SO I AM DELIGHTED TO WELCOME YOU TO THE 191st MEETING OF THE ADVISORY COUNCIL OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS AND STROKE. I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND YOU THAT THIS MEETING LIKE THE LAST MEETING IS WEBCAST. SO THERE ARE PEOPLE IN ROOMS ON THIS FLOOR WATCHING BECAUSE THERE'S OFTEN TIMES NOT ENOUGH SPACE HERE AND WE HOPE THAT THERE ARE PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY VOLUNTARIES, INVESTIGATORS, ADMINISTRATORS, ALSO WATCHING THIS COUNCIL TO LEARN ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN NINDS. THIS IS -- TODAY IS SEPTEMBER 9TH -- SEPTEMBER 11th AND IT'S THE 15th ANNIVERSARY -- 13th -- IT'S GOING TO BE UNUSUAL FOR A LOT OF REASONS I DON'T HAVE ANY MATH. AND SO IT'S AN ANNIVERSARY OF 9/11 AND I THINK MANY OF US STARTED THE MORNING THINKING ABOUT WHERE WE WERE ON THAT DAY AND WHAT WE DID. AND WE NEED TO REMEMBER HOW UNFORTUNATE THAT WAS. SO AS I SAID THIS IS AN INTERESTING COUNCIL FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. THE FIRST IS WE HAVE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO WHOM WE SAID TEARFULLY GOODBYE IN MAY. ASSUMING THEY HAD FINISH THIRD TERMS BUT THEN WE HAVE ASKED THEM TO RETURN FOR THIS COUNCIL MEETING THIS HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND IT'S WHEN THE NEW SLATE WE PROPOSED COUNCIL MEMBERS DOESN'T GET APPROVED IN TIME, FOR NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS TO COME ON. WHAT WE HAVE DONE THIS TIME SNOT ONLY TO HAVE -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY OLD COUNCIL MEMBERS BUT COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO LEFT COUNCIL COME BACK AND INVITE AS MANY NEW MEMBERS WHO AREN'T OFFICIALLY IMPROVED TO COME, YOU GUYS CAN'T VOTE. BUT YOU WILL GET A CHANCE TO SEE HOW COUNCIL WORKS AND PARTICIPATE IN ALL THE DISCUSSIONS. THE REASON THE NEW COUNCIL SLATE WAS NOT APPROVED IN TIME FOR THE NEW MEMBERS TO BE OFFICIAL IS THAT SECRETARY SEBELIUS LEFT AND A NEW SECRETARY CAME ON AND WHILE IN PRINCIPLE SHE COULD PROBABLY HAVE RUBBER STAMPED THE CONSULATES THAT CAME THROUGH I THINK SHE AND ADVISERS FELT IT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO LOOK AT THOSE NOMINATIONS. SOP NINA CHIOCA AND ANITA SEGAL, AKNEE THAT WILL JOIN US HON THE -- ANITA WILL JOIN US ON THE PHONE TODAY. >> I'M HERE. >> NINA WILL PROBABLY NOT BE JOINING US AND BEN AND JONATHAN MEEK ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND THE MEETING. BEN WILL BE ON THE PHONE SO WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE SURE WHO IS ON THE PHONE SPEAKS UP SO WE KNOW WHEN THEY'RE JOINING AND KEEP TRACK OF THAT. SO A FEW WORDS ABOUT OUR COUNCIL MEMBERS, ANNIE BROOKS IS PROFESSOR IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PEDIATRICS AND PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, AND THE CHIEF CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL COLORADO. INTERNATIONAL RESEARCH IN CLINICAL EXPERTISE AND EPILEPSY AND NUMEROUS PROFESSIONAL SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES AND SERVES ON EDITORIAL BOARDS OF JOURNALS. SHE IS THE FIRST VICE PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN EPILEPSY SOCIETY AND IN 2015 WILL BE THE PRESIDENT. WELCOME, AMY. CHILDREN CHEN, I SEE YOU GUYS SITTING IN A ROW F. DR. CHEN IS CHIEF SCIENTIFIC OFFICER AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE SPINAL MUSCULAR ATROPHY FOUNDATION RESPONSIBLE FOR OVERSEEING THE FULL RANGE OF SCIENTIFIC AND DRUG DISCOVERY PROGRAMS AT THAT TIME FOUNDATION. THE FOUNDATION HAS BEEN REALLY A LEADER IN PUSHING DISCOVERY OF DRILL DRUG USED TO TREAT PATIENTS AND PARTNER WITH FAMILIES AT SMA OF THE INSTITUTE. KAREN JOINED SMA FOUNDATION FROM ROCHE PALO ALTO WHERE SHE WAS HEAD OF SCIENCE AND ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE AND PRIOR TO ROCHE SHE WAS DIRECTOR OF PHARMACOLOGY AND HEAD OF IN VIVO AT E LISTEN PHARMACEUTICALS WORKING ON DEVELOPING THERAPIES FOR ALZHEIMER'S AND PARKINSON DISEASE, WELCOME, KAREN. TIM COTZY IS AN EXPERT IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS, ENGAGED IN MS RESEARCH SINCE HE COMPLETED HIS DOCTORAL WORK VERSUS POST-DOCTORAL FELLOW STUDYING STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION ALL THE WAY THROUGH TO HIS CURRENT POSITION AS NATIONAL MS SOCIETY CHIEF RESEARCH OFFICER. MANAGING 50 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS BASIC TRANSLATIONAL AND CLINICAL RESEARCH. HE ALSO LEADS NATIONAL MS SOCIETY FEDERAL AND STATE ADVOCACY PROGRAMS, AND HELPED LAUNCH AND SERVE AS PRESIDENT OF FAST FORWARD. THIS IS AN INITIATIVE IMPLEMENTED BY THE NATIONAL MS SOCIETY SUPPORT INNOVATIVE DRUG DISCOVERY FOR MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS BY LOOKING FOR COMPANIES AND SIGNTISES WITH PROMISING IDEAS PROVIDING FUNDS FOR NEW PROJECTS AND SPEEDING THE MOVEMENT OF POTENTIAL TREATMENT TOWARD FDA APPROVAL. THIS IS THE EFFORT MANY DISEASE FOUNDATIONS AND ADVOCACY GROUPS ARE TAKING ON IN ORDER TO HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR THEIR PATIENTS. THE ARTHUR MAKES CHAIR PEDIATRICS CELL AND MOLECULAR THERAPY AT CHILDREN HOSPITAL PHILADELPHIA, WHEN WE ASKED HER TO SERVE WE THOUGHT SHE WAS IN IOWA BUT NOT PHILADELPHIA Y INHERITED GENETIC DISEASES THAT CAUSE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM DYSFUNCTION INCLUDING CHILDHOOD NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASE, STORAGE DISEASES, CAG REPEAT DISORDERS, HUNTINGTON'S DISEASE, CEREBELLAR ATAXIA, UNDERSTANDING THE MECHANISM WHICH IS NON-CODING RNAs PARTICIPATE IN NEURAL DEVELOPMENT AND NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES. THE GOAL OF THE GENE THERAPY THAT SHE'S BEEN DOING IS ACTUALLY TO USE THAT AS THE TOOL TO