO 45-DEGREE DIRECTION, 90-DEGREE DIRECTION, 135-DEGREE DIRECTION, ET CETERA. PREVIOUSLY THIS TYPE OF DATA WAS ONLY AVAILABLE FROM ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY. BY STICKING ELECTRODES AND RECORDING FROM ANIMAL BRAINS LIKE THE MONKEY. AND THESE CURVES ARE VERY MUCH LIKE ELECTRO PHYSIOLOGY DATA BUT OBTAIN NOT INNOVATIVELY IN THE HUMAN BRAIN. ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGING AND ONE WHEN WE OBTAIN THE 7 TESLA ONE THING WE DEMONSTRATED WAS TOPIC ORGANIZATION IN THE PRIMARY AUDITORY CORTEX. THAT'S AN ORGANIZATION HERE THAT IS NEARLY SYMMETRIC, IT GOES FROM HIGH TONES TO LOW TONES TO HIGH TONES AGAIN. THIS WAS KNOWN TO EXIST FROM THE ANIMAL MODEL STUDIES BUT IT WAS NEVER SHOWN IN THE HUMAN BRAIN BEFORE AND YOU COULDN'T BE SHOWN FOUR TESLA OR ONE AND A HALF TESLA BUT WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE IT AT 7 TESLA BECAUSE OF DEVELOPMENT IN INSTRUMENTATION. I SHOULD SAY THIS IS A HUMAN BRAIN AND IF YOU ARE NOT A BRAIN IMAGER, IT LOOKS RATHER FUNNY, IT'S A HUMAN BRAIN INFLATED SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE WHAT IS IN THE (INAUDIBLE) BECAUSE THE FORMS PREVENT YOU IF YOU ACTUALLY SHOW THAT IN THREE DIMENSION, THE FALLS PREVENT YOU FROM SEEING WHAT IS DEEP IN THE BRAIN AND TYPICALLY PEOPLE THEN ARTIFICIALLY INFLATE THE BRAIN SO WE CAN SEE IT AS A CONTIGUOUS SURFACE SHOWN HERE. TODAY WE DO THESE IMAGES AT VERY HIGH RESOLUTION, SO I'M LOOKING AT A VERY EXPANDED VIEW, HERE IS A TONE TOPIC MAP AGAIN IN SO CALLED GYRUS WHEN WE FLATTEN THAT WE CAN SEE WE HAVE DATA NOT ONLY ON THE SURFACE BUT AGAIN ACROSS THE LAYERS SO WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE HOW TONE TOPIC ORGANIZATION CHANGES AS A FUNCTION OF CORTICAL THICKNESS. ALL OF THAT INFORMATION YOU MAY THINK HOW DOES IT COME INTO PLAY? IT COMES INTO PLAY BECAUSE ULTIMATELY AS I MENTIONED WE ARE INTERESTED IN PERCEPTION AND BEHAVIOR AND LINKING NEURONAL ACTIVATION. SO THOSE MAPS WERE OBTAINED BY PEOPLE LISTENING TO NATURAL SOUNDS. THEY WERE NOT OBTAINED BY GIVING THEM SPECIFIC SINGLE TONES BUT NATURAL SOUNDS. AND NATURAL SOUNDS LINKING NEURONAL ACTIVITY MODEL BASED RECORDING WE HAD TO IN FACT PUT THIS INFORMATION WE EXPECT TONE TOPIC WE EXPECT BANDWIDTH AND THOSE SENSITIVITIES RESIDE IN THE ENSEMBLES OF NEURONS WHICH ARE HARD TO GET TO BEYOND IF YOU OPERATE MAGNETIC FIELDS LOWER THAN 7 TESLA. I WANT TO COME BACK AND DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF LARGER NETWORKS. THE WHOLE BRAIN STUDY. AND IN THAT -- FOR THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE I WANT TO GO BACK NOT GO BACK, TALK ABOUT THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT, THAT ABRAHAM MENTIONED. THIS IS AN NIH BLUEPRINT EFFORT TWO CONSORTIUM WERE FUNDED HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT. IN UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA IS -- (INAUDIBLE) VERY IMPORTANT PLAYER IN THIS OXFORD UNIVERSITY. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS OBTAIN A DESCRIPTION OF THE FUNCTION AND STRUCTURAL CONNECTIONS AMONG GRAMARYE LOCATIONS IN THE HUMAN BRAIN. IN A SENSE WE'RE TRYING TO MAP SIXTYRY OF THE HUMAN BRAIN BUT WE ARE DEALING WITH MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING TECHNOLOGY AND THAT MEANS WE'RE TALKING MILLIMETER RESOLUTION AND WE WOULD LIKE TO GET THAT AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE. THERE ARE TWO TECHNIQUES WE USE FOR THIS TECHNOLOGY. ONE IS FMRI OR FUNCTIONAL MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING BUT A DIFFERENCE WAY, RESTING STATE FMRI. I'LL TELL YOU WHAT THAT IS. DIFFUSION RATED FMRI TO INFER STRUCTURAL CONNECTIVITY. THE DATA ARE COMPLIMENTED BY ANATOMICAL IMMANAGING, EXPENSIVE PHENOTYPING AND ULTIMATELY GENOME TYPING. IN OUR CONSORTIUM WE AIM TO COLLECT DATA ON 1,200 INDIVIDUALS, TWINS AND THEIR NON-TWIN SIBLINGS AND THESE DATA ARE BEING COLLECTED AS WE SPEAK. THEY ARE PART OF THE BIG DATA INITIATIVE IF YOU LIKE BECAUSE IT'S A LOT OF DATA. AND THEY ARE PUBLICLY AVAILABLE AS WE SPEAK. SO LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SO-CALLED RESTING STATE NETWORKS. AND THIS IS RESTING STATE FUNCTIONAL IMAGING. ESSENTIALLY IF YOU TAKE ONE IMAGE AFTER ANOTHER, SO CALLED FMRI IMAGE IN HUMAN BRAIN AS FUNCTION OF TIME, YOU SEE FLUCTUATIONS IN THESE SIGNALING INTENSITY. THOSE FLUCTUATIONS CAN BE NOISE BUT TURNS OUT THEY ARE NOT NOISE, THEY ARE REAL BRAIN SIGNALS. FROM ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY LITERATURE, THERE ARE A LOT OF OSCILLATIONS IN THE HUMAN BRAIN THAT IS GOING ON. WE ARE ALSO DECKING THOSE OSCILLATIONS USING MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING. IT TURNS OUT THESE OSCILLATIONS ARE CORRELATED FOR DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE BRAIN. I'LL SHOW YOU THREE COLORS THREE REGIONS, THESE COLORED REGIONS WHEN THE HUMAN BRAIN IS SITTING THERE IN PRINCIPLE NOTHING IN TERMS OF DEALING WITH EXOGENOUS TASK. A SPATIAL PATTERNS CORRELATED TEMPORAL DYNAMICS THEY LOOK AT ACTIVATION MAPS IN RESPONSE TO A TASK OR STIMULATION, FLUCTUATIONS IN THE BRAIN. THESE ARE UNDERSTOOD TO COME FROM REGIONS THAT ARE WORKING TOGETHER AND FORM NETWORKS IN THE BRAIN. THE OTHER IS STRUCTURAL ACTIVITY, WE CAN USE DIFFUSION IMAGING TO MAP HOW ONE REGION OF THE BRAIN IS CONNECTED TO ANOTHER REGION OF THE BRAIN AND OBTAIN STREAMLINES THAT SHOW HOW CONNECTIVITY TRAVERSE THROUGH THE BRAIN. THIS IS BASED ON DIFFUSION IMAGING, I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT HOW THAT INFORMATION COMES ABOUT. DIFFUSION IN FLUIDS TAKES PLACE, WE KNOW THAT. FREE DIFFUSION IS ISOTROPIC SO MOLECULES IN A GLASS OF WATER WAS DIFFUSED AND MOVEED WITH EQUAL PROBABILITY IN ALL DIRECTIONS LEADING TO DIFFUSION ISOTROPIC AND REPRESENTED BY THIS SPEAR HERE. IN THE BRAIN, DIFFUSION IS NOT ISOTROPIC WE HAVE AXONS THAT FORM BUN LES AND OTHER MOLECULES WITHIN THOSE INSIDE OR OUTSIDE THE BUNDLE HAVE RESTRICTED DIFFUSION. SO THEY CAN DIFFUSION VERY EASILY IN THIS DIRECTION BUT CANNOT DIFFUSE IN THAT DIRECTION. IF WE CAN MEASURE THAT WHICH WE CAN WITH MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING WE CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE ORIENTATION OF DIFFUSION AND FROM THAT INFER DIRECTION OF AXON VESICULATED AXON OF BUNDLES. SO THOSE TWO TECHNOLOGIES ARE PART OF THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT AND OUR CHALLENGE HIGH SPATIAL RESOLUTION OVER THE WHOLE BRAIN. WE HAVE TO MAXIMIZE SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO AND WE HAVE TO MAXIMIZE SIGNAL TO NOISE -- WITHOUT SACRIFICING SIGNAL TO NOISE RATIO DATA ACQUISITION SPEED BECAUSE OF THE FACT WE ARE TRYING TO GET HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGES, HIGH RESOLUTION TAKE AS LONG TIME. AND WE DO THIS BY TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENT SO FOR EXAMPLE, IN A NORMAL IMAGING WE OBTAIN. IMAGINES ONE SLICE AS A TIME LYNN RARELY, ONE SLICE AT A TIME. SO THE TIME TO COVER THE WHOLE BRAIN IS NUMBER OF SLICES YOU WANT TO COLLECT AND TIME TO IMAGE A SINGLE SLICE. WHAT WE DO IS COLLECT MULTIPLE SLICES AT A TIME. WE ACTUALLY EXCITE AND ACQUIRE DATA FROM EIGHT SLICES BUT SOMEHOW WE HAVE TO PULL THEM APART AGAIN. WE LOOK AT THE SENSITIVITY PROFILES OF MULTIPLE DETECTORS. WE DETECTED WITH MULTIPLE DETECTORS, EACH CIRCLE REPRESENTING A DETECTOR. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE IS DETECTED WITH THE HIGH SENSITIVITY WITH THESE DETECTORS AND NOT WITH THOSE. THAT PARTICULAR SLIDE IS DETECTED WITH THESE DETECTORS AND NOT WITH THESE. THIS IS ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY CALLED PARALLEL IMAGING THAT HAS REALLY REVOLUTIONIZED FUNCTION -- MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN GENERAL AND FUNCTIONAL IMAGING IN PARTICULAR. AND IT'S ACTUALLY SO THERE'S INSTRUMENTATION AS WELL AS COMPLICATED INSTRUMENTATION WE BUILT IN HOUSE FOR OUR 7 TESLA INSTRUMENTS AND AS WELL AS TECHNOLOGY ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO THE OTHER GOAL WE WANT -- OTHER STRATEGY WE EMPLOYED, WITH RESPECT TO INSTRUMENTATION, TYPICALLY HIGH FIELD CLINICAL INSTRUMENTS OPERATE AT D TESLA SO OUR CONSORTIUM WE WANT TO USE A THREE TESLA EQUIPMENT. IT IS ACTUALLY NOT JUST REGULAR 3 TEST LARK IT IS EQUIPPED WHAT WE CALL 100 TESLA IMMEDIATE YOUR GRADIANT. THESE ARE FIELDS YOU IMPOSE TO DO THE IMAGING AND TO DO THE DIFFUSION. CONVENTIONAL INSTRUMENTS OPERATE WITH 40 TESLA PER MILLIMETER GRADIANT AND THIS ONE OPERATES WITH 100 TESLA PER METER GREAT GRADIANT. SO IT'S FUNNED BY THE CONNECTOME PROJECT IN THIS CASE AND 7 TESLA IS A PART OF OUR EFFORT AS WELL. WITH THESE PARTICULAR INSTRUMENT DEVELOPMENTS AGAIN WE HAVE ACHIEVED NEW LAND MARKS IN IMAGING THE BRAIN SO I MENTIONED TO YOU WE CAN MAP CONNECTIONS POINT TO POINT CONNECTIONS FROM ONE PART OF THE BRAIN TO ANOTHER PART OF THE BRAIN. SO THESE ARE SOME OF THOSE TRACKS MAPS AS SHOWN AS PROBABILITY TRACTOGRAPHY, SO WHAT YOU DO IS YOU HAVE THAT DATA, DIFFUSION DATA YOU GO TO THE AREA THAT HAND AREA WHICH YOU CAN IDENTIFY FROM FUNCTIONAL IMAGING, YOU PUT A SEED THERE AND FROM THE DIFFUSION DATA YOU FOLLOW THOSE SEEDS INTO DIFFERENT TRACKS. IN THE HUMAN BRAIN THERE ARE FOUR TRACKS THAT GO FROM THAT AREA, DISSECT THE SLIDE IN DIFFERENT REGIONS. WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE WITH ADVANCED INSTRUMENTATION IN HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT. AND THAT RESOLUTION WE CAN MAP THESE TRACKS VERY, VERY ACCURATELY. AT 1.5-MILLIMETER RESOLUTION TRACKS ARE NOT WELL DEFINED AND WE'RE GETTING FALSE POSITIVE AND 2-MILLIMETER RESOLUTION THE TRACKS ARE VERY POORLY DEFINED AND WE HAVE A LOT OF ERRONEOUS FALSE POSITIVES. MOST PEOPLE, ACTUALLY ALL OPERATE AT 2-MILLIMETER OR WORSE RESOLUTION. THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT BECAUSE OF TRUE MENNATION DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE THIS TRACTOGRAPHY VERSUS THIS KIND OF TRACTOGRAPHY. AND THOSE ARE STRUCTURAL CONNECTIONS. AND YOU CAN ALSO MAP THEM ON SURFACE, FOR EXAMPLE YOU CAN PUT A SEED OVER HERE AND YOU CAN SAY THIS AREA OF THE BRAIN, WHERE IS IT CONNECTED WITH THOSE POINT TO POINT CONNECTIONS WITH AXONAL FIBERS. FOR EXAMPLE HERE, THERE'S A LOT OF CONNECTS IN THE NEAR VICINITY IN THE FRONTAL LOBE AND CONNECTIONS IN THE TEMPORAL AND PARIETAL LOBE OF THE BRAIN. THESE ARE ANATOMICAL CONNECTIONS AND WE CAN COMPARE WITH THE FUNCTIONAL CONNECTION WE OBTAIN FROM THE FMRI DATA AND WE CAN SEE THEY ARE ACTUALLY EXTREMELY CLOSE IN THEIR REPRESENTATION, THERE ARE OTHER AREAS HERE AND THOSE DIFFERENCES IN FACT ARE EXPECTED AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT INFORMATION. WITH THAT INSTRUMENTATION WE WERE ALL ABLE TO DO ALSO FOR THE FIRST TIME LOOK AT THE DYNAMICS OF THOSE NETWORKS. AS SHOWN OVER HERE. THIS IS A SPEEDED UP VERSION WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS SOME OF THOSE AREAS THAT APPEAR IN ONE COLOR, THOSE ARE THE FOUR RELATED AREAS THAT ARE SPONTANEOUSLY OSCILLATING IN YOUR BRAIN AND CHANGE PATTERNS WITH TIME AND YOU ARE ABLE TO DO THIS IN THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT FOR THE FIRST TIME BECAUSE OF INSTRUMENTATION GAINS. NOW I TALKED ABOUT FUNCTIONAL IMAGING. WE HAVE CONSEQUENCES OF THE INSTRUMENTATION REALLY GOES BEYOND THAT. FOR EXAMPLE, IN ANATOMICAL IMAGING TODAY WE CAN MAP MYELIN CONTAINING REGIONS OF THE BRAIN ACCURATELY AT SUBMILLIMETER RESOLUTION, THIS IS AT 7 TESLA USING PART OF THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT. WE CAN OBTAIN EXQUISITE ANATOMICAL IMAGES, I DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THAT VERY MUCH BUT THIS KIND OF RESOLUTION YOU SIMPLY GET -- CANNOT GET FROM THE CLINICAL IMAGES AND THIS STUDY IS FROM OUR LAB ACTUALLY WAS CONDUCTED BECAUSE OF OUR NEUROLOGIST TOM HENRY COULDN'T MAKE -- HE SAID HE WAS NOT REALLY SURE ABOUT THE DIAGNOSIS AT 3 TESLA, HE WANTED TO DO IMAGING AT 7 TESLA AND WE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE WITH EXQUISITE IMAGES OF THE HIPPOCAMPUS SECTION TO SUBSECTIONS OF THE HIPPOCAMPUS. ANATOMICAL IMAGING AND ANGIOGRAPHY, THE BIG WINNER AT HIGH MAGNETIC FIELDS AND RESOLVE CONTRAST AGENT WE CAN VISUALIZE BLOOD VESSELS VERY ACCURATELY. WHICH HAS OF COURSE IMMEDIATE CLINICAL APPLICATION AS WELL. THERE ARE MANY OTHER