ADDRESS THESE DISEASES. LARRY -- HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE INVESTIGATOR AND PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY AT UCLA. HIS LABORATORY INVESTIGATES CELLULAR RULES AND UNDERLYING MOO REGULAR MECHANISMS WHICH NEURONS ESTABLISH HIGHLY ESTABLISHED SYNAPTIC CONNECTIONS DURING DEVELOPMENT. ON EDITORIAL BOARDS OF NEURON, JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE AND OTHER JOURNALS AND MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE. THEN THE MOST UNUSUAL POINT APPOINTMENT, IS DR. LARRY ABBOTT. YOU WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT HIS RESPONSIBILITIES LATER IN THE DAY HE IS THE NINDS BRAIN MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP REPRESENTATIVE. WHEN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE FINAL REPORT CAME IN, THEY STRONGLY RECOMMENDED THAT THERE BE AN ADVISORY BODY THAT HELP TEN INSTITUTES AND CENTERS PARTICIPATING IN THINKING ABOUT HOW THE INITIATIVE SHOULD GO FORWARD. IN COLLABORATION WITH INSTITUTE INSTITUTE PROGRAM STAFF AND THE PLAN FOR THAT IS THAT THERE WOULD BE REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH OF THE INSTITUTES THAT'S PARTICIPATING AND AS WE LOOKED AT OUR CURRENT COUNCIL, AND THE MEMBERS THAT WERE COMING FROM OTHER COUNCILS WE REALIZED THAT WE HAD A GAP IN COMPUTATIONAL NEUROSCIENCE. D ON MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE ON OUR COUNCIL WHO WAS AN EXPERT IN THAT AREA SO WE HAVE ASKED LARRY TO SERVE AS AD HOC MEMBER OF COUNCIL FOR THIS YEAR, TO COME ON COUNCIL NEXT YEAR AND THE WHOLE TIME HE WILL BE A MEMBER OF THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP. AND YOU WILL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT LATER. HE IS WILLIAM BLUR PROFESSOR NEUROSCIENCE PHYSIOLOGY AND CELLULAR BIOPHYSICS BIOLOGICAL SCIENCES. AT COLUMBIA. AND THE CO-DIRECTOR FOR CENTER FOR THEORETICAL NEUROSCIENCE AT CENTER FOR NEUROEYE BIOLOGY AND BEHAVIOR. HIS RESEARCH INVOLVES COMPUTATIONAL MODELING AND MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF NEURONS AND NEURAL NETWORKS USING ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES AND COMPUTATIONAL SIMULATION. YOU WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW SINGLE NEURONS RESPONDS TO SYNAPTIC INPUTS HOW THEY INTERACT NEURAL CIRCUITS AND HOW LARGE POPULATIONS OF NEURONS PRESENT STORE AND PROCESS INFORMATION. ONE OF THE FIRST MATT MAT MALL SCIENCE PRIZE FROM ISRAEL BRAIN TECHNOLOGIES FOR OUTSTANDING WORK IN MODELING AND IS MEMBER OF THE AMERICAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES AND ELECTED TO THE NATIONAL ACADEMY THIS YEAR, HE TRAINED AS A PHYSICIST THIS YEAR INITIALLY AND WHILE HE WAS AT BRAN DICE BECAME COMMITTED TO UNDERSTANDING NEUROSCIENCE. SO THOSE ARE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANK YOU. WE'LL THANK YOU EVEN MORE WHEN YOU HAVE DONE THE PAPERWORK. WE ALSO DURING THIS INITIAL PART INTRODUCE NEW PEOPLE WHO JOIN THE INSTITUTE AND I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE TOM CHEIBER OVER THERE HE HAS STAND UP AS PARTS OF THE PROCESS. JOINED THE OFFICE OF SCIENCE POLICY AND PLANNING AT THE HEALTH SCIENCE POLICY ANALYST. HE WAS A AAAS FELLOW AND DID A WONDERFUL JOB WE ASKED HIM TO STAY PERMANENTLY. HE RECEIVED -- NOT PERMANENTLY >> JUST THROUGH THE WEEK. >> HE RECEIVED A BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE AND Ph.D. FROM UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA AS A GRADUATE STUDENT, HE STUDIED THE ROLE OF NEURAL DEVELOPMENT AND FUNCTION OF SEVERAL MOUSE MODELS, POST DOC IN MAYO CLINIC IN ROACHES HER SIGNALING PATHWAYS INVOLVED IN AXON GUIDANCE AND CELL CULTURE AND ZEBRAFISH MODELS. AS A AAAS FELLOW LAST YEAR HE WORKED ON SEVERAL ANALYSES AND PROJECTS RELATED TO HUNDRED DOLLARS INITIATIVES AND PROGRAMS AND I'M SORRY TOM BUT I HAVE TO CUT YOUR SLIDES OUT BECAUSE I HAD TOO MANY SLIDES. THE OTHER REASON THIS IS UNUSUAL COUNCIL IS IT'S MY LAST COUNCIL MEETING. I WILL RETIRE BEGINNING OF OCTOBER MOVING TO MAINE. I WILL CONTINUE TO BE INVOLVED IN SCIENCE THROUGH A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT INITIATIVES INCLUDING ALAN CORETZE ASKED ME TO HAVE A SCIENCE EMERITUS PROGRAM, I'M EXCITED ABOUT AND AN OFFICE. AND PHONE. COMPUTER CONNECTIVITY TO WONDERFUL RESOURCES HERE AT NIH. SO FRANCIS COLLINS ASKED WALTER CORSHTVS SO SERVE ACTING DIRECTOR OF INSTITUTE AND WALTER IN CONSULTATION WITH SENIOR LEADERSHIP EXCLUDING ME, HAS ASKED ALAN LITTLE LARD WHO ALL OF YOU KNOW AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR WHOM ALL OF YOU KNOW DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF DIVISION OF EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH TO SERVE AS ACTING DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF THE INSTITUTE. FRANCIS IS ANXIOUS TO FIND A NEW DIRECTOR AND HAS IDENTIFIED PEOPLE THE TO SERVE SEARCH COMMITTEE, I DON'T KNOW WHO ALL ARE. HIT WILL BE HEADED BY HAROLD VARMUS AND TOM EMSL. THE AD WILL COME UP SHORTLY AND WATCH THAT SPACE AND THE INSTITUTE WILL CONTINUE TO THRIVE AND PROSPER. GREAT TEAM AND GREAT MISSION. [APPLAUSE] Q. OKAY. LET'S ADJOURN. I PERSONALLY HAVE TROUBLE SHIFTING GEARS AFTER THAT. BUT I'LL DO IT. I WANT TO AGAIN STORY SAID MOST THINGS I WAS GOING SAY BUT I WANT TO THANK ROBERT DESIFACY, DR. DARNELL TO MY LEFT AND ANITA ON THE PHONE FOR COMING BACK ANOTHER COUNCIL ROUND. THE REASON FOR THIS IS THOUGH THE NEW MEMBERS ARE HERE AS AD HOCS WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A QUORUM OF VOTING MEMBERS AND I WAS WORRIED WE WOULD BE ON THE CUSP OF NOT HAVING A QUORUM. SO THANKS A LOT. I WILL NOW JUST LUKE MY BOILERPLATE BEURRE CATTIC REMARKS. WE HAVE A FULL AGENDA TODAY. WE'RE SETTING THE RECORD THIS TIME FOR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WE HAVE TO INTRODUCE OR SAY GOODBYE TO SO BEAR WITH US, IT WILL TAKE A LITTLE LONGER THAN USUAL. USUALLY IT'S THREE OR FOUR, THIS TIME MANY MORE THAN THAT. SO MEETING IS OPEN TO PUBLIC UNTIL 2:30. STORY ALREADY REMINDED YOU IT'S NOW VIDEOCAST, ARCHIVED SO FRESHEN UP DURING THE BREAK. AT THE BEING OF THE CLOSED SESSION AT 2:30 I WILL MAKE THE USUAL REMARKS ABOUT CONFIDENTIALITY AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST. FIRST THING WE NEEDS TO DO A MOTION SUCCESSFULLY IS APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING POSTED IN THE ECB ELECTRONIC COUNCIL BOOK IN YOUR NEAT NOTEBOOK TAB 2 SO UNLESS OFFER YOU WANT INTENSIVE DISCUSSION OF MINUTE US NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS. SO WE SUCCEEDED IN THAT. ALSO YOU HAVE A LISTING IN YOUR TAB 1 NOTEBOOKS FOR FUTURE DATES, I URGE YOU LOOK AT THEM. SOME OF YOU MAY BE SEEING THESE THE FIRST TIME. LET KELLY BAKER WHO IS ORGANIZED AS OUR COUNCIL NOW, NOW THAT GWEN IS GONE, LETS HER KNOW AS FAR AS IN ADVANCE AS YOU CAN. YOUR TERMS END OFFICIALLY ON JULY 31st OF THE YEAR, THAT'S NOTED NEXT TO YOUR NAMES. NEXT IS EXPEDITED REVIEW PROCESS, THREE DESIGNATED COUNCIL MEMBERS, I THINK THIS TIME IT WAS JONATHAN MINK, EILEEN -- (INAUDIBLE) WHO IS NOT HERE TODAY TO VOLUNTEER TO DO THIS. IT'S A PROCESS TO APPROVE A SUBSET OF APPLICATIONS BEFORE COUNCIL MEETS. THOSE DO IT ON BEHALF AND PROXY OF THE WHOLE COUNCIL. THIS ALLOWS US TO GET AWARDS OUT MORE QUICKLY, WE FOCUS ON RO-1s WITHIN THE PAY LINE WHICH HAVE NO SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES, IF THEY HAVE ISSUES WE POSTPONE IT. THIS ROUND, THERE WERE 136 APPLICATIONS ELIGIBLE TO BE EXPEDITED INCLUDING SIX Ks AND THREE SVIR, 100 HAVE BEEN ISSUED. THIS IS A TESTIMONY AS I USUALLY SAY TO OUR GRANTS MANAGEMENT BRANCH WHICH IS FANTASTIC AND (INAUDIBLE) NONNION IF SHE'S HERE TODAY. ALSO TESTIMONY TO RAUL SVEDRA, THE SRO STUDY SECTION THAT REVIEW IT IS K AWARDS. RAISE YOUR HANDS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAND UP. ALSO STEPHANIE FREYTAG, SBIR COORDINATOR. BOTH WHOM DID FANTASTIC JOB TO GET EVERYTHING READY TO BE EXPEDITED. NOW WE'RE INTO THE INTRODUCTIONS. I WARNED YOU THERE'S A LOT SO BE PATIENT. I WILL INTRODUCE THE PROGRAM DIRECTORS IN MORE DETAIL BECAUSE THESE ARE THE PEOPLE WHO YOU WILL SEE PRESENT AT COUNCIL, WHO INTERACTING, THE PROGRAM ANALYSTS ARE INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT BUT INTERACT LESS DIRECTLY WITH COUNCIL. I WILL INTRODUCE MORE QUICKLY IN THE INTEREST OF TIME THE FIRST NEW PROGRAM DIRECTOR IS MICHAEL OLINSHKY. MICHAEL JOINED THE SYSTEMS AND COGNITION AS PROGRAM DIRECTOR, HE WILL HANDLE THE NEUROPATHIC PAIN PORTFOLIO, HE GOT HIS BA FROM BRANDEYS. HE GOT A DOCK -- DOCTOR RATE IN SOUNDS OF LOCALIZATION, BECAME NIH POST DOC IN UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA WORKING WITH GARY JONES AND GENERALLY NEUROPHARMACOLOGY AND NEUROMODULATION. THEE THEN BECAME FACULTY MEMBER IN NEUROLOGY DEPARTMENT JEFFERSON. WHERE HE STAYED DILL HE CAME HERE H. DEVELOP AND CHARACTERIZED ANIMAL MODELS HEADACHE CLINICAL RESEARCH JEFFERSON HEADACHE CENTER. IT TOOK NEARLY TWO YEARS TO FINDS A NEW PAIN PROGRAM DIRECTOR BUT WE'RE REALLY GLAD TO HAVE MICHAEL HERE SO WELCOME. NEXT IS PATRICK BELGAWAN, OVER THERE. WHO JOINED OUR PLASTICITY CLASS ALSO AS PROGRAM DIRECTOR, HE GOT HIS Ph.D. FROM UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN STUDYING FEAR CONDITIONING IN RODENTS. HE THEN DID POST DOCS AT MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN AND IN NIMH INTRAMURAL PROGRAM WHERE HE USED NEURAL IMAGING TO STUDY MEMORY FUNCTION, HEALTHY HUMAN CONTROL EPILEPSY PATIENTS. HE BECAME A STAFF SCIENTIST NIMH INTRAMURAL LAB BRAIN AND COGNITION AND THEN LEFT NIMH TO HELP WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SPEARHEAD DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW NEURAL IMAGING PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH INSTITUTE TULSA, OKLAHOMA WHERE HE SERVED ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR AND PROFESSOR OF COGNITIVE RESEARCH. PATRICK'S MAIN RESEARCH PROGRAM FOCUSED ON THE NEUROLOGICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC SEQUELLA OF SPORTS RELATED CONCUSSION. IT'S PART OF ITS TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY, TB RESEARCH HE DEVELOPED TULSA CONCUSSION CONSORTIUM WHICH PROVIDES THAT CITY WITH EDUCATIONAL RESOURCE AND OUTREACH TO DESTIGMATIZE SPORTS RELATED CONCUSSIONS. GREAT TO HAVE YOU HERE. I HOPE MY VOICE LASTS. NEXT IS GWEN KNUCKLES, WHO WILL JOIN THE NEURAL GENETICS CLUSTER IN A FEW WEEKS AS PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR THE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY AND OTHER MUSCULAR DISEASES AS WELL AS BASIC NEUROBIOLOGY, THIS IS THE NICHE UNBELIEVABLY WELL ABLY OCCUPIED BY GUNPORT. -- JOHN PORTER. SO GLENN COMES WITH TEN YEARS OF EXPERIENCE AS PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR SKELETAL MULLS DISEASE ANOTHER THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN, I FORGET THE ACRONYM. HE GOT HIS Ph.D. IN CELL BIOLOGY ANATOMY UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA DID POST DOC IN BIOCHEMISTRY AT STANFORD. HE JOINED NIAM INTRAMURAL AS STAFF FELLOW IN 1995 AND LED A GROUP STUDYING CARDIAC BIOLOGY AND SKELETAL DEVELOPMENT, MOVED TO EXTRAMURAL IN 2003, ABOUT 11 YEARS AGO. FIRST AS SRO THEN AS PROGRAM TWO DIRECTIONTOR. HE ALSO SERVED AS ACTING DIRECTOR FOR DIVISION OF EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH AT NIAMS IN 2009. HE WILL TAKE OVER JOHN PORTER AREA AND SERVE THAT CAPACITY AS EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY COORDINATING COMMITTEE, IMPORTANT