APPLICATIONS. SAME KIND OF TECHNOLOGY WITH FUNCTIONAL IMMANNING ALLOWS BRAIN FUNCTION ALLOW US FOR THE FIRST TIME IMAGE IN VIVO IN A MOUSE MODEL THE ALZHEIMER'S PLAQUE. THIS IS IN VIVO DATA, THIS IS EXVIVO DEATH DATA AND THIS IS HISTOLOGY DATA. OF COURSE WITH ADDITIONAL INSTRUMENTS IMPLEMENTATION WE EXPECT TO DO THIS IN THE HUMAN BRAIN AS WELL. I WANT TO FINALLY MAKE A FEW MORE POINTS, THOUGH I TALKED BRAIN, THESE DEVELOPMENTS IN INSTRUMENTATION DOESN'T JUST AFFECT THE BRAIN. SO WE CAN DO HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGENING THE HUMAN TORSO WITH HIGHER SENSITIVITY WITH HIGHER FIELDS LIKE 7 TESLA. IT INVOLVE A LOT OF TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT A LOT OF PATENTS BY THE WAY. AS WELL AS FORCE GRANTS AS I WILL SHOW YOU. NOW WE CAN EXTEND GAINS ASHOED YOU FOR BRAIN FUNCTION INTO THE HUMAN TORSO AS WELL. WE CAN DO HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGING OF CARTILAGE WHICH IS A THIN STRUCTURE THAT REQUIRES HIGH SENSITIVITY. THESE ARE FOUR SLICES FROM THE HUMAN IMAGE AT 4 TESLA AND THE INTEREST IS IN THIS WHITE STRUCTURE RIGHT HERE, TO BE IMAGE AT HIGH RESOLUTION. WE CAN UPDATE JUST LIKE IN THE BRAIN ANGIOGRAPHY WITHOUT CONTRAST AGENT, THIS IS KIDNEY AND KIDNEY TRANSPLANT PHYSICIANS ARE EXTREMELY INTERESTED IN THIS DATA BECAUSE OF THE FACT THEY DON'T WANT TO GIVE CONTRAST TO TRANSPLANTATIONS BECAUSE OF TOXICITY OF CONTRAST AGENT. WE CAN DO NOT ONLY ANGIOGRAPHY BUT LIKE I SHOWED YOU IN THE CORTEX MAPPING THOSE ORIENTATION COLUMNS WE CAN DO PROFUSION IMAGING, KIDNEY, OR ORGANS AS WELL AND PROFUSION ULTIMATELY COMBINE WITH ANGIOGRAPHY IS REALLY A PARAMETER TO ALLOW YOU THE ASSESS PHYSIOLOGY OF THE ORGAN. FINALLY THIS IS A TOTALLY SEPARATE TOPIC THAT IMAGING I JUST WANT TO MENTION A LITTLE BIT WITHOUT GOING TO GREAT DETAIL, WHEN YOU IMAGE YOU USE WATER IN THE HUMAN BODY, HERE WE ARE DETECTING MOLECULES FROM THE BRAIN WE KILL THE WATER SOMEHOW, WITH PHYSICAL TECHNIQUES. THIS IS A GLUCOSE -- BRAIN GLUCOSE DETECTED IN THE BRAIN. WE ARE CLAMPING THE GLUCOSE IN THE BLOOD FROM 4.6-MILLIMETER PLASMA GLUCOSE TO 21 MILLIMOLAR. 4.6 TO 21 MILLIMOLAR AND THE BRAIN GLUCOSE INCREASES, WE CAN DETECT IT AND FROM THIS, WE CAN ACTUALLY STUDY THE GLUCOSE TRANSPORTER IN THE BRAIN AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK WITH STUDYING CONSEQUENCES OF DIABETES ON BRAIN GLUCOSE TRANSPORT. SO ALL THOSE THINGS ESSENTIALLY RELY ON THIS VERY ADVANCED INSTRUMENTATION SO INCESSANT ADVANCES TO IMPLEMENTATION TIDE TO DISCOVERIES IMPROVEMENTS IN METHODS OF IMAGE ACQUISITION AND RECONSTRUCTION. NOW WE ARE GOING FURTHER. WE EXPECT TO TAKE DELIVERY OF A TEN AND A HALF TESLA SYSTEM FUNNED BY ARRA FUNDING MANY HIGH INSTRUMENTATION GRANT, THIS IS A VERY EXCITING INSTRUMENT WE ARE WAITING DELIVERY ATTEND OF NOVEMBER. IT'S VERY LARGE -- SORRY, VERY LARGE INSTRUMENT, THIS SHOWS THE MAIN MAGNETIC FIELD COIL STANDING RIGHT NEXT TO THE DESIGNER OF THIS MAGNET. IT REQUIRE AS NEW FACTORY FLOOR TO PUT IT TOGETHER, HEAVY BEAM TO INSERT ASSEMBLE THIS MAGNET. OF COURSE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPS OLD MAGNETS DO NOT DIE, THEY BECOME STATUTES. THIS IS THE FOUR TESLA SYSTEM WE DID FUNCTIONAL IMAGING AND NOW IT'S ACTUALLY IN OUR -- IT'S A STATUTE IN OUR BUILDING. I WANT TO FINALLY OF COURSE ACKNOWLEDGE TEAM EFFORTS, ENGINEER, FISTY CYSTS, NEUROSCIENTISTS AN PHYSICIAN COLLEAGUES, ET CETERA, WHO WORK US THIS IS OUR GROUP SENT FOR MAGNETIC RESONANCE RESEARCH AND MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE DONE THIS WORK HAVE LESS CMR THEY RUN THEIR OWN CENTERS IN OTHER PLACES AND CURRENTLY THIS IS -- THESE GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY ACTIVE IN THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT DESIGNING PULSE SEQUENCES, DIFFUSION IMAGING AND DEVELOPING A LOT OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE PROCESS AS WELL. FINALLY ALSO AS I MENTIONED THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT IS A COLLABORATION, THIS IS COLLEAGUES FROM OXFORD, WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR DATA ANALYSIS FOR DIFFUSION IMAGING, RESTING STATE FMR AND FROM WASU AND MY CO-PI DAVID VAN ESSON WHO IS COORDINATING A LOT OF THE ACTIVITY FOR THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT. AND SHARED INSTRUMENTATION GRANTS. HIGH END INSTRUMENTATION GRANTS, A LOT OF THEM, P-41 GRANTS, EVERY FIVE YEARS WHEN IT IS RENEWED THERE'S INSTRUMENTATION FUND IN THERE THERE WE USE TO DEVELOP THE INSTRUMENTATION AND THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT. WE THANK ALL THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT MADE THE SIGNS THAT I SHOWED YOU POSSIBLE. BUT MAYBE I WILL END WITH ONE IMPORTANT COMMENT WITH RESPECT TO THIS. IT'S NOT JUST THAT THESE INSTRUMENTATION GRANTS MADE IT POSSIBLE BUT ACTUALLY ENABLED US TO LEVERAGE OTHER FUNDS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE KEG FOUNDATION. SO TOGETHER WITH THESE GRANTS WHICH ARE REALLY HAVE PLAYED A CRITICAL ROLE, TOGETHER WITH LEVERAGED FUNDS FROM THE PRIVATE FOUNDATION AND UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA, WE SHALL ABLE TO DEVELOP THESE INSTRUMENTATIONS AS WELL AS ACHIEVE THE KIND OF SCIENCE I JUST BRIEFLY OUTLINED FOR YOU. SO I WILL STOP HERE AND THOUGH THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION. [APPLAUSE] >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE QUESTIONS? >> KAMIL, THANK YOU FOR THE TERRIFIC PRESENTATION. JUST A LITTLE GLIMPSE INTO WHAT ALL THE THINGS YOU'RE DOING. PEP AT THAT TIME VERY END MOST PEOPLE -- MOST OF YOUR PRESENTATION THEY WOULD IMAGINE THAT YOU BOUGHT THIS BIG EXPENSIVE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAN PRESSED THE RIGHT BUTTONS AND YOU ENDED UP DOING VERY INTERESTING NEUROSCIENCE AND PUSH THE FIELD FORWARD. THAT GRABS PEOPLE BUT IT'S ONLY AT THE END THAT YOU HINTED AT THE OTHER -- THE BIG PART OF WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO WHICH IS MULTI-DISCIPLINARY TEAM SCIENCE INVOLVING PHYSICISTS, MATHEMATICS, ENGINEERS, PEOPLE LIKE THAT. CAN YOU SAY MORE ABOUT THAT? ALSO CAN YOU SAY MORE ABOUT THE FACT THAT I HAPPEN TO KNOW THIS MANY THINGS YOU DEVELOP ON HIGH FIELD ESOTERIC IMAGERS ARE BEING USED IN CLINICAL PRACTICE ON CONVENTIONAL INSTRUMENTS. I'M THINKING OF SWIFT AND ADVANCED RF COILS. CAN YOU SAY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT BOTH THINGS? >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT COMMENT AND QUESTION. IT IS INDEED I DON'T KNOW IF THIS MICROPHONE STILL IS ON BUT IT IS INDEED TRUE, I THINK EARLIER -- EARLIER I THINK ONE OF THE EARLIER PRESENTATIONS ALLUDED TO IN FACT THE FACT THAT TODAY SCIENCE IS ACTUALLY A SEEM SPORT. AND INDEED -- TEAM SUPPORT. IN-- TEAM SPORT. INDEED SCIENCE AS YOU HAVE SEEN FROM MY PRESENTATIONS, THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT OR ARE ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN CMRR IS A TEAM SPORT. WE NEED MANY DIFFERENT KINDS OF EXPERTISE, THEY ARE HARD TO FIND IN SINGLE INDIVIDUAL. SO YES WE HAVE A TEAM OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, SIGNAL PROCESSORS, MATHEMATICSES AND PHYSICISTS MYSELF AND WE'RE ALL INTERESTED IN BIOMEDICAL APPLICATION AND WHAT REALLY EXCITES US COME UP WITH NEW TECHNOLOGIES, NOSTRUMS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE ON BIOMEDICAL PROBLEMS AN IN THIS CASE THROUGH IMAGING. IN THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT THAT IS CARRIEDED FURTHER. WE COLLABORATE WITH OXFORD THAT SPECIALIZES IN DATA ANALYSIS. AND WE COLLABORATE WITHASU THAT HAS EXPERTISE IN THE FORMAL (INAUDIBLE) WHO IS VERY, VERY ONE OF THE PIONEERS OF CIRCUITRY IN THE HUMAN BRAIN AS WELL AS OTHERS IN WASU WHO ARE VERY MUCH INTERESTED IN DATA ANALYSIS. SO THAT TEAM EFFORT REALLY HAS BEEN EXTREMELY CRITICAL TO ALL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT YOUR OTHER POINT I DID TALK INSTRUMENTATION WHERE THE INSTRUMENT WE BOUGHT WERE NOT PUSH BUTTON INSTRUMENTS. WE ACTUALLY HAD TO -- THAT WAS THE VERY FIRST 9.4 TESLA SYSTEM. WE HAD TO PUT THE REST TOGETHER. IT WAS THE FIRST 7 TESLA SYSTEM. AND WE HAD TO PUT THE REST OF IT TOGETHER. SYSTEM ASSEMBLY COMING FROM US. WE WERE ABLE TO DO IT BECAUSE OF THE MULTI-DISCIPLINARY NATURE OF OUR GROUP. I CALLED LABOR MR, BECAUSE WE BUY A MAGNET, WE CANNOT BUILD A MAGNET. WE PARTNERED WITH A COMPANY THAT BECAME NOW BIG COMPANY BY SEVERAL DIFFERENT AMERICAN COMPANIES AND WE PARTNERED WITH (INAUDIBLE) FROM ENGLAND TO DEVELOP A 7 TESLA. (INAUDIBLE) USHERED IN NEW TECHNOLOGY, NEW INSTRUMENTS WE DEMONSTRATED UTILITY OF THOSE IN TERMS OF INFORMATION CONTENT YOU CAN GET AND TODAY 7 TESLA INSTRUMENTS YOU CAN BUY FROM GENERAL ELECTRIC AND FROM SEMENS AND THEY ARE INCREASING IN NUMBER RAPIDLY EXCEPT FOR SOME MINOR TECHNICAL PROBLEMS ABOUT HELIUM AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THEY ARE -- WE ARE MANUFACTURERRERS TALKING ABOUT CLINICAL 7 TESLA POSSIBLY AN MOST POSHLY WHAT YOU DO AT 7 -- POSSIBLY WHAT YOU DO AT 7 TESLA ALSO GOES DOWN TO CLINICAL INSTRUMENTS SO FOR EXAMPLE WE DEVELOP TECHNOLOGIES OF PARALLEL TRANSMIT AND RECEIPT, THESE ARE BECOMING STANDARD 3 TESLA OR THEY ARE ABOUT TO BECOME STANDARD. MANY THINGS WE DO AT THIS CUTTING EDGE TRICKLES DOWN TO CLINICAL INSTRUMENTS AS WELL. ONE MORE POINT I WANT TO MAKE, WE OF COURSE IN OUR CENTER COMBINE THIS INSTRUMENTATION DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, ALSO WITH SERVICE, IF YOU LIKE. SO WE DO HAVE SHARED INSTRUMENTATION GRANTS WITH WHICH WITH WHICH WE BOUGHT CLINICAL INSTRUMENTS LIKE 3 TESLA. THOSE INSTRUMENTS THEN WE USE FOR COLLEAGUES WHO WANT TO DO RESEARCH, CLINICAL RESEARCH, OR BASIC SCIENCE RESEARCH BIOMEDICAL WE'RE USING BIOMEDICAL IMAGING. IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS CAN BE ANSWERED USING A 3 TESLA CLINICAL SYSTEM WHICH IS A PUSH BUTTON INSTRUMENT WHICH WE DON'T TOUCH TOO MUCH. BUT WE GIVE EXPERTISE AND TECHNOLOGY IN TERMS OF PULSE SEQUENCES SO WE HAVE THE SEQUENCES AN PEOPLE COME TO USE THEM. AND TECHNOLOGY TRICKLES DOWN FROM THE HIGH END INSTRUMENTS WITHIN A LAB TO LOW END INSTRUMENTS AS WELL. SORRY FOR THE LONG ANSWER BUT IT WAS A LONG QUESTION. YES. >> (INDISCERNIBLE) NYU. I WANTED TO RESONATE WHAT YOU HAVE SAID BECAUSE BEYOND PROVIDING INSIGHTS AND NEW TECHNOLOGIES FOR CLINICAL USE THESE DATA ARE ALSO BEING PROVIDED AND THE APPROACHES, THE PULSE SEQUENCES, ET CETERA, HAVE BEEN DISSEMINATED TO INVESTIGATORS SO IT'S BECOMING AVAILABLE FOR MULTIPLE SETTINGS INCLUDING IN OUR SITE WE BENEFITED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PULSE SEQUENCES. WE'RE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THOSE INTO TO STUDIES THAT ARE ONGOING. SO THIS NOTION OF PROVIDING METHODS AND TECHNOLOGIES BROADLY IS TAKING ROOT AND ALSO YOU'RE PROVIDING RICH DATA THAT WILL REMAIN UNIQUE BECAUSE OF ALL THE HIGH END INSTRUMENTATION THAT PROVIDES IT BUT MAKING THOSE AVAILABLE SO THAT'S A PLANLY OF MULTI-DISCIPLINARY SCIENTISTS WHO CAN ACCESS THEM AND BEGIN TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO FURTHER EXTRACT KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER LEVEL OF COMPLEXITY. >> EXACTLY. SO IN THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT, WE ARE TARGETING 1,200 DATA SETS FROM TWINS AND NON-TWIN SIBLINGS, 1,200 FROM 3 TESLA. WE ARE ALREADY MAKING THESE DATA SETS AVAILABLE. WE MADE APPROXIMATELY 300 AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW. SO WE ARE ALREADY GETTING SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY. WE ARE -- AND BECAUSE WE INVEST A LOT IN INSTRUMENTATION AS WELL AS TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, I HAVE TO SAY THESE ARE SOME OF THE BEST DATA, THEY ARE THE BEST DATA THAT ARE OUT THERE ON HUMAN IMAGING RIGHT NOW. I HEAR THIS FROM EVERYBODY. PEOPLE ARE ABLE TO DO TC CORRECTION CONNECTIONS THEY COULD NOT MAP BEFORE TO SEE ACTIVITY THEY COULD NOT SEE BEFORE. AND WE ARE MAKING THE TECHNOLOGY AS YOU MENTIONED, THE PULSE SEQUENCES THAT ENABLE THIS THE TYPE OF IMAGING FREELY AVAILABLE. YOU CAN DOWNLOAD FROM OUR WEBSITE AND WE ARE SUPPORTING OVER 9 -- I'M SORRY, 95 RIGHT NOW THROUGHOUT THE WORLD. I WON'T BE SURPRISED IF NYU IS ONE OF THEM. WE'RE HELPING -- WE WORK TON SIEMENS PLATFORM, HELPING GE DEVELOP SEQUENCES FOR GE USERS FOR PHILLIPS USERS AS WELL. SO THERE'S A HUGE IMPACT AND THIS DATA I MENTIONED IS FREELY DOWNLOADABLE, YOU RUN INTO VERY QUICKLY LIMITS OF THAT AT THE PRESENT TIME BUT YOU CAN SEND A LITTLE POST CARD AND WE CAN SHIP A BIG BOX OF DATA. WE DO THAT AS WELL. I THINK YOU HAVE HEARD TODAY BIG DATA TEAM EFFORT AND WHAT WE ARE DOING WITH THE HUMAN CONNECTOME PROJECT AND NEUROIMAGING IN GENERAL IS IN FACT EMBODIMENT OF THE WORK YOU HEARD EARLIER TODAY. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, IT WILL BE FASCINATING TO SEE WHAT THE NEXT 20 YEARS BRINGS. SO WE'RE GOING TO STOP NOW, WE'LL HAVE AN EXTENDED LUNCH BREAK TO ENABLE THE NON-RETIRING COUNCIL MEMBERS TO HAVE THEIR PHOTOS TAKEN. FOR ISSUANCE OF BADGES. PLEASE FOLLOW JOE AND YU OF THE HILL GROUP. JOANNE, FOLLOW HER, SHE'LL ESCORT YOU TO THE BADGING STATION. YOU CAN PICK UP YOUR LUNCHES IF YOU ORDERED THEM IN ROOM 9, CAFETERIA IS ON THE FIRST FLOOR, WE'LL RECONVENE FOR CLOSED SESSION AND GRANTS REVIEW AT 1:45. THANK YOU. WE'LL DO IT ELECTRONICALLY AND NARROW DOWN AND DISCUSS AT THE MEETING. THEN THERE'S AUTHORITIES YOU DELEGATEED TO STAFF AND WE REVIEW OPERATING PROCEDURES AND TAKE A VOTES. Q. DISCUSSION. SECOND. >> I DO HAVE ONE -- IT'S AN EASY ONE. IT'S AN EASY ONE BUT YOU'RE GETTING US TO LOOK AT IT SO I TOOK IT SERIOUSLY SO MINOR SUGGESTION >> DR. LLOYD ASKED WITH REGARD TO APPEALS REREVIEWED OR THE COUNCIL MAY CONCUR WITH THE SCIENTIFIC REVIEW GROUPS RECOMMENDATION, DENY APPEAL, HIS QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE COUNCIL HAS TO CONCUR WITH ALL OR CAN THEY CONCUR WITH PART OF THE APPLICANT'S APPEAL? I BELIEVE THE ANSWER COULD BE IT COULD BE ALL OR PART BUT ULTIMATELY THE COUNCIL WOULD BE TO RECOMMEND WHETHER THE APPLICATION TO BE REREVIEWED OR CONCUR WITH THE SR-2'S RECOMMENDATION SO IT COULD BE ALL OUR PART. >> WITH THAT INTERPRETATION DOES IT NEED TO BE CHANGED OR CAN IT STAND, THE WRITING AS IS? >> I THINK IT CAN STAND. >> WITHDRAWN. OTHER DISCUSSION? I'M SORRY, WE HAD A SECOND. NO MORE DISCUSSION. ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED. ABSTENTIONS. SO WE'LL STICK WITH OUR CURRENT OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR FISCAL YEAR 14 BUT WE'LL GO OVER THIS IN DETAIL IN A YEAR FROM NOW FOR 15. THE NEXT ISSUE AGAIN, WE HAVE BROUGHT THIS UP, THIS WAS OUR INTENT TODAY IN PRESENTING BACKGROUND TO HOW WE MANAGE, WHAT IS IT, WHERE DOES IT COME FROM, HOW DO WE MANAGE IT, HIS REQUEST FOR MOTION TO APPROVE A WORKING GROUP. IT MAY CHANGE BUT WE'LL CALL IT THE COMMON FUND PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT WORKING GROUP BUT IT COULD BE MODIFIED IF WE WANT TO, IT SEEMS A LITTLE LONG. THE CHARGE WOULD BE TO ASSESSND ADVISE ON THE PROCESS USED TO MANAGE THE COMMON FUND INCLUDING THOSE USED TO PLAN AND IMPLEMENT AND OVERSEE PROGRAMS. THE TWO MAJOR AREAS WE CAN FILL IN ADDITIONAL ELABORATE ON THESE TWO BUT THEY WOULD BE NUMBER ONE, OUR PLANNING PROCESS IS OPTIMAL FOR IDENTIFYING PROGRAM AREAS AND CONCEPTS, THAT MEET THE COMMON FUND CRITERIA. WHICH HAVE NIH INTERPRETATION, COMMUNITY INPUT AND STATUTORY LIMITATIONS ON WHAT COMMON FUND PROJECTS CAN BE AND MANAGEMENT OVERSIGHT PROCESSES OPTIMAL FOR ACHIEVING PROGRAM GOALS. WE CONDUCT THIS, WE PROPOSE TO CONDUCT THIS OVER THE NEXT YEAR WITH A REPORT FROM THE GROUP IN JUNE, BRING BACK HALF THE PRODUCT FOR DISCUSSION IN JANUARY. A LOT OF WORK WAS DONE BY INTERVIEWS AND PROVIDING CO-CHAIRS IN THE GROUP AND THE COMMITTEE WITH DATA ABOUT SOME PROJECTS SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT GOT DELIVERED AND HOW WAS IT IMPLEMENTED AND IS THAT THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT. SO IS THERE DISCUSSION ON THIS OR COULD WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ESTABLISHING SUCH A WORKING GROUP? DISCUSSION. EARLY STATE, WE'LL PHYLLITE THE DETHE TAILS AND WORK WITH THE CO-CHAIRS HOW TO GET THIS DONE. ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED. ABSTENTIONS. OKAY. VERY GOOD. WE WILL PROCEED BUT THOSE ARE OUR TWO NECESSARY ACTIONS WE NEEDED A QUORUM SO DON'T ALL RUN. WE STILL HAVE OTHER ISSUES AND BETSY IS GOING TO CONTINUE DESCRIBING THE COMMON FUND PROCESSES. BETSY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WERE. YOU CAN MOVE TO DO THAT. OKAY. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO TRY TO WALK THROUGH WITH YOU NOW IS SORT OF COMMON FUND POST REFORM ACT AND GIVE YOU A BIT BETTER SENSE HOW WE OPERATE NOW THE TERMS OF OUR STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS, WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. AND ALSO THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR PROGRAMS. THE REFORM ACT, PRIMARY IMPACT IT HAS FOR THE COMMON FUND ROADMAP WAS THAT THE FUNDS THAT PAID FOR RESEARCH APPROPRIATED DIRECTLY TO THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR. PRIOR TO THAT THE FIRST PROGRAM, FUNDS FOR RESEARCH CAME INSTITUTES AND CENTERS. WHAT PERCENT OF THEIR BUDGET WAS COMBINED INTO A COMMON POOL OF FUNDS FOR THE PROGRAM. THE REFORM ACT EMBRACED THAT CONCEPT BUT IT INCREASED OVERALL LEVEL OF NIH FUNDING THAT YEAR TO CREATE A NEW SOUR OF MONEY WITHIN THE -- SOURCE OF MONEY WITHIN THE OFFICE OF DIRECTOR CALLED THE COMMON FUND. SO THE COMMON FUND FROM OFFICE OF DIRECTOR THEN PAID FOR THE PROGRAMS MOVING FORWARD. SO THE LANGUAGE OF THE REFORM ACT ALSO PERPETUATED THE GOALS THAT HAD BEEN SET FORTH FOR THE ROADMAP IN TERMS OF TRANS-NIH PLANNING, PROVIDING A WAY TO STIMULATE STRATEGIC PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT NIH AS A WHOLE OR REQUIRE COORDINATION ACROSS MULTIPLE ICs. IT ALSO CREATED DPCPSI. THE PROVISION OF DPCPSI IN THE REFORM ACT PROVIDED THE OD ADMINISTRATIVE STRUCTURE TO MANAGE THE COMMON FUND. THE NET EFFECT OF THIS SHIFT WAS MORE THAT THE MANAGEMENT OF THE COMMON FUND, MANAGE OF PROGRAMS BECAME A PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE OD AND ICs, PRIOR TO THIS IT WAS AN IC LED ENDEAVOR. SO THE SHIFT OF THE COMMON FUND INTO OD WAS A SHIFT, IT WASN'T A RADICAL DEPARTURE. THINGS CONTINUE TO HAPPEN MORE OR LESS THE WAY THAT THEY WERE. BUT THE CREATION OF OFFICE OF STRATEGIC COORDINATION AND DPCPSI PUT MORE STRUCTURE INTO THE OD AND PROVIDED MORE OF A CENTRAL PLACE FOR OVERSIGHT OF THE PROGRAMS. WHAT WE'VE TRIED TO DO IN THE INTERIM IS DEVELOP STRONGER TIES BETWEEN OUR U PROGRAMS. SO HEAVILY ENGAGED IN SELECTING PROGRAM FOPPICS FOR -- TOPICS FOR SUPPORT FOR THE ROADMAP BUT SINCE THE PASSAGES OF THE REFORM ACT THE OD, THE NIH DIRECTOR, THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR NOW DPCPSI DIRECTOR PARTICIPATES IN ARTICULATION SPECIFIC GOALS. FOR EACH OF THE PROGRAMS CRITICAL POINTS DURING IMPLEMENTATION. THERE REALLY IS MUCH MORE A BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN OFF IF AT THIS OF DIRECTOR AND THE ICs. -- OFFICE OF DIRECTOR AND THE ICs. DPC PPS OSC WORKS WITH IT AND EVERY PHASE OF THE COMMON FUND PROGRAM MANAGEMENT. WE WORK TOGETHER TO DEVELOP MANAGEMENT PLAN, IMPLEMENT INITIATIVES AND TRACK BUDGETS, WE OVERSEE AND ASSESS PROGRESS TOGETHER. WE DECIDE WHAT ADJUSTMENTS MIGHT BE NEEDED FOR PERSONAL PROGRAMS TO WORK TOGETHER TO MAKE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS. WE WORK TOGETHER TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE PROGRAMS TO MANY VARIED AUDIENCES AND WE ALSO THINK TOGETHER PLANNING FOR TRANSITION. SO THE COMMON FUND PROGRAM HAS DEFINED LIFE SPAN OF SUPPORT SO WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THAT SUPPORT. AND HOW DO WE PREPARE FOR THAT. SO NOW IF YOU RECALL FROM OUR DISCUSSION THIS MORNING, THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE OF THE PROGRAMS IS PRETTY SIMPLE, WITH MUCH OF THE ACTION OF OVERSEEING THE PROGRAMS PUT IN THAT BOX CALLED ROADMAP IMPLEMENTATION COORDINATION COMMITTEE, NOW WE HAVE A MUCH MORE ZIGZAGGED STRUCTURE WHERE THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR AT THE NIH DIRECTOR OF DPCPSI DIRECTOR, OCS DIRECTOR AND STAFF WHO WORK IN OSC ARE IN COMMUNICATION WITH PEOPLE WORKING IN THE ICs IN EVERY ARENA. SO PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET MANAGE. , COMMUNICATION, GRANTS MANAGEMENT, ET CETERA. WE LIKE TO THINK THIS INTEGRATED STRUCTURE OF ACTIVE COMMUNICATION IS WORKING BETTER TO SERVE SCIENCE FOR THE PROGRAMS, IT ALLOWS US TO KEEP BETTER SENSE WITHIN THE OD WHERE THE FUNDS LIE OF WHERE THE SCIENCE IS MOVING, WHAT THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES ARE, TO ADDRESS THOSE CHALLENGES IN A MORE FLUID WAY. WE ALSO LIKE TO THINK THAT THE COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES ARE MORE ROBUST BY -- IN TERMS OF GETTING INFORMATION BY PROGRAMS OUT TO THE COMMUNITY THROUGH THIS INTEGRATED PARTNERSHIP. IT ALSO MAKES FOR A COMPLEX SET OF INTERACTIONS. SOMEBODY MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY, IT WILL COME TO ME, HOW MUCH EFFORT BIG COMPLEX PROGRAMS REALLY ARE. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. WE HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE WORKING ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF OUR PROGRAMS, A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH, A LOT OF TIME SPENT IN MEETINGS, CONFERENCE CALLS, INTERNALLY AND WITH OUR INVESTIGATORS. WITH EXTERNAL SCIENTIFIC PANELS THAT PROVIDE INPUT. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS MOVING FORWARD IN TERMS OF OUR PROCESSES USED TO MANAGE THESE PROGRAMS IS WHETHER THIS STRUCTURE IS OPTIMAL IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION. SO I THINK IT'S WORTH POINTING OUT A FEW UNUSUAL FEATURES ABOUT THE COMMON FUND PROGRAM, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF THINKING ABOUT EVALUATION MOVING FORWARD SINCE SOME OF THESE ITEMS ARE NOT NECESSARILY SELF-EVIDENT. STRATEGIC PLANNING IS SOMETHING FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN ON COUNCIL FOR A WHILE KNOW WE THINK A LOT ABOUT, IT IS A BIG TASK TO THINK COLLECTIVELY AS A BIG COMPLEX ORGANIZATION WHAT THE MOST PRESSING CHALLENGES ARE THAT FACE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AS A WHOLE. AND HOW TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THOSE PROBLEMS. SO WHICH OF THE PROBLEMS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR AN IMPACT AND THEN HOW CAN WE HAVE THAT IMPACT SO THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS IS NEAR AND DEAR TO OUR HEARTS IN TERMS OF THE OBJECTIVES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE BUT WE'RE INTERESTING IN KNOWING WHETHER THE PROCESS AS IT HAS COME TO BE IS OPTIMAL. ONE OF THE MOST DIFFERENT FEATURES, THERE ARE TWO PHASES OF STRATEGIC PLANNING FOR THE COMMON FUND. THE FIRST PHASE IS RATHER UNIQUE IN THAT IT DETERMINES WHAT OUR MISSION IS FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. PHASE 1 IS IDENTIFICATION OF BROAD SCIENTIFIC AREAS WHERE THE COMMON FUND CAN HAVE AN IMPACT. THIS PROCESS INVOLVES MEETING MEETING WITH STAKEHOLDERS TO THINK BIG PICTURE WAYS WHERE THE PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ARE FOR BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH. WE ASKED FOR INFORMATION BOTH IN MEETINGS AND WE HAVE USED REQUESTS FOR INFORMATION, SOCIAL MEDIA TOGETHER THIS TYPE OF INPUT. THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE WE HAVE OUR CLEARANCE CONCEPT PROCESS. THE QUESTION WHAT BROUGHT AREAS COMMON FUND WILL ADDRESS THE NEXT 5 TO 10 YEARS IS SOMETHING WE BRING TO YOU. WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR GATHERING MANY CONCEPTS SOMETHING, YOU GUYS REVIEW THEM, YOU HELP DETERMINE WHICH OF THOSE BEST MEET THE COMMON FUND CRITERIA. YOUR INPUT IS PROVIDED TO NIH LEADERSHIP TO SELECT A SUBSET OF THOSE CONCEPTS FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT. SO THE FIRST PHASE OF STRATEGIC PLANNING TAKES ABOUT SIX MONTHS FROM USUALLY DECEMBER OR JANUARY UNTIL ABOUT MAY OF EACH YEAR. THE SECOND PHASE IS MORE SIMILAR TO STRATEGIC PLANNING THAN CONDUCTED IN INSTITUTES AND CENTERS AND SIMILAR TO STRATEGIC PLANNING THAT OCCURS IN OTHER DPCPSI OFFICES. THIS BEGINS WITH A KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT YOUR MISSION IS. WHAT ARE BROAD AREAS OF SCIENCE THAT YOU HAVE TO COVER. THIS PHASE IS QUESTION IS MORE WHERE IS THE FIELD GOING, WHAT ARE THE BIG CHALLENGES, WHAT ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THOSE CHALLENGES. SO WE TAKE THE BROAD CONCEPTS THAT WE GET THROUGH OUR EXTERNAL INPUT PROCESS AND REFINE THEM, PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS IS CONDUCTED TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE LANDSCAPE THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE ACROSS NIH, ACROSS THE WORLD LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER COUNTRIES ARE DOING, WE GATHER MORE INPUT FROM TARGETED GROUPS AND EXTERNAL INVESTIGATORS ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON AN WHERE THE OPPORTUNITIES ARE. AND WE FORM TRANS-NIH WORKING GROUPS TO CONSIDER THIS INPUT INTO DEVELOP A PLAN. IF THIS IS THE CHALLENGE, WHAT ARE THE STRATEGIC WAYS WE CAN ADDRESS THAT CHALLENGE. THIS ULTIMATELY CAN PROCESS A SET OF INITIATIVES INTEGRATED TO MEET OVERALL OBJECTIVES. I.E. STRATEGIC PLAN. THIS PROCESS TAKES SEVERAL MONTHS AND DECISION MAKING AGAIN WAS NIH LEADERSHIP AS A WHOLE WHERE IC DIRECTORS WEIGH IN, HOW DO THEY FEEL LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BENEFIT THEIR MISSION AND ULTIMATELY THE NIH DIRECTOR MAKES A DECISION ABOUT WHICH OF THE PROGRAMS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH FUNDING. ALL TOGETHER, THIS PROCESS TAKES 18 MONTHS. WE HAVE BEEN DOING IT EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS TRYING TO GET INTO A RHYTHM AS DIFFERENT INITIATIVES WITHIN THE COMMON FUND AND WE HAVE HAD A TURN OF FUNDS SO WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SUPPORT NEW PROGRAMS EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS. ONE QUESTION IS WHETHER 18 MONTHS IS APPROPRIATE LENGTH OF TIME. ONE HAND SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME FROM THE OAR THE TICKLATION OF A CHALLENGE TO RELEASE OF AN FOA TO SOLICIT APPLICATIONS. ON THE OTHER HAND -- YES. (OFF MIC) >> I'M SORRY; I WASN'T CLEAR ABOUT THAT. IT INVOLVES SOLICITING INPUT FROM IC DIRECTORS AN STAFF WHERE THEY THINK THE MOST OPPORTUNE AREAS OF INVESTMENT ARE. SO THE CONCEPTS THAT COME BEFORE YOU AS A COUNCIL TO REVIEW INCLUDE CONCEPTS THAT WERE OAR THE TICKLATED BY EXTERNAL PEOPLE AS WELL AS IC DIRECTORS. (OFF MIC) IN SOME WAYS IT FEEDS THE PROCESS IN SOME CASES ICs HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THEIR CONCEPTS FOR A WHILE BEFORE IT ENTERS OUR 18 MONTH TIME FRAME. THIS IS THE POINT THAT I WAS ABOUT TO GET TO, WHILE 18 MONTHS SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME IT IS ACTUALLY OFTEN INSUFFICIENT TO DEVELOP ROBUST PLAN FOR INTEGRATED SET OF INITIATIVES THAT MAY OCCUPY, 20, 25, $30 MILLION A YEAR. THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY TO SPEND. FOR EXAMPLE, THE HUMAN MICROBIOME PROJECT THAT WAS INITIATED IN 2007 UNDERWENT ABOUT AN 18 MONTH OR SO PLANNING PROCESS BEFORE IT WAS EVER ARTICULATED AS A POSSIBLE COMMON FUND PROGRAM. THAT WAS ACTUALLY A VERY THOUGHTFULLY DESIGNED PROGRAM THAT ADDRESSED MICROBIOME FROM A LOT OF PERSPECTIVES. SO WE CONTINUE TO THINK ABOUT THIS, WE WANT TO BE NIMBLE ENOUGH TO ADDRESS CHALLENGES THAT ARE EMERGING THAT REQUIRE RAPID RESPONSE BUT WE ALSO WANT TO BE THOUGHTFUL. THESE PROGRAMS TEND TO BE PRETTY LARGE, THEY REPRESENT A STRATEGIC PLAN MOVING FORWARD THE NEXT 5, 10 YEARS SO WE DON'T WANT TO RUSH IT. >> SO WE DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THOUGH TO GET INPUT FROM OUTSIDE OF NIH AT EVERY -- THE LAST THREE YEARS WE HAVE DONE IT A DIFFERENCE WAY EACH TIME. LAST YEAR A GROUP OF US WENT TO THREE CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND MET WITH GROUPS FROM 60 TO MAYBE 100, WORKED WITH THOSE GROUPS FOR FULL DAYBREAKING OUT INTO SESSIONS AND DISCUSSING WHAT THE PROBLEMS WHERE WERE WE CAN MAKE PROGRESS, AND CAME ONE A LIST OF IDEAS THAT WAY. WE ALSO HAD FOCUS GROUPS WITH A SMALLER NUMBER OF PEOPLE HERE. WE CAN LOOK AT WHAT WORKED BEST. >> JUST WONDER YOU TALK BEING NIMBLE AS WELL AS STRATEGIC. I JUST WONDERED HAVE YOU FOUND INSTANCES WHERE A RAPID RESPONSE WOULD BE IMPORTANT AND REQUIRE LESS THAN 18 MONTHS, THAT MIGHT BE THE KIND OF THING WHERE -- WOULD THERE BE AN EXPEDITED PROCESS OR IS THAT SOMETHING ELSE TO LOOK AT WHEN LOOKING AT THE PROCESSES >> DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE WANT TO LOOK ATLANTA T THE PROCESS. YOU MENTION THE GULF, THAT'S GREAT EXAMPLE, ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED OR AT LEAST AN INITIATIVE WITHIN A LARGER PROGRAM IMPLEMENTED MORE QUICKLY THAN TYPICAL WAS ONE THAT AN OPPORTUNITY PRESENTED ITSELF TO PARTNER WITH DRPA FOR AN INITIATIVE CALLED THE MICROPHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS INITIATIVE WHICH WAS INTENDED TO BUILD SET OF INTEGRATED TISSUE CHIPS, TEN ORGANS ON CHIPS INTEGRATED TO REPRESENT A PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEM. THE TIME WAS RIGHT. THAT CONCEPT CAME THROUGH THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS, DRPA INDEPENDENTLY WAS INTERESTED IN PURSUING THAT SO WE TRIED TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE TO COORDINATE WITH DRPA ON THAT. WE HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO THIS PROCESS. SO IT MAYBE WORKING PERFECTLY WE NEED TO BE NIMBLE AND THOUGHTFUL, NOT NIMBLE IS NOT THOUGHTFUL BUT WE CAN TAKE A LONGER TERM VIEW FOR SOME PROGRAMS. BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT THE EVALUATION TO CONSIDER. >> WHO ARE STAKEHOLDERS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN GIVING INPUT? SECOND QUESTION IS, IS THERE SOME POINT AT WHICH THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROSIS INTERSECTS WITH THE BUDGET PLANNING PROCESS IN >> THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS, I WILL ANSWER THE SECOND ONE FIRST. WE ALWAYS HAVE A GENERAL VIEW OF FUNDING WE WILL HAVE AVAILABLE IN THE FISCAL YEAR WHICH WE ARE PLANNING. SO THEY ARE CONNECTED BUT WE TRY TO KEEP IT AT FAIRLY HIGH LEVEL DETERMINE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE SIGNING A SPECIFIC DOLLAR FIGURE TO THAT PROGRAM. PEOPLE INVITED TO THE PROGRAM VARIED YEAR TO AND SOMETIMES IT -- WE TRY TO HAVE A BROAD SCIENTIFIC REPRESENTATION OF PEOPLE AT THE TABLE, WE HAVE HAD COUNCIL PUBLIC REPRESENTATIVES AND ONE OF THE YEARS WE DID STRATEGIC PLANNING, WE HAD EACH HAD 50 OR SO PEOPLE, THAT WAS A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE. THAT GENERATES A LOT OF IDEAS, IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF MONEY WE TRIED TO MAKE IT SMALLER, OTHERWISE WE EXPERIMENTED WITH FOCUSING MORE EARLY CAREER INVESTIGATORS TO GET INPUT FROM THEM SENIOR PEOPLE, A MIX, IT VARIES YEAR-TO-YEAR. (OFF MIC) >> WE HAVE AND I CAN'T TELL YOU FOR SURE WHAT THE OUTCOME OF THAT IS. IT MIGHT PUT ROBIN ON THE SPOT AND ASK IF YOU REMEMBER IN THE FIRST PHASE ROADMAP WHETHER PATIENT ADVOCACY GROUPS WERE INVOLVED >> PRIMARILY THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THERE ARE PROBABLY A COUPLE OF EXCEPTIONS I MIGHT BE ABLE TO GO BACK FIND THE ORIGINAL LIST. I CAN'T ANSWER THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. >> NOR CAN I BUT WE CAN GET YOU THAT INFORMATION. THANK YOU FOR THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS STRATEGIC PLANNING? >> CLARIFY IN TERMS OF BUDGET I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. DID YOU SAY THAT THE STRATEGIC -- I KNOW I HEARD YOU SAY HIGH LEVEL STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS INTERSECTS THE BUDGETING PROCESS. IN ANY WAY INFLUENCE TOPICS ENTERTAINED AT THE BEGINNING? >> TRYING TO GET A SENSE THE AVAILABLE FUNDS WILL DRIVE WHETHER A CONCEPT BEGINS TO DEVELOP OR NOT. >> WE MAKE AN EFFORT NOT TO. THE STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS HERE WE TRY TO FOCUS ON THE SCIENCE. WHAT ARE SCIENTIFIC NEEDS OF THE OPPORTUNITY, WHERE ARE THE OPPORTUNITIES. IF WE HAVE A VERY MODEST AMOUNT OF FUNDING AVAILABLE AND YET THE NEEDS ARE VERY LARGE, WE CAN TRY TO LEVERAGE OUR INVESTMENT WITH FUNDS FROM OTHER ENTITIES, PERHAPS PHARMA, WE CAN TRY TO LEVERAGE OUR INVESTMENT WITH ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM THE ICs. SO WE TRY TO GET TO THE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE WE WORRY TOO MUCH ABOUT THE FUNDS AVAILABLE. THIS POINT ABOUT SCOPE OF THE PROGRAM AND WHAT GETS SUPPORTED IS WHERE THE DOLLARS COME INTO PLAY. A PROPOSAL IS PUT IN FRONT OF NIH LEADERSHIP AND A DECISION HAS TO BE MADE, THIS IS GREAT BUT CAN WE AFFORD IT. IF WE CAN'T WHAT ARE THE POSSIBILITIES? CAN WE RECAN DEUCE THE SCOPE OR TRY TO GET FUNDS FROM OTHER SOURCES? >> BETSY SAID IT EXACTLY RIGHT. WE LET THE SCIENCE DRIVE THE PROJECT. WHAT DOES THE SCOPE NEED TO BE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH LENGTHY PLANNING AND DECIDED WE DON'T NEED A PROJECT. CAN DISRUPTED PROTEOMICS A YEAR AGO. WE DON'T LIKE TO DEFINE THE LIMIT AT THING BEGINNING. >> THAT WAS MY -- PROBABLY MY THOUGHT, THE SCIENCE DRIVES IT, NOT THE MONEY. THAT'S GREAT. I WANTED THE TO HEAR FROM YOU. THE SECOND THING YOU SAID, THAT WAS MY SECOND QUESTION, THE DECISION MAKING. (LOST AUDIO) >> IT'S A LITTLE PAINFUL BUT NEVERTHELESS WE DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH A PROGRAM BECAUSE WE PLANNED FOR IT. ANOTHER UNUSUAL ASPECT ABOUT THE -- WE MENTIONED BEFORE TODAY IS TEN YEAR LIFETIME AT THE MAXIMUM SHOOTING FIVE TO TEN YEARS. SO THIS INVOLVES THE ARTICULATION SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES THE ONLY WAY THAT INVESTMENT IN A PARTICULAR AREA OF SCIENCE MAKES SENSE AS WITHIN A DEFINED TIME FRAME IS IF YOU HAVE PARTICULAR GOALS. IF YOU ARTICULATE THE GOALS THE ACHIEVE YOU CAN HAVE TIME FRAME FOR THE GOALS TO BE ADDRESSED SO WE THINK PRETTY CAREFULLY ABOUT THE DELIVERABLES WHAT IS THE PROGRAM DESIGNED TO DO, HOW CAN IT WILL TAKE AND WHAT WILL IT COST. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS FOR IS THE WAY WE CONDUCT STRATEGIC PLANNING NOW IS EFFECTIVE DEFINING AND ARTICULATING SPECIFIC DELIVERABLES AN GOALS FOR OUR PROGRAMS. WHICH NECESSARILY HAVE A BROADER FOCUS AND THE ICs ARE MORE IN A POSITION OF LEADING A FIELD TOWARDS A PARTICULAR BROAD OBJECTIVE WITH A MUCH LONGER HORIZON ULTIMATELY IF WE OAR THE TICK LATE SPECIFIC GOALS WITH A DEFINED DELIVERABLE, IF IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE A SUSTAINED IMPACT ON THE FIELD, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TRANSFORMATIVE. SO THE LONG TERM IMPACT OF THE PROGRAM IS GOING TO BE, WHAT WE WANT IT TO BE AND HOW TO SET UP THE PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THAT. THIS IS REALLY PROGRAM MANAGEMENT FOR THE COMMON FUND. IT'S REALLY HARD FOR PEOPLE TO SAY WHAT THE DEFINED GOAL OF THE PROGRAM IS. BUT WE ARE VERY THE REFORM ACT DOES REQUIRE GOALS AN MILESTONES FOR OUR PROGRAM. THE OTHER UNUSUAL FEATURE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO READDRESS IS THIS OD IC PARTNERSHIP. SO COME FROM US SO THE RESPONSIBILITY TO OVERSEE THE BUDGET FOR EACH OF THESE PROGRAMS LIES IN THE OD. SO WE HAVE A PARTNERSHIP THAT IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT FROM THE WAY OTHER DPCPSI OFFICES INTERACT WITH THE ICs. SO THIS IS CERTAINLY BY DESIGN. THE BREADTH OF THE SCIENCE COVERED BY THE OD IS SO GREAT THAT WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE BRINGING THE MOST RELEVANT NIH EXPERTISE, TO BARE ON EACH OF THESE PROGRAMS. THIS KEPTS THE IC DIRECTORS ENGAGED. IF STAFF ARE WORKING ON PROGRAM THEY GET MORE FLUID INFORMATION ON THAT AND HELP TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PROGRAMS IF IMPLEMENTED ADDRESS THE IC INTERESTS. THIS HELPS TO ASSURE THE ICs BEEN FROM THE PROGRAM THAT THE GRAM TEE SUPPORT BY OUR GRANTS BENEFIT FROM THE TOOLS TECHNOLOGY AND DATA BEING DEVELOPED. AND THAT IS COMMUNICATED EFFECTIVELY. THE OSC STAFF ARE PART OF EACH OF THE TEAMS THAT WE HAVE. AND THEY SERVE A CRITICAL BIDIRECTIONAL LINK BETWEEN THE ICs AND OD LEADERSHIP. GUIDANCE FROM OD LEADERSHIP GOES THROUGH THE OSC STAFF TO THE GROUPS AND INFORMATION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT THE MANAGEMENT OF THE PROGRAM GO FROM THE WORKING GROUPS THROUGH OSC STAFF TO OD LEADERSHIP BEFORE I GO TO THIS ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? >> CAN I CLARIFY SOMETHING? WHEN YOU'RE TALKING THE BUDGETARY OVERSIGHT, I THINK YOU SAID THAT THAT ALL GOES THROUGH OD BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE ALL THE SUPPORT FOR THE PROGRAMS COMES FROM. I THOUGHT THERE WERE A DIVERSITY OF COMMON FUNDS PROGRAMS THAT YOU HAD, YOU HAVE SOME PARTNERSHIPS WITH ICs IN TERMS OF BUDGET. WHEN OTHER ICs ARE CONTRIBUTING TO DOES THE BUDGET OVERSIGHT COME THROUGH OD OR IS IT A SHARED RESPONSIBILITY? >> FOR COMMON FUND DOLLARS THEY GO THROUGH OUR OFFICE. SO FOR COMP FOR INSTANCE IT'S JOINTLY FUNDED BY MANY ICs IF NOT ALL PLUS THE COMMON FUND. SO WHAT OUR OFFICE DOES IS PROVIDES INFORMATION TO THE FUNDING THE IC THAT ISSUES THE AWARDS AND SAYS THIS IS HOW MUCH MONEY YOU HAVE FROM THE COMMON FUND FOR THIS AWARDS. SO WE TRACK EXPENDITURES FOR OUR DOLLARS FOR OUR PROGRAM. WE HAVE A BUDGET OFFICER AND ONE BUDGET PERSON, OBVIOUSLY BUDGET TRACKING FOR THESE PROGRAMS IS A MUCH BIGGER JOB THAN TWO PEOPLE CAN DO. OUR BUDGET OFFICER COORDINATES THAT PROCESS SO HE WORKS FLUIDLY WITH BUDGET OFFICES ACROSS THE NIH TO MAKE SURE THEY KNOW THEY HAVE THE MONEY AND ULTIMATELY THE MONEY GETS SPENT AND THAT WE DON'T BECOME ANTI-DEFICIENT AND SPEND MORE MONEY THAN WE HAVE SO THAT TRACKING PROCESS FOR THE COMMON FUND IS WHAT OUR OFFICE DOES. SORRY? I'M GOING TO TAKE A MOMENT TO BRAG ON MY BUDGET OFFICER. WE DON'T LET THAT HAPPEN. WE DON'T LAPSE FUNDS. SO IT WASN'T UNTIL U CAME TO THIS OFFICE THAT I REALIZED ICs DO LAPSE FUNDS BUT WE DONE -- SO GEORGE DOES A GREAT JOB OF WORKING WITH THE BUDGET, CONTACT ACROSS THE NIH IF THERE ARE SOME FUNDS THAT LOOK LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO BE LEFT SEPTEMBER THE 30th HE FIND A PLACE TO PUT THEM. THEY WOULD ULTIMATELY GO BACK TO THE TREASURY. YES. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? SO I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A SENSE OF WHAT TYPES OF PROGRAMS WE CONSIDER TO BE COMMON FUNDABLE AND WHAT THE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WHAT INFLUENCE THAT HAS ON THE TYPE OF PROGRAMS WE SUPPORT. NOT SURE WHAT TIME WE NEED TO END. (OFF MIC) >> IT SHOULDN'T TAKE THAT LONG. SO I WANT TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF THE HUMAN MICROBIOME PROJECT. AS EXEMPLARY OF PROGRAM THAT PROVIDES CORE FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGICAL KNOWLEDGE IN TERMS OF A LARGE DATA SET THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE USED BY PEOPLE WORKING ACROSS DISEASE AREAS, REALLY TO TRANSFORM THE WAY THAT WE THINK ABOUT THE HUMAN BEING. SO THIS WAS RECOGNIZED AS AN OPPORTUNITY IN 2007 FOR A WHOLE NEW WAY OF THINKING ABOUT HOW HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY WORKS. RECOGNIZING THERE ARE MILLIONS OF BACTERIAL GENES LIKELY THAT CONTRIBUTE TO OUR HEALTH AND DISEASE AND MUCH SMALLER NUMBER, 20,000 OR SO OF OUR OWN GENES SO WHAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BACTERIAL GENOME AND HUMAN GENOME AND HOW CAN WE BEGIN TO STUDY THAT. THIS PROGRAM WAS CONCEIVED AS A SERIES OF INITIATIVES THAT WERE TIGHTLY COORDINATED AND INTEGRATED TO PROVIDE A ROBUST SET OF INFORMATION FOR THE IMMUNITY AT LARGE. IT'S CONSIDERED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT SO THE INCREASE IN ABILITY TO DO CONDUCT META GENOMIC ANALYSIS WAS NEW IN 2007 BUT REPRESENTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO AFFECT META -- AND ELSEWHERE IN THE NATURAL WORLD TO THE HUMAN BEING. SO BUT TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT WAS STILL NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT ROBUST WAY. WE HAD PROVIDED SUPPORT FOR SEQUENCING CENTERS, SEQUENCE THE BACTERIAL GENOMES AS WELL AS THE HUMAN MICROBIOME. THERE WAS DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS THAT ENABLED VISITORS TO BEGIN TO ASK THE QUESTION OF WHAT IS HOW DO CHANGES IN THE MICROBIOME CORRELATE WITH HEALTH STATUS. SO THIS RESULTED IN ADDITION OF MORE DATA. THERE WERE ETHICAL LEGAL AND SOCIAL ISSUES AND SO THE TEAM RECOGNIZED THIS WOULD BE THE CASE IN ADVANCE AND AN INITIATIVE IN PLACE TO ADDRESS THAT. COMPUTATIONAL TOOLS WERE ENORMOUSLY IMPORTANT. DATA ANALYSIS AN COORDINATION CENTER ROLLED ALL THIS INFORMATION TOGETHER AND PUT IT IN A USABLE FORMTOR THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. SO THERE WERE NINE INITIATIVES IN THIS PROGRAM, THEY INTERACTED THROUGH THE DATA ANALYSIS AND COORDINATING CENTER. 400 PLUS MEMBERS. THIS WAS A KEY COMPONENT AND AN INTERNATIONAL EFFORT TO COORDINATE MICROBIOME RESEARCH THAT HAPPENED OVER SEVERAL YEARS. INTERNATIONAL HUMAN MICROBIOME CONSORTIUM. WE PROVIDE COMMUNITY RESOURCES IN TERMS OF SEQUENCE DATA, MICROBIOME AND HUMAN. STRAINS THAT WERE ABLE TO BECLETURED IN SEQUENCE, CLINICAL PHENOTYPE DATA AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. PARTICULAR RESOURCE THAT IS REALLY JUST BEGINNING TO BE EXPLORED AND TALKEN ADVANTAGE OF WITH A HEALTHY COHORT STUDY OF 300 PEOPLE THAT HAD THEIR MICROBIOME SAMPLED AT -- ACROSS 18 BODY SITES, THIS INFORMATION HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE PEOPLE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THAT EVERY DAY. SO INCREASINGLY WE ARE GAINING AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE MICROBIOME UNDERLIES DISEASES SUCH AS EXMA PSORIASIS AND KROHN'S DISEASE THAT YOU SEE HERE. THE REASON I POINT OUT THIS PROGRAM IS EXEMPLARY, IT HAD CLEAR DEFINITION OF GOALS FROM THE OUTSET. WE'RE GOING TO SEQUENCE THE MICROBIOME OF A HEALTHY COHORT, WE'RE ABLE TO DEVELOP TOOLS AN ENABLE US TO EXAMINE THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DISEASE AND MICROBIOME. AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THESE GOALS WERE ARTICULATED AND INITIATIVES REFLECTING THOSE GOALS WAS JUST A VERY THOUGHTFULLY WORKED OUT PROGRAM. IT ALSO REQUIRED A LOT OF MANAGEMENT. MOST INITIATIVES INVOLVE COLLABORATION AMONG MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY. NIH STAFF PROVIDED A LOT OF INPUT IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE ALONG THE WAY INVESTIGATORS WERE LIVING UP TO GOALS AND MILESTONES EXPRESSED BY THE PROGRAM. INTERACTION BETWEEN NIH AND COMMUNITY WORKED VERY WELL FOR THIS PROGRAM. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD AND THINKING HOW TO MANAGE THAT EFFECTIVELY, WHAT WORKED WELL ABOUT THIS PROGRAM? IT MET ALL THE GOALS EXCEEDED MOST, IT IS THE HALLMARK OF SUCCESS FOR THE COMMON FUND. SO WHAT WERE THE KEY FEATURES THAT LED TO THE SUCCESS OF THIS PROGRAM AND HOW CAN WE REPLICATE THAT EFFECTIVELY. EXTENSIVE PLANNING WAS PART OF THIS PROGRAM SO THAT COULD BE PART OF IT. IF SO, WE MIGHT WANT TO BUILD THAT IN. THE GOAL OF THE PROGRAM NOBODY ARGUED WITH, THE QUESTION IS IS IT DOABLE. CAN YOU DEVELOP COMPUTER ADAPTIVE TESTING TOOL A THAT RELIABLY AND ACCURATELY ROBUSTLY MEASURES PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES. SO THIS WAS THE GOAL FOR THIS PROGRAM. THE PROGRAM IS HARMLY SUCCESSFUL I WOULD SAY. IT DEVELOP AD RELIABLE WAY TO MEASURE PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES, IT'S BEEN -- LET'S SEE IF I HAVE THIS HERE. IN A VARIETY OF WAYS WHEN PUT INTO COMPUTERIZED ADAPTIVE TOOL PROVIDES REPROBESSABLE AND -- REPRODUCIBLE AND ROBUST MEASURES HOW THEY'RE FEELING ESSENTIALLY. SO THIS HAS BEEN TRANSLATED TO SPANISH AND EIGHT FORMS OF CHINESE, REMARKABLE AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY PUBLICATIONS, THERE ARE 40 ADULT MEASURES AND 20 PEDIATRIC MEASURES DEVELOP OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS THE PROMISE INCLUDES A SUPPORT CENTER THAT IS SUPPORTING OVER 100 STUDIES FROM THE GET GO THE GROUP THAT MANAGED THIS PROGRAM REALIZE YOU CAN HAVE A FABULOUS LOSS TOOL AND IF NOBODY KNOWS ABOUT IT YOU WASTED YOUR MONEY. OUTREACH HAS BEEN AN EMPHASIS DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROGRAM AN EXTERNALLY TO MAKE CLINICAL INVESTIGATORS AWARE OF THE PROGRAM OR OF THE TOOL AND WHAT IT CAN DO AS WELL AS NIH STAFF, SO THAT NIH STAFF CAN BE -- SERVE AS TO PER WAIT THE USE OF A TOOL. THIS PROVIDES A SENSE OF THE USE OF IT. NOW IN A PHASE OF INTEGRATING A PROMISE INTO A VARIETY OF SITUATIONS TO ENABLE IT TO BE USED MORE EFFECTIVELY. I THINK THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF REALLY A TOOL THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY NAIC. AS IT IS, IT MEASURES PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES ACROSS A VARIETY OF STATES PAIN, FATIGUE, MANY OTHER ASPECTS. (OFF MIC) >> I'M SORRY? THE USERS I AM NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU SPECIFIC CLINICAL STUDIES WHERE THIS IS BEING USED. THE -- THIS GROUP OF 100 STUDIES IS IC SUPPORTED CLINICAL STUDIES, NON-NIH SUPPORTED STUDIES, PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES ARE USING THIS. MARY, I MIGHT ASK YOU. OKAY. (OFF MIC) >> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID. NOW CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> SO EPIC COVERS AN ESTIMATE OF 50,000 PATIENTS NOW. SO HOW DID IT IMPACT MY CHART? BECAUSE THAT'S THE INTERFACE FOR THE PATIENTS. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. AND I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE ANSWER IS. I WILL LOOK TO MARY IN MY OFFICE TO SEE WHETHER SHE CAN ANSWER THAT BUT (OFF MIC) >> OKAY. MY CHART IS AN EXAMPLE. IT'S NOT ACTUALLY A BASIS FOR MY CHART. Q. ONE OF THE EMPHASIS OF THE GROUP THAT HAS -- IS MANAGING THE PROGRAM IS WORKING, TRYING TO WORK CLOSELY WITH FDA TO -- FOR FDA TO ACCEPT PROMISE AS A SURROGATE MEASURE OF PATIENT OUTCOMES AND CLINICAL TRIALS. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THEM FOR. SO I GUESS I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT I POINTED OUT PROMISE -- THE REASON THAT WE FEEL PROMISE HAS BEEN A SUCCESS IS NOT ONLY BECAUSE OF THE VERY COLLABORATIVE SCIENTISTS THAT HAVE BEEN ENGAGED IN DEVELOPING THE TOOL OVER TEN YEARS TO MAKE IT ROBUST AND MAKING IT USEFUL, BUT REALLY THE OUTREACH THAT HAS GONE ON HAS BEEN A CRITICAL FACTOR IN THE USE OF THE TOOLS TO DATE. WE HAVE TRIED TO LEARN FROM PROMISE AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH OTHER PROGRAMS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE INVESTMENTS WE MAKE IN TOOL DEVELOPMENT ARE USEFUL AS POSSIBLE. I WILL MENTION BRIEFLY EPIGENOMICS AS ANOTHER PROGRAM IN WHICH THE POINT HERE IS TO HIGHLIGHT THE IMPACT STRATEGIC PLANNING CAN HAVE ON PROGRAMS DEVELOPMENT SO THE EPIGENOMICS PROGRAM BEGAN AS CONCEPT THROUGH THE EARLY PHASES OF PLANNING AND EPIGENETICS. AND THE IDEA EXPRESSED AT THAT TIME WAS TO EXPLORE EPIGENETIC MECHANISMS UNDERLYING MANY DISEASES. AND APPRECIATE HOW APPEALING THAT WAS, WE CAN ALL IMAGINE EPIGENETIC MECHANISMS ARE IMPORTANT FOR MANY DISEASES. THE QUESTION IS WHAT WAS BEING DONE AND WHAT WERE SPECIFIC CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS. THE PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS AT THE TIME WAS QUITE INSTRUMENTAL IN SHAPING THE PROGRAM THAT EVENTUALLY CAME OUT OF IT. AND THIS IS TEXT IS TOO SMALL TO READ, YOU MIGHT LOOK IN YOUR SLIDES LATER, BUT A MAJOR FINDING WAS THIS LITTLE BLUSH HERE WHICH ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW IS THAT THIS BAR REPRESENTS FUNDING ON EPIGENETICS RESEARCH, SINGLE LOCI, BY THE NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTION. THIS REPRESENTS THE FUNDING IN EPIGENETICS RESEARCH ACROSS THE OTHER INSTITUTES. THERE WAS A SENSE THAT IT WAS FAIRLY EASY AT THE TIME TO LOOK AT EPIGENOME, GENOME WIDE CHANGES IN EPIGENETICS AND SINGLE LOCI IN CANCER CELLS. QUITE DIFFICULT TO DO THAT, IN NON-CANCER CELLS AT THE TIME. AND SO THERE WAS A SENSE AND ALREADY WELL ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME EPIGENETIC MODIFICATIONS WERE IMPORTANT IN CANCER BUT IT WAS NOT WELL ESTABLISHED FOR OTHER DISEASES AND OTHER GAN SYSTEMS THAT OTHER ICs CARED ABOUT. SO ONE OF THE EMPHASIS THAT CAME OUT OF THIS WAS THAT THERE WAS A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE EPIGENETIC MODIFICATIONS THAT OCCUR IN NON-CANCER DISEASES BUT ALSO WHAT CAME FROM THE PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS WAS A SENSE THAT GENOME WIDE ANALYSIS OF EPIGENETIC WAS VERY DIFFICULT AT THE TIME. SO AGAIN, THIS WAS 2006 THAT THIS PLANNING PROCESS HAPPENED. SO HOW COULD COMMON FUND INVESTMENTS MAKE IT EASIER TO LOOK ACROSS THE GENOME IN PRIMARY CELLS, HUMAN CELLS AND TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE EPIGENOME CHANGES ACROSS CELL TYPES AND HEALTH VERSUS DISEASE. AS A RESULT OF THIS PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS LOOKING AT WHERE THE NIH WAS MAKING INVESTMENTS WHAT WAS IT INVESTING IN, PRIMARILY RO-1 FUNDED RESEARCH NOTHING COORDINATED. WHAT CAME OUT OF THIS WAS A SENSE HUMAN CELLS NEED TO BE STUDIED, HUMAN PRIMARY CELLS NEED TO BE STUDIED AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT CROSS THE GENOME EPIGENETIC MARKS. SO THE PROGRAM THAT ULTIMATELY WAS DEVELOPED HAD A SIGNIFICANT TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT COMPONENT AND HAD MAPPING CENTERS LOOKING AT HUMAN CELLS AND VARIETY OF PRIMARY HUMAN CELLS ACROSS THE GENOME. THERE WAS A DATA COORDINATION CENTER WITH NCBI TO HOUSE THE DATA AND MAKE DATA TOOLS ROBUST FOR THE AVERAGE USER. THERE WAS AN EMPHASIS ON IN VIVO EPIGENETIC IMAGING, CAN WE LOOK AT THE EPIGENOME AND TELL THESE DISEASE CELLS VERSUS HEALTHY CELLS. THERE WAS A VERY BASIC DISCOVERY COMPONENT OF THE PROGRAM RECOGNIZING THAT WE PROBABLY DIDN'T KNOW ALL OF THE EPIGENETIC MARKS AT THE TIME. SO THIS INITIATIVE ALLOWED (INAUDIBLE) TO BE DISCOVERED. THE COORDINATION ACROSS THE INSTITUTES WHO ARE MANAGING EACH OF THESE INITIATIVES WAS REMARKABLE AND ROBUST AND THEY WERE ALL FOCUSED ON WHAT IS THE CORRELATION BETWEEN EPIGENOMIC CHANGES AND HEALTH AND DISEASE. THIS PROGRAM ALSO HAD A CHALLENGE TO COMMUNICATE ABOUT THE OUTCOMES OF THE PROGRAM TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY, WE RECEIVED ADVICE FROM AN EXTERNAL GROUP OF SCIENTISTS SAYING THIS IS REALLY BEAUTIFUL STUFF THAT YOU'RE DOING BUT ONLY YOU GUYS CAN USE IT. SO IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE PROGRAM, DATA WERE SO COMPLEX AND PRESENTED IN A RATHER DIFFICULT FORMAT THAT IN THE LATTER PART OF THE PROGRAM THEY HAD A SIGNIFICANT FOCUS ON MAKING THE DATA USER FRIENDLY. RECOGNIZING PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS DATA BE USEFUL WERE NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY BE BIG EPIGENOMICS EXPERTS. SO THAT WAS AN EXAMPLE HOW CONTINUOUS FEEDBACK FROM THE USER COMMUNITY HELPED TO SHAPE THE PROGRAM AND MAKE IT MORE USEFUL. I SHOW THIS SLIDE TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT ONE OF OUR TRANS-NIH WORKING GROUPS LOOKS LIKE. THIS IS THE EPIGENOMICS WORKING GROUP, IT HAS BEEN A PARTICULARLY ROBUST GROUP OF PEOPLE INTERESTED IN THE QUESTION OF THE PROGRAM BUT IT'S NOT REALLY THAT ATYPICAL. IT GIVES YOU A SENSE OF THE COMPLEXITY OF PEOPLE THAT WE DEAL WITH AND WHO WE TRY TO GET INPUT FROM IN A USEFUL WAY TO MAKE SURE THE PROGRAMS ARE USEFUL TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY THAT EACH OF THOSE PEOPLE REPRESENT. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? I GOT FIVE MINUTES, WE COVERED MOST OF WHAT THE EVALUATION IS GOING TO COVER. >> NOT ABOUT THAT SPECIFICALLY BUT SORT OF AN OVERALL, TOWARDS THE BEGINNING YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE LIKE 70 STAFF ACROSS NIH THAT CONTRIBUTE AT LEAST 50% TO MANAGE 30 PROGRAMS AN LATER YOU WERE SHOWING THE DIAGRAM OF COMPLEXITY, I THINK YOU EXPLAINED THE COMPLEXITY IN THE LAST ONE, SHOWING HOW MANY DIFFERENT GROUPS INVOLVED IN ONE PROJECT. I GUESS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT BE FOR THE MANAGEMENT GROUP EVALUATING IS IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE NUMBER, 70 MORE THAN 30 PROJECTS THAT SEEMS VERY TOP HEAVY. AND A LOT OF NIH STAFF RESOURCES IN ADDITION TO FINANCIAL RESOURCES. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT COMPARES WITH OTHER KINDS OF NIH GRANTS. MY GUESS IS THAT'S MORE NIH STAFF INVESTMENT PER PROJECT. >> ACTUALLY NOT. SO THE DOLLARS THAT ARE SPENT ON NIH STAFF IS PRETHETY TYPICAL FOR NIH WIDE. YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THE STAFF THAT MANAGE OUR PROGRAMS THAT ARE IN THAT GROUP ARE LARGELY PROGRAM STAFF. SO SCIENTIFIC STAFF ENGAGED IN OVERSIGHT. SO IT DOESN'T INCLUDE ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT STAFF THAT PROVIDES SUPPORT FOR ALL THE INSTITUTES. WE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF INSTITUTE STAFF. SO I WOULD SAY THAT THE SCIENTIFIC OVERSIGHT FOR OUR PROGRAMS IS COMPLEX ENOUGH THAT IT REQUIRES MORE EFFORT THAN TYPICAL IC PROGRAM. BUT WE DON'T HAVE THE FULL NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT IC WOULD HAVE SO I MENTION WE HAVE TWO BUDGET PEOPLE FOR THIS LEVEL AND NHGRI IS ABOUT THE SAME BUDGET AS THE COMMON FUND BUT THEY HAVE PROBABLY TEN BUDGET PEOPLE IN THEIR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICE, ABOUT 16 PEOPLE, WE HAVE 3. THERE'S SORT OF -- OFF THERE. LET ME TELL YOU VERY QUICKLY THE QUESTIONS FOR THE EVALUATION. REALLY IS ABOUT ARE OUR PROCESSES WORKING OPTIMALLY TO IDENTIFY THE BROAD PROGRAM AREA WHERE TRANSFORMATION IS NEEDED IF POSSIBLE, ARE WE ARTICULATING SPECIFIC GOALS AND MANAGING THE PROGRAM TO ACHIEVE THOSE GOALS. ARE WE ADAPTABLE ENOUGH, ARE WE ABLE NOW IN OUR CURRENT CONFIGURATION TO ASSESS WHETHER WE'RE MEETING THE PROGRAM OBJECTIVES. AND ONE OF THE QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMITTEE WILL BE TO ASSESS NIH-WIDE WHETHER THE PARTNERSHIPS THAT WE PUT IN PLACE ARE ADEQUATE TO SUPPORT PROGRAM MANAGEMENT. THEY ARE BIG COMPLEX PROGRAMS, IS THE EFFORT WORTH IT, ARE THEY TOO COMPLEX, YOU HAVE TOO MANY PEOPLE INVOLVED. THAT LIST OF PEOPLE FOR EPIGENETICS OF THIS GROUP OF PEOPLE THEY MEET WITH SOME FREQUENCY TO PROVIDE INPUT. THERE ARE FIVE PEOPLE IN THIS LIST THAT ARE INVOLVED IN IT HIGH LEVELS OVERSEE ALL THE AWARDS. IS THAT TOO MANY, IS IT NOT ENOUGH? SO THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE HAVE FOR OUR EVALUATION. SO THIS IS THE LAST SLIDE JUST POINTING OUT THAT WE DO SEE THAT THIS IS A CORE QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL TO ADDRESS IN HELPING US TO DETERMINE WHAT OPTIMAL POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES DPCPSI ARE WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMON FUND. SO I'M AT 4 O'CLOCK. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY -- QUESTIONS. JIM. (OFF MIC) >> I THINK I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE SHOWN ALREADY. >> I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY I FORGOT THIS SLIDE WAS HERE. SO WE -- JIM JUST SAID IT. WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE AN INTERIM REPORT ON THE PLANNING PROCESS IN JANUARY AND THEN A MORE FULL DISCUSSION IN JUNE ABOUT THE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNANCE PROCESSES. THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? >> NOT A QUESTION BUT JUST A COMMENT. I ALWAYS THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD THE COMMON FUND PROGRAM BUT THIS HAS BEEN SO CLEAR AND SO WELL PRESENTED THAT I HAVE A BETTER APPRECIATION FOR IT. THANKS, IT WAS A GOOD JOB. >> THANK YOU. >> HAVING A COMMON FUND IS A VERY SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY TO DO THINGS THAT WE COULDN'T DO BEFORE AT TEN YEARS WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TOUCHING BASE WITH FOLKS AND EVERYONE THINKS WE'RE DOING IT THE RIGHT WAY OR THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME MODIFICATION TO GET THE BEST IMPACT. >> JIM, MAYBE YOU CAN POINT OUT THERE ARE SOME PARTS OF THIS THAT ARE -- STATUTORY BUT IT'S MANDATED BY THE REFORM ACT AND THE REFORM ACT FOR NIH. I GUESS I'M ASKING THE BOUNDARIES OF WHAT WE CAN ASK ABOUT TALK ABOUT MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON. THERE MAYBE SOME THING WHICH IS BECAUSE IT'S LAW, WE CAN'T DO THAT. OTHER THINGS WHICH WE HAVE MORE FREEDOM. DO YOU HAVE SOME SENSE OF THAT? >> WE'RE WITH THE GROUP WE'LL GO THROUGH WHAT OUR LEGAL LIMITATIONS ARE AND THEN THE POLICIES THAT WE PUT IN PLACE TO INTERPRET HOW TO USE THE FUND THEN GO OVER WHAT IS SUCCESSFUL AND HEAR FROM PEOPLE INVOLVED ABOUT WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'TN'T WORK. THE THINGS WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN, THIS IS A LOT OF WORK. WE CAN DO VERY SPECIAL THINGS WITH IT BUT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN ENTHUSIASM FOR THIS FOR THE NEXT TEN YEARS. SO THAT'S PART REAFFIRMING ARE WE DOING THIS IN A WAY THAT REALLY ENGAGES EVERYONE. (OFF MIC) >> OKAY. SO WE HAVE APPROVAL TO USE OUR OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. SO I WANT TO FINISH UP WITH A TOPIC AND I WILL BE BRIEF AND LOOK FOR YOUR INPUT. THIS IS TO LET YOU KNOW ABOUT A CONCERN THAT'S DEVELOPED OVER THE LAST YEAR OR MORE, PROBABLY LONGER STAND BUT THERE'S ACTIVE INTEREST IN THE REPRODUCIBILITY TRANSPARENCY OF RESEARCH RESULTS SO I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT WHERE THE THIS CONCERN CAME FROM, WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WITHIN NIH AND THEN ONE OF THE IMMEDIATE OUTCOMES IS TO SHARE WHAT'S BEEN THOUGHT ABOUT HERE WITH ALL THE ADVISORY COUNCIL SO YOU CAN TAKE THIS INFORMATION BACK TO YOUR COMMUNITIES AND TRY AND CREATE INTEREST THAT THIS IS A CONCERN THAT WE ALL NEED TO WORK ON AND THEN ALSO TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON ADDITIONAL IDEAS AND PRIORITIES HOW THE APPROACH THIS. I WALK AWAY TO LOT OF DEPTH. BUT HERE IS BACKGROUND. FOR YEARS NOW THERE'S BEEN CONCERN ABOUT THE REPRODUCIBILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF RESEARCH FINDINGS, THERE'S BEEN WRITTEN ON THIS RECENTLY, IT OCCURS IN ALL AREAS OF SCIENCE, CLINICAL OR BASIC BUT FOCUS IS PRE-CLINICAL STUDIES RESULTS OF WHICH ARE USED TO INFORM DESIGN OF HUMAN STUDIES BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL RISK THERE AND ALSO THE REALLY PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES THE WASTE OF INVESTMENT WHEN THEY TRY AND REPRODUCE A STUDY THAT CAN'T BE REPRODUCED. SO I SENT TO YOU THESE PUBLICATIONS AN MAYBE SOME LOOKED, THERE ARE COMMENTARY, SOME ARE RESEARCH ARE REVIEW ARTICLES. BUT THEY BASICALLY MAKE THE CASE THERE IS A HIGH PERCENTAGE OF WHAT'S PUBLISHED FROM PRE-CLINICAL ANIMAL STUDIES, THAT CANNOT BE DUPLICATED BY OTHERS AND PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES WHEN TRYING TO PURSUE A DRUG TARGET OR COMPOUND. HERE IS EVIDENCE FROM A PUBLICATION FROM THE GROUP AT BAYER IN TUAN. AND THEY REVIEWED THEIR OWN PORTFOLIO OF INTERNAL PROJECT DEVELOPMENTS WHERE THEY TOOK CONCEPTS, FINDINGS FROM THE LITERATURE, TRIED TO REPRODUCE THEM IN HOUSE SO THEY CAN BEGIN A RESEARCH PROGRAM TOWARDS THERAPEUTIC AND THEY FOUND 65% OF THE FINDINGS THAT THEY WOULD BASE A PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ON COULDN'T BE REPRODUCEDDED. THAT IS A CONCERN. WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL REASONS FOR THAT? THIS IS FROM THE SAME -- EARLIER STUDY. WHICH LOOKS SPECIFICALLY -- I HAVE TO SAY THE TWO LEAD INSTITUTES ON THIS HAVE BEEN NINDS, STORY LANDIS AN HAROLD VARMUS HAVE BECOME CONCERNED BECAUSE OF THEIR INSTITUTES ARE INTERESTED IN TRANSLATING FINDINGS TO THERAPEUTIC. PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THAT SO THIS IS NOT HELPING. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE FROM ATTEMPTS TO TRANSLATE EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS IN MICE TO REPRODUCE THEM TO DEVELOP FOR HUMAN STUDIES. HERE ARE EXAMPLES OF PROBLEMS, TRANSGENIC MODEL USED FOR STROKE STUDIES, 157 PUBLICATIONS REVIEWED ONLY THREE WERE INVESTIGATORS BLIND TO THE RESULTS OF -- WHICH ANIMAL THEY WERE LOOKING AT SO IF YOU SET A GRADUATE STUDENT OUT WHO KNEW THOSE WERE TREATED AND THOSE WEREN'T TREATED, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INHERENT MISINTERPRETATION OR BIAS. THAT'S GENERALLY TRUE WITH MANY STUDY AREAS. ALSO NONE OF THE STUDIES HAD A PRE-DETERMINED STATISTICAL POWERING DONE BELIEVE IT OR NOT. WHAT ARE OTHER FININGS? THIS IS ANOTHER PAPER WHICH THE AUTHORS LOOKED AT PUBLICATIONS THAT OCCURRED IN SO CALLED HIGH IMPACT JOURNALS, CELL NATURE SCIENCE. AND PAPERS CITED AT LEAST 500 TIMES SO HIGHLY CITED PAPERS AND PRESUMABLY HIGHLY REGARDED JOURNALS THAT PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES ATTEMPTED TO TRANSLATE INTO HUMAN PIPELINE STUDIES, THEY FOUND THE SAME METHOD LOGIC PROBLEMS AT THE TOP, ONLY 60% HAD A DOSE RESPONSE CURVE THAT DEVELOPED A CONCEPT OF A FINDING. 20% WERE THE INVESTIGATORS BLINDED TO WHAT THEY WERE GOING TO SEE FROM ANIMAL STUDIES. SO A LOT OF PROBLEMS THE WAY STUDIES ARE SET UP THAT MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO TRANSLATE INTO A PRE-HUMAN STUDY SO METHOD LOGIC QUALITY PROBLEMS IN ANIMAL STUDIES, THEY'RE BIOLOGICAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SPECIES, WE KNOW ABOUT STRAINS OF MICE, YOU COULD GET A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION AND JUMP TO PLANNING A HUMAN STUDY FOR THAT WHICH MAY NOT BE CORRECT. THERE IS INSUFFICIENT REPORTING ABOUT DETAILS OF THE STUDIES, I SHOWED YOU EXAMPLE, LACK OF DOSE RESPONSE, LACK OF BLINDING, INTERPRETATION OF FINDINGS. (OFF MIC) >> IT'S BOTH BUT IF YOU WERE A GLAXO AND WANTED TO USE THAT CELL PAIN TORE SET UP AND DEVELOP A PROGRAM YOU DON'T HAVE THE DATA. (OFF MIC) >> I'M SORRY, WE NEED TO USE THE MICS. >> MAYBE OBVIOUS BUT EDITORS BARE SOME RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT'S ACCIDENTAL THOUGH IT'S PERCENTAGE TO REQUIRE THE AUTHORS TO PUT IN THE RANDOMIZATION THEY USE -- HAD BLINDED THEIR EVALUATOR OR WHATEVER WAS ON THE SLIDES WHEN DOING A QUANTITATION, I LOOK AND SAY I'M NOT SURE I WOULD HAVE MADE A SPECIFIC STATEMENT AND DESCRIBE METHODOLOGY OF THE BLINDED EVALUATION BY THE PEOPLE WHO DID THE QUANTIFICATION. THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WASN'T DONE CORRECTLY. THAT SEEMEDS LIKE IT CAN BE CLEANED UP IN A HURRY. THE ISSUES ABOUT NOT DOING DOSE RESPONSE AND BEING ARBITRARY ABOUT A DOSE. >> SO YOU HOLD THE JOURNALIST TO A HIGHER STANDARD. >> JUST AS JOURNALS HAVE SPECIFIC THINGS THEY REQUEST OR REQUIRE US TO DO, SOME SAY WE WILL HAVE INDEPENDENT STATISTICIAN EVALUATE THESE ALREADY REQUEST AS REVIEWER, YOU CAN HAVE THEM SAY THERE SHOULD BE -- THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO DESCRIBE RANDOMIZATION TECHNIQUES, BLINDING, ET CETERA SO IT MAKES IT INTO THE FOOT NOTES. >> ON THE OTHER HAND LACK OF POWER ANALYSES IS REFLECTED IN THE LITERATURE AND THERE'S A META ANALYSIS THESE NATURE NEUROSCIENCE, A FEW MONTHS AGO, DOCUMENTING THE POWER AND TITLE OF THE ARTICLE IS POWER FAILURE, HOW LACK OF POWER IS OCCURRING IN NEUROSCIENCE. THEY TOOK A YEAR'S WORTH OF PAPERS PUBLISHED IN NEUROSCIENCE T BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THE AVERAGE POWER IS BETWEEN 8 AND 21% ACROSS THE 150 STUDIES. IT REALLY IS AN ENDEMIC PROBLEM. >> SO DO PEOPLE -- MOST GRADUATE STUDENTS HAVE TRAINING IN STATISTIC? I THINK WE HAVE SOME SYSTEMIC METHOD APPROACH PROBLEMS HERE. >> MICROPHONE. >> I THINK THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE IN THE FIELD. WHEN I WAS TRAINED WE DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T TAKE STATISTICS COURSES BUT CERTAINLY THE LAST 15, 20 YEARS, GRAND REVIEWS REQUIRE YOU TO -- I THINK REVIEWERS, NIH REVIEWERS AND THEN WRITING THE THE GRANT, THERE'S ALWAYS STATISTICAL SECTION AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF A COMMUNITY, SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY TO HOLD US ALL TO THE STANDARDS THAT THE POWER ANALYSIS SHOULD BE IN THE GRANT, IT SHOULD BE IN THE PAPER AS WELL AND YOU HAVE GOT -- IF IT IS YOU'RE TEACHING STUDENTS THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT AND THEY SHOULD TAKE THIS. BUT I HAVE SEEN A MAJOR CHANGE. SO WHEN WERE THOSE PAPERS PUBLISHED AND THAT'S THE ISSUE. I THINK EVEN MOUSE STUDIES, I WORK IN PRIMATES WHERE IT'S HARD TO GET YOU DO POWER ANALYSIS AND YOU SAY MY GOD, AM I GOING TO BE ABLE TO FUND THOSE 6 OR 8 ANIMALS BUT YOU HAVE TO. WITH MICE -- YOU CAN PAY FOR THE -- IT WAS A QUESTION OF A DOZEN MICE OR TEN MICE YOU CAN DO THAT. BUT I THINK THERE'S BEEN A SEE CHANGE AND I KNOW AT LEAST IN OUR INSTITUTION STUDENTS ARE STATISTICS AND BIOSTATISTICS AND INFORMATICS NOW PART OF ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE TO -- THEY'RE QUIZZED ON, ON THEIR ORALS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK WE HAVE TO HOLD EVERYONE ACCOUNTABLE. EDITORS NIH, REVIEWERS. >> TWO COMMENTS. ONE, A LOT OF -- USE CAN STATISTICAL PROGRAMS NOW WHERE IT GOES FROM THE EITHER A PARAMETRIC STATISTIC DEPENDING THEY DON'T KNOW MUCH MORE THAN WHICH BUTTON TO PRESS. NUMBER 1. DESPITE THE FACT I AGREE WE INCREASE THE TRAINING OR AT LEAST THE AVAILABILITY OF TRAINING. THE SECOND THING IS, I HOLE SENIOR OFFICER RESPONSIBLE FOR OMISSIONS. IF 80% OF THE PAPERS HAVE INADEQUATE STATISTICAL OR POWER DESCRIPTIONS, THAT IS EDITORIAL ISSUE. IT MAYBE THAT IT'S JUST TERRIBLY AWFUL WITHIN THE LABS BUT ESPECIALLY IN TIMES THEY SAY GET THE PAPER DOWN TO 3,000 WORDS IF YOU WANT IT, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT GOES AWAY. >> IT'S THE INVESTIGATOR, REVIEWER, THE JOURNAL. >> IF 80% GET IN WITHOUT THE EDITORS HAVE GOT TO BE MORE DEFINITIVE AS THEY ARE WITH OTHER THINGS. WHERE THEY SAY THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. >> SO I AGREE WITH THAT. THE SCARY PART TO ME IS IT SHOULDN'T EVEN GET TO THE JOURNAL LIKE THAT. YOU CAN BLAME REVIEWER, BLAME THE EDITOR AND EVERYBODY HOLDS RESPONSIBILITY BUT IF ACTUAL PAPERS GET THERE WITHOUT THAT STUFF THERE, BY OMISSION OR CO-MISSION, THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM AND WORRIES ME. IT'S NOT JUST THE SAMPLE NUMBER, THE BLINDNESS RANDOMIZATION, THE ONE THING THAT STRUCK ME IN ALL THE PAPERS YOU SAID WAS A -- ANOTHER SYMPTOM OF A PROBLEM IN TERMS OF INTERPRETATION, PATHOLOGIES WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT ANIMAL MODELS AND YOU HAVE DYI APPROACH OF GRADUATE STUDENT OR POST DOC WITH NO BACKGROUND ANIMAL BIOLOGY OR PATHOLOGY DOING ANALYSIS, AND IDENTIFYING TISSUES, LET ALONE MISINTERPRETING AN IT GETS INTO THE JOURNAL AND PUBLISHED WHICH CAUSES RETRACTIONS LATER. IT WASN'T EVEN POINTED OUT IN THESE PAPERS AS AN ISSUE SO SOMETHING TO LOOK AT. >> SO I'M HEARING INTEREST IN THE ISSUE. >> I WOULD THINK THAT PROBABLY MOST STUDIES RECEIVED EXTERNAL FUNDING. PROBABLY FAIR NUMBER OF THEM FROM NIH AND IF IT WERE JUST NOT REPORTING ON SOMETHING OR HAPPENED DURING THE STUDY, THERE MIGHT ALSO BE AN ISSUE OF WHEN PEOPLE MAKE PROPOSAL FOR FUNDING IF THEY HAVEN'T PUT IN THERE ABOUT THE STATISTICAL POWER AND THAT KIND OF THING THAT SHOULD BE PICKED UP BY FUNDING AENCITY TOO WHEN APPLICATIONS ARE PUT IN. >> I THOUGHT ABOUT THAT AND THERE CAN BE A DISCONNECT. WHAT YOU WRITE IN THE GRANT MAY NOT GET TRANSLATED TO THE LAB WHERE I HEARD PEOPLE SAY MY GRANT IS ESSAY, AN ESSAY CONTEST AT REVIEW AND WHEN YOU GET TO THE LAB YOU DO IT YOUR WAY WHICH IS THE SECOND SCARY THING TO ME TOO. HOW DO YOU CONTROL FOR THAT. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER HAND ON POSITIVE SIDE, EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID, WHEN YOU WRITE A GRANT APPLICATION BECAUSE YOU'RE VERY ATTENTIVE YOU WILL PUT THOSE THINGS IN BECAUSE IT WILL BE REVIEWED APPROPRIATELY, IN OUR CASE FUNDED UNLESS YOU HAVE IT THERE. THAT SEEMS LIKE A GOOD MODEL, WHAT ABOUT APPLYING THE THE SAME CONCEPT AT THE LEVEL OF THE MANUSCRIPT REVIEW? WHY NOT BE SO CONCERNED IF IT'S PUBLISH OR PERISH, SOMETIMES PUBLISH AND PERISH SO IF YOU CAN'T PUBLIC BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THESE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SURVIVE. THERE'S NO CONSEQUENCES RIGHT NOW AT THE END OF IT. >> ONE LAST COMMENT IN TERMS OF SUGGESTIONS WOULD BE THAT IF NECESSARY THINKING ABOUT THE CONSTRAINTS ON -- AND SOMETIMES METHODOLOGY INSCRIPTION -- DESCRIPTIONS ARE RELATIVELY LONG, THESE ARE KIND OF THINGS IN SUBMISSION, FOR PLACE ON THE WEB FOR COMPANIES WHO WANT TO REPLICATE OR ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO REPLICATE SOMETHING WITHOUT HAVING SOMETHING FORCES THE STUDENT TO THINK GEE, I DON'T HAVE ROOM SO I'LL TOSS THIS OUT BECAUSE PAPERS I READ DIDN'T HAVE IT EITHER AND MAYBE THERE'S SOME OF THAT COPYING TO GET INTO THE SIZE HIGH PROFILE JOURNAL WANT. >> I MISSED THE CONCEPT. YOU SAY -- >> IT MAYBE THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF BLINDING OR RANDOMIZATION OR POWER CALCULATION -- >> SORRY THE DOSE RESPONSE MAY ENUP IN A SUPPLEMENTARY PIECE BUT AVAILABLE TO READERS AS OPPOSED TO THE 3,000 WORDS. >> I SEE. SO IT'S THE JOURNAL LIMITATIONS THAT KEEP THE DETAIL OUT. >> CONTRIBUTES. >> DON'T KNOW. >> IN ADDITION AS MENTIONED IN THE PAPER THE NEGATIVE DATA BECAUSE WHO CAN PUBLISH NEGATIVE DATA? THE NEGATIVE DATA IN MANY CASES MORE IMPORTANT. SO OF COURSE I CAN SEE THAT NOT IN THE PAPER BUT SUPPLEMENTAL PAPER IN THE JOURNAL IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR THIS. >> >> THAT BECAME A CONCERN FOR NCI WHEN THEY REALIZED HOW MANY NEGATIVE CHEMOTHERAPEUTIC DRUG STUDIES THEY WERE FUNDING. AND THEN IT NEVER GOT PUBLISHED. AND SOMEBODY ELSE DID THE SAME THING, THERE MIGHT BE A TOXICITY CASE IN THE FIRST ONE SO NEGATIVE DATA IS VALUABLE TOO. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS CASE OF THE GUY NAMED HARKEN WHO IS ONE OF THE -- THINK THE FIRST PERSON PUT UNDER HOUSE AWE REST FOR A PRESS RELEASE THAT IN FACT WAS SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE, DID NOT OVERSTATE BUT THEY SAID THEY GOT -- IN THE STUDY IT WAS AN INTERFERON GAMMA STUDY, AND HE WAS THE CSO OF A COMPANY AND THEY DID A STUDY IN 300 PATIENTS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD HELP WITH PULMONARY FIBROSIS. TURNED OUT THE P VALUE WAS .08 INITIALLY AND THEY DID DIGGING FURTHER AND IF THEY LOOK AT THE MILD CASES AND SURVIVORSHIP AND GOT A P VALUE OF TEN TO THE MINUS 6 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THEY PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE, THIS COULD BE A BIG ISSUE FOR A COMPANY, MAKE A LOT OF MONEY ON THIS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND THE GUY -- IT'S NOT FEDERAL COURT. AND GUYS ARGUMENT, IF I WERE JUST AN VISITOR AND I PUT OUT A PAPER THEN NOBODY WOULD BE DOWN MY THROAT, EVERYBODY LINE THIS HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. >> I WOULD SAY THEY OUGHT TO BE DOWN HIS THROAT THAT WAY. THE OVERALL STUDY DID NOT MEET PRIMARY PRE-SPECIFIED OUTCOME. THEY DID A COUPLE AND I DON'T THINK THEY WERE PRESPECIFIED SPLIT UP SEVERITIES, GOT A SIGNIFICANCE, STUDY WASN'T POWERED FOR THAT, IT'S CHAPTER ONE, WHAT WE FEATURED STUDENTS ABOUT DESIGN, HE PUT OUT A PRESS RELEASE AS CSO OF THE COMPANY, THERE WAS A 70% BETTER OUTCOME WITH THIS DRUG. OFF SECONDARY NOT PRE-SPECIFIED WITH A NEGATIVE PRIMER. YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE GOT TON SAY ANYTHING. SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT GOING TO JAIL OR NOT BUT OUR KIDS -- I SHOULDN'T SAY KIDS ANY MORE, THEY DONE LOOK LIKE KIDS NOW. OUR PEOPLE, ABSOLUTELY FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKES AND NEVER GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE DISCUSS HERE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT DOES SOMETHING LIKE THAT BUT THAT IS >> IT'S VERY INTERESTING. >> IF IT WERE A PI AT AN INSTITUTION, MAYBE A PAPER WOULDN'T BE RETRACTED. >> YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN THAT OUR STUDENTS SHOULD BE TRAIN SOD THEY KNOW THAT'S A THIRD RAIL. >> THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES TO THIS ISSUE THAT GO BEYOND GETTING THE SCIENCE RIGHT. IT'S A VERY INTERESTING FLOWCHART TEST. >> WE HAVE HEIGHTENED AWARENESS OF THE ISSUE. LET ME EXPLAIN A LITTLE WHAT NIH IS STARTING TO DO. THERE WERE TWO WORKSHOPS HELD OR SEVERAL BY NCI AND NINDS LAST YEAR. ONE YOU COULD FIND IN NATURE IN OCTOBER. OPTIMIZING PREDICTIVE VALUE OF PRE-CLINICAL RESEARCH AND WHY ISN'T IT. THE TOPIC HAS BEEN DISCUSSED SEVERAL TIMES WITH IC DIRECTORS, FRANCIS SET UP A GROUP, FRANCIS WITH HAROLD AND STORY AND OTHERS. RICHARD HODES IN AGING INTERESTED IN THIS, TOM INSELL TO THINK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO, THEY BROUGHT BACK RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE IC DIRECTORS AND THEIR DELIBERATIONS ARE THAT SOME OF THE REASON FOR THIS IS JUST POOR TRAINING. PEOPLE WHAT'S EXPECTED FROM THE SCIENCE. HOW YOU DO AN EXPERIMENT. POOR EVALUATION OF OUTCOMES. REWARD INCENTIVE, PUBLIC OR PERISH SO I'LL NEED SEVERAL MORE PAPERS RIGHT AWAY, THAT SORT OF THING, IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN DO ABOUT IT WITHIN NIH. THERE'S MORE SLIDES ABOUT SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS, WHAT JOURNAL EDITORS ARE STARTING TO DO. I WANT TO GO THROUGH THEM QUICKLY BUT OUR PURPOSE IS TO RAISE AWARENESS OF THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE, GET SOME FEEDBACK. TO ENHANCE FORMAL TRAINING. THINGS ADDRESSING IMPROVING THE EVALUATIONS OF GRANT APPLICATION S. NCI N HEALTHCAREA THINKING ABOUT ADOPTING A PROGRAM CALLED THE OUTSTANDING INVESTIGATOR AWAR, A LONGER TERM AWARD THAT PROVIDES PEOPLE WITH A GOOD TRACK RECORD TO EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO BE FUNNED MORE MORE YEARS SO THERE ISN'T A PERVERSE INCENTIVE TO TURN AROUND INADEQUATE PAPERS QUICKLY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. THE GROUP RECOMMENDATION IS TO BRING TO YOU AND START TO TALK ABOUT IT. THE SECOND WAS WE DEVELOP EXPERIMENT A.M. DESIGN TRAINING -- EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN TRAINING MODULES FOR TRAINEES, WE'RE DOING THAT INTRAMURAL TRAINING PROGRAM AND ONCE UNITS LOOK GOOD WE'LL MAKE THOSE AVAILABLE TO EXTRAMURAL TRAINEES AS WELL. OR HAVE MANDATORY COMPONENTS OF TRAINING GRANTS. HOW DO YOU DO AN EXPERIMENT, HOW DO YOU SET IT UP AND INTERPRET PROPERLY. THIRD RECOMMENDATION FOR EVALUATION. A MORE DETAILED WAY OF ASKING OUR REVIEWERS TO LOOK AT WHAT IS THIS PERSON TRYING TO DO, ARE THEY COOING IT VALID WAY AND WILL RESULTS BE INTERPRETABLE AND HOLD TO THAT STANDARD WHEN GRANT IS REVIEWED. ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION NINDS STORY EXCITED ABOUT THIS, IS TO WORK WITH JOURNAL EDITORS TO DEVELOP ENHANCED REVIEWING APPROACHES, THIS WAS BROUGHT UP, I DON'T KNOW JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE THINKINGN'T A CHECKLIST, FIGURE 3 ARE THE DATA PROPERLY POWERED. SO THAT REVIEW SOMETIMES HAPPENS ANOTHER CHANGE BIOSKETCH SO INVESTIGATORS HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN WHERE AM I IN THIS EMPERIMENT, WHAT AM I RESPONSIBLE FOR AND WHAT DID I CONTRIBUTE TO IT. THAT IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING -- THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION WE'RE GOING TO ADOPT FOR MORE GRANTS I HAVE I HAVE TO SAY NCI IS WORKING ON THIS, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MODIFIED BIOSKETCH WILL LOOK LIKE BUT WE HAVE COMMITTED AN ORA TO PILOT TO SEE IF IT MAKE AS DIFFERENCE HOW PEOPLE PRESENT THEIR SCIENCE. I'LL GO THROW QUICKLY BECAUSE THESE ARE ARE THINGS ALREADY INTO EFFECT. HOW IT IMPROVED GUIDELINES FOR REVIEWERS, SOME OF THE INSTITUTES NIA AND NINDS ARE GOING TO PILOT WAYS TO DUPLICATE A FINDINGS. IF IT IS OF INTEREST TO MOVE INTO CLINICAL STUDIES, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO LOCK LIKE, PAYING CENTERS TO REPRODUCE THE WORK OR PAYING ANOTHER INVESTIGATOR. WITH THIS LOW SUCCESS RATE OF TRANSLATION, SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE TO MAKE SURE IT'S WORTH PURSUING. WE TALKED OTHER PROBLEMS DIFFICULTY PUBLISHING NEGATIVE RESULTS TO KEEP EVERYONE INFORMED WHAT'S THE RIGHT DIRECTION FOR THE WORK. IF WE REQUIRE ADDITIONAL DATA BE AVAILABLE TO THE COMMUNITY, WHO IS GOING TO HOLD IT, WHERE IS IT GOING TO BE, WHO WILL TAKE CARE OF IT. THE BIOSKETCH ISSUE. I WANT TO GET TO THIS ONE. SO THIS ADDRESSES THE ISSUE AGAIN, ARE THERE WAYS TO DUPLICATE RESULTS BEFORE THEY CONTINUE IN THE PIPELINE DEVELOPMENT? AND THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF THIS, NIDDK ALREADY HAS A MOUSE METABOLIC PHENOTYPING CENTERS THAT PRODUCE PHENOTYPING OF TRANSGENIC OR EXPERIMENTALLY TREATED ANIMALS. STANDARDIZED WAY AND PEOPLE USE THAT, THOSE ARE VALIDATED AND CENTRALIZED EXPERIMENTAL OUTCOMES SO IN A WAY THAT'S A REPRODUCING CENTER . I GUESS TWO OTHER ONES I WANT TO POINT OUT AGAIN, TO HIGHLIGHT CANCER ISING REINSTITUTING THEIR OUTSTANDING INVESTIGATOR AWARD, WHICH DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CURRENT FORM WOULD BE BUT PREVIOUSLY 7 YEAR AWARD WHICH JUST ALLOWED MORE STABILITY AND POSSIBLY ELIMINATED PERVERSE INCENTIVES TO PUBLISH PUBLISH PUBLISH WHATEVER IT IS. ANOTHER IS AN EFFORT IN NCBI TO SET UP A SYSTEM WHERE PEOPLE CAN COMMENT, ALMOST BLOG ON PUBLISHED PAPERS AND THERE'S A CONTINUOUS DIALOGUE IN THE COMMUNITY ABOUT PUBLISHED PAPER. THAT'S PILOTED WITH A CLOSED GROUP OF PEOPLE TO MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T GET OUT OF CONTROL BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY SOMEBODY'S CAREER COULD BE RUINED IF INCORRECT STATEMENTS ARE MADE ABOUT PUBLICATION SO THAT'S OOH'S POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS BUT UNDER CONSIDERATION. >> THE PLOT DOES THAT NOW. IT'S VALUABLE TO LOOK BACK AND DISCUSS IS VALUABLE. I DON'T THINK THAT'S BAD. I ALSO THINK, AND I HAVE BEEN CHAIR OF SEVERAL STUDY SECTION, THERE'S NO TRAINING TO BE ON STUDY SECTION. SO WHEN I TOOK OVER A STUDY SECTION I SAT ON THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT I KNEW HAD CLEAR BIASES. MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T BE PUT OFF BUT SOMEBODY SHOULD SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND I SAID IT TO THE SRA. AND THEY SAID NO, WE CAN'T DO THAT. I SAID CAN I DO IT? AND THEY SAID WE HAVE TO GET DIRECTION ON THAT. THEN IT CAME BACK THAT WASN'T -- SO I JUST THINK THERE ARE THINGS THAT GO ON THAT PEOPLE SEE STUDY SECTIONS, WE CAN'T -- WE CAN'T CHANGE THINGS. THAT'S WRONG. SO I THINK MAYBE AN OPEN DISCUSSION OF SELECTION OF PEOPLE PRESENT SECTIONS GIVING THEM TRAINING, TALKING ABOUT STATISTICS AND THESE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE EVALUATED, IT COULD BE A SLIDE SET WITH QUESTIONS. THERE'S NOTHING. I KNOW THERE'S STUFF ON THE WEB, IT'S A PEER REVIEW U.S. A HARD JOB AND WE NEED TO REPREPARE PEOPLE BETTER. ESPECIALLY JUNIOR PEOPLE IN OUR STUDY SECTIONS. >> TAKING THAT SERIOUSLY. DAVID'S PRIORITIES THIS MORNINGING IS BETTER METHODS. HE'S VERY BIG ON THE METHODS FOR CLINICAL STUDIES, POPULATION STUDIES. AND HE'S GOING TO WORK WITH CSR TO MAKE SURE REVIEWERS ARE CHOSEN WHO UNDERSTAND THEM OR GRANTS APPROPRIATELY REVIEWED WITH THOSE METRICS. >> IN TERMS OF ALLOWING PUBMED TO BECOME A FORM WITH THOSE COMMENTS, AS LONG AS ROW DON'T HAVE ANONYMOUS COMMENTATORS, IT'S SELF-CORRECTING, IF YOU'RE GOING ON THE RECORD YOU'RE PUTTING YOUR OWN REPUTATION ON LINE SO COMMUNITY CAN EVALUATE THAT. SO I DON'T SEE THAT AS A MAJOR CONCERN. >> TO SET OP FORUM FOR CITIZENS TO COMMENT ON EACH OTHER. WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO DO THAT. >> SO JIM WE ALL NOW SAID SOMETHING, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY VERY INTERESTED IN THIS BUT WHAT IS IT YOU'RE ASKING US TO DO, IF NOTHING WHAT CAN WE DO. >> THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT. TWO THINGS. ONE IS THAT WHEN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR INSTITUTIONS MAKE SURE THEY KNOW THAT THIS IS HIGH PRIORITY AT NIH RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE THINGS IN THE WORKS PEOPLE SEE MORE, IT MAY COME TO UNITS FOR TRAINING IN YOUR TRAINING GRANTS. REVIEWERS MAYBE ASKED TO REVIEW WITH A DIFFERENT STANDARD. JOURNALS MAY ASK YOU TO CHECK BOXES AS YOU REVIEW, WE HOPE SOMETHING WILL COME OUT OF THIS. HAIRY FOCUSES ON THIS AND WE'LL GET BACK TO HIM WITH WHAT YOU SAID TODAY. >> THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE BUT IT GOES AGAINST WHAT'S THE RECENT EMPHASIS ON INNOVATION TO EXTREME DEGREE THAT I RECEIVED A COMMENT FROM A REVIEWER BECAUSE WE HAD SHOWN A PILOT RESULT IN 20 SUBJECTS WHY DID I NEED A GRANT, SINCE THIS WAS ALREADY DEMONSTRATED. WE WENT BACK IN AND INVITED THE THINGS NEEDED TO BE DONE TO NAIL THIS DOWN, IT'S A COMMON PART OF ETHOS NOVELTY OR INNOVATION SEEN ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE STANDARD ALONG WITH WHATEVER SIGNIFICANCE IS. THE ISSUE OF REPLICATION HAS RUN AGROUND ON THE ISSUE OF KNOWLEDGE. >> OUR HIGH RISK PROGRAMS IN THE COMMON FUND, PIONEERS DON'T REQUIRE PRELIMINARY DATA. WE'RE ASKING PEOPLE TO GO IN PIONEERING A DIFFERENCE DIRECTION AND GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE WHOLE PORTFOLIO, BUT IF YOU TRY TO TEST WHETHER PATHWAY ALTERED TO CHANGE THE CELL CYCLE, THAT'S SPECIFIC AND SHOULD BE A STANDARD FOR THAT. P P P P P I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THERE IS A CONFLICT THERE. >> YOU SAID TWO THINGS, ONE BE AWARE AND TAKE IT BACK. WAS THERE A SECOND? OR WERE THOSE THE TWO? >> THE INTEREST YOU EXPRESSED AND IDEAS YOU HAVE WILL TAKE BACK GROUPS WORKING ON THIS. THIS IS ACTUALLY LARRY'S SLIDE SET. HE SOMETIMES DELIVERS OR GIVES IT TO THE INSTITUTE DIRECTORS. OUR GOAL WAS TO START BY SENNING US OUT TO ADVISORY COMMITTEES AND GETTING FEEDBACK. BUT SOME THINGS ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY, SOME ARE CONSIDERATION STAGE IT'S A SERIOUS ISSUE. >> WHEN YOU TALK PERVERSE INCENTIVES, I STILL DIDN'T SEE A LOT IN HERE ABOUT PUBLISHING OF THE NEGATIVE RESULTS. THAT MIGHT ALSO EFFECT FUTURE GRANT APPLICATIONS IF YOU HAVE DONE SEVERAL ONES AN YOU HAVE GOTTEN NEGATIVE RESULTS. I DIDN'T HEAR A LOT ABOUT SUGGESTIONS RELATED TO THAT ISSUE. >> I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC IDEA HOW TO DO THAT OR WHERE THAT WOULD BE PUT. WE'LL BRING THAT BACK AS IMPORTANT PRIORITY OF COUNCIL OF COUNCILS. >> I THINK IT WAS EDISON THAT SAID FOR TOOK 999 FAILURES BEFORE THERE WAS ONE SUCCESS. WE OFTEN FORGET THAT IF E EAR GOING TO BE INNOVATIVE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FAILURES. >> THE RELATED ISSUE IS CLINICAL TRIAL RESULTS. AND WHETHER THEY'RE PUBLISHED, HOW LONG IT TAKES TO PUBLISH THEM. >> THERE MAYBE A MIDDLE ROAD WHERE NEGATIVE RESULTS DON'T NEED TO GO TO PUBLICATION BUT THEY NEED TO BE DEPOSITED IN A PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE REPOSITORY AND AN STATED APPROPRIATELY SO ANYONE CAN GO AND GET THEM. SO THEN AT LEAST IT'S DOCUMENTED THAT IT'S THERE, NO PEER REVIEW BECAUSE IT'S NOT PUBLISHED BUT THE INFORMATION IS THERE. >> ONE THING I THINK IS MISSING IS THE SAMPLE FRAMEWORK. AND THE ABILITY TO REPRODUCE WITHOUT HAVING A CLEAR ARTICULATION HOW THE SAMPLE FRAMEWORK WAS, LIMITS OF SAMPLE FRAMEWORK BECAUSE THOUGH THEY SAY GENDER AN ETHNICITY, PEOPLE HAVE A PRE-FORMED WAY PUTTING THAT INTO A GRANT. IT WAS NOT ALWAYS THE WAY I THINK IT SHOULD BE. SOME STILL USE 12% OR THEY CAN'T GET DIFFERENT ETHNIC DIVERSITY BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY ARE, THEREFORE THEY WANT AN EXEMPTION. SAMPLE FRAMEWORK IS IMPORTANT IN METHODOLOGY AND IN ORDER TO REPRODUCE IT. >> SO I WISH JANINE CLAY CLAYTON WAS HERE BECAUSE SHE IS WORKING WITH ALAN P GUTTMACHER ON CHILD HEALTH HOW DO WE IMPRO-REPORTING ON ENROLLMENT IN CLINICAL TRIALS AND CONGRESS WANTS US TO REPORT TO ASSURE THERE'S REPRESENTATION FROM POPULATIONS THAT REPRESENT THE UNITED STATES THE APPROACH THEY'RE TAKING IS WE WANT YOU TO REPORT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE FINDINGS ANSWER THE SCIENTIFIC QUESTION YOU STARTED OUT TO ASK. AND THE WAY -- UNFORTUNATELY THIS IS MORE WORK FOR INVESTIGATORS HOW DO THEY UP LOAD THIS DATA. THEY'RE IN THE PROSETS OF THINKING HOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT DATA COLLECTION BETTER IN THE FUTURE. SO PEOPLE ANSWER THE SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS THEY SET UP. >> I DO WANT TO ECHO DISDIVERSITY, IN GENO MIC RESEARCH IT'S LOPSIDED LIKE 96% OF PARTICIPANTS ARE EUROPEAN. IT'S JUST -- IT GOES TO THIS POINT WHERE A LOT EASIER TO RECRUIT POPULATIONS SO THEY ARE THE ONES THAT GET ENROLLED. >> THE VISITORS PREMISE WAS THIS -- I'M STUDYING SOMETHING THAT'S RELEVANT TO THE POPULATION OF THE IN THE U.S. THEN IT'S NOT TRUE. THAT'S NOT RECRUITED TO THE STUDY. THAT'S THE OTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THE RECRUITMENT ISSUE. IT -- >> PART IS JUST INVESTIGATORS HAVE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME AND WILLING TO GO DOWN PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE, TOTALLY UNDERSTANDABLE. STOCK STRAINS AN DON'T MAKE OUR OWN MOUSE LINES BUT WHEN IT COMES TO HUMAN SUBJECTS RESEARCH, IT'S IMPORTANT TO GO THE EXTRA MILE PARTICULARLY AS IT RELATES TO GREATLY VERSIFYING U.S. POPULATION, WHAT THE WORLD WILL LOOK LIKE IN 40, 50 YEARS. >> THANKS FOR YOUR FEEDBACK ON THIS. AND YOUR INTEREST. WE WILL SEE YOU IN JANUARY. WE WILL CHARGE THE COMMON FUND WORKING GROUP NEXT MONTH PRESUMING WE'RE ALL HERE. WE LOOK FOR -- WE'LL GIVE UPDATES ON REPRODUCIBILITY AND CHIMPANZEES AN COMMON FUND AND OTHER TOPICS IN JANUARY. SO THANK YOU, SAFE TRAVEL, EVERYONE.