HIGH VISIBILITY EFFORT. I HAVE SEEN GWEN IN ACTION IN NUMEROUS FORMS OVER THE YEARS AND HE'S A VERY IMPRESSIVE GUY SO I'M GLAD HE CAME HERE. THAT SIT FOR THE NEW PROGRAM DIRECTORS. WE'RE HAPPY THAT LYNN RUNHAGAN HAS REJOINED US AS PROGRAM ANALYST IN THE STEVE CORN'S OFFICE OF TRAINING CAREER DEVELOPMENT AND WORK FORCE DIVERSITY, LYNN LEFT US UNFORTUNATELY FIVE YEARS AGO TO MOVE TO NHLBI AS CLINICAL TRIAL SPECIALIST, SHE IS ABSOLUTELY TERRIFIC AND WE'RE RELIEVED SHE'S BACK FULL TIME IN WHAT IS NOW OUR TRAINING OFFICE. WHEN YOU WERE HERE AND SORT OF COVERING THAT, I DON'T THINK WE HAD MUCH OF A EFFICIENT TRAINING OFFICE. SO IT'S GREAT TO HAVE YOU BACK. ASHLEY VON BERE, I HAVE NO IDEA IF I'M PRONOUNCING, IS THAT RIGHT? WHO JOINED NEUROGENETICS, CLUSTER PROGRAM ANALYST RECENTLY, GOT HER Ph.D. FROM HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL STUDY IN VIVO RODENT MODELS OF PSYCHIATRIC DISORDERS IN BILL COLLINS LAB. SHE DID A POST DOC WITH (INDISCERNIBLE) INVESTIGATING THE EFFECTS OF STRESS ON REWARD AND EXECUTIVE SUPPRESSING IN PATIENTS WITH A HISTORY OF DEPRESSION. GLAD TO HAVE YOU HERE, ASHLEY, WELCOME. RON XANG, PROGRAM DIRECTOR -- IS RON HERE? MAYBE IN THE OVERFLOW ROOM. STAND UP IN THE OVERFLOW ROOM. SHE HAS BEEN A PROGRAM ANALYST IN THE NEUROGENETICS CLUSTER WAS JUST PROMOTED TO PROGRAM MANAGER. RON WILL -- HER JOB WILL BE TO MANAGE AND COORDINATE -- HER JOB IS COORDINATING GENETICS AND DNA SHARING FOR NINDS. SHE HAS IN FACT ESSENTIALLY BEEN DOING THAT ALREADY OR AT LEAST PARTLY DOING THAT. THIS IS SUCH A TIME AND TIME CONSUMING JOB WE CREATED A POSITION AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RON. I'M SURE SHE WILL CONTINUE TO DO WHAT SHE HAS BECOME INDISPENSABLE AT DOING. WE HAVE TWO LEAVING NINDS I WILL LEAVE TO IT THE GROUPS THEY'RE IN TO SAY GOODBYE TO THEM. THE FIRST IS MONA HICK WHOSE I WAS AFRAID WAS GOING TO HIGH IN THE OVERFLOW ROOM BUT SHE'S HERE SO MONA IS EXTRAORDINARY, WE'RE GOING MISS HER, DAVE OWENS WILL TALK ABOUT COME TO A MICROPHONE. >> MONA. I WOULD SAY IT'S WITH GREAT REGRET THAT MONA IS LEAVING THE INSTITUTE I SAY MAYBE SHE DOESN'T HAVE -- SHE'S GETTING TO RETIRE AND MOVE TO SEATTLE, WASHINGTON. MONA CAPLETS FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR WHERE SHE DID BASIC TBI RESEARCH ANIMAL MODELS. AS IMPORTANTLY MONA HAS CLINICAL REHAB PRACTICE AND LAID THE FOUNDATION FOR HER DESIRE TO HAVE BROAD IMPACT AND WANT TO WORK HARD TO IMPROVING THE OUTCOMES ON ADULT AND CHILDREN WITH NEUROLOGICAL INJURIES AND I WOULD SAY SHE'S CONTINUALLY DESCRIBED TO DO THAT IN THE POSITION HERE. SHE JOINED US AT THE TIME I WOULD SAY WHEN TBI RESEARCH STARTING TO GET MORE ATTENTION, THIS WAS DUE TO NATIONAL CONFLICT BUT ALSO PROBABLY MORE FOCUS ON SPORTS RELATED HEAD INJURY. AND SAFE TO SAY SHE SUPERCHARGED THE TB AREA IN NINDS BUT THIS WENT WELL BEYOND NINDS AND I'LL MENTION A FEW THINGS THAT I THINK WILL BE CONSIDERED HER LEGACY OR PART OF HER LEGACY. P THE FIRST IS SHE KIND OF WAS DRIVING FORCE, LEADER IN IMPLEMENTING THE NATIONAL RESEARCH PLAN FOR TBI AND PTSD INITIATED BY THE WHITE HOUSE. IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS SHE ALSO WORKED WITH AN INTERNATIONAL GROUP TO ESTABLISH AN INTERNATIONAL TBI RESEARCH INITIATIVE. AS WELL SHE WORKED TIRELESSLY TO ESTABLISH COMMON DATA ELEMENTS TO -- FOR CLINICAL TBI RESEARCH AND SHE ALSO THEN I WOULD SAY ONCE AGAIN WAS A DRIVING FORCE IN ESTABLISHING A INTERAGENCY DATABASE CALLED FITBER WHICH IS A WAY TO HARMONIZE I WOULD SAY TBI CLINICAL OUTCOMES. OR CLINICAL DATA. AND THEN THE FINAL THING TO MENTION WHICH IS OF NOTE, SHE WORKED WITH THE NIH BUT ALSO WITH THE NFL TO ESTABLISH A SPORTS HEAD INJURY RESEARCH PROGRAM. I CAN PROMISE YOU THERE'S PLENTY OF THINGS SHE'S DONE BUT I WANT TO MYLIGHT THE THREE. MOST IMPORTANTLY WHAT I WOULD TO SAY IS MONA IS A GREAT COLLEAGUE. SHE'S GREAT TO WORK WITH, SHE'S EASY GOING, GREAT SENSE OF HUMOR. I HAVE TO SAY SOME OF MY FAVORITE PARTS OF MY JOB WAS ACTUALLY AT THE END OF THE DAY WHEN I GET TO GO AND DOWNLOAD WITH MONA AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE INSTITUTE. AND WHAT I'M REALLY SEEING IS SHE'S GREAT TO GOSSIP WITH. I REALLY WILL MISS THAT BUT ON BEHALF OF THE INSTITUTE THANK YOU FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND HARD WORK AND DEDICATION AND I CAN SAY YOU WILL REALLY BE MISSED. [APPLAUSE] >> MONA IS AMAZING, SHE'S AN INCREDIBLY NICE UNASSUMING PEOPLE WITH LIKE A WILL OF IRON. YOU CAN -- SHE'S INCREDIBLY GOOD TAKING PEOPLE FROM ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT AGENCIES AND DISCIPLINES AND GETTING TO WORK TOGETHER TOWARDS IMPORTANT GOALS. SO THANKS, DAVE. THE NEXT PERSON WHO IS LEAVING IS PHILLIP WETHORN, ALAN LITTLE LARD WHO HAS KNOWN PHIL LONGER THAN I WILL TALK ABOUT HIM. >> THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY I HAVE LOOKED FORE TO FOR YEARS. >> REMEMBER THIS IS NOT A ROSE. >> AND THERE'S LIMITED TIME. PHILLIP IS ONE OF SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE REMAINING WHO IS HERE WHEN I JOINED THE INSTITUTE IN 1998. HE BEGAN HIS FEDERAL CAREER IN THE JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION, WE BELIEVE IT WAS THE LYNDON JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION BUT WHEN YOU LISTEN TO RANGE OF THINGS PHILLIP HAS DONE AND HAS KNOWLEDGE OF HISTORY OF THINGS WITHIN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE FACT THAT HIS FAVORITE RESTAURANT IS A FORMER CIVIL WAR CAVALRY STABLE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE ANDREW JOHNSON ADMINISTRATION, PHILLIP CAN CONFIRM THAT IF YOU ASK HIM. BUT HE HAS BEEN INCREDIBLY VERSATILE, EARLY IN HIS CAREER HE WAS WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HEALTH, HE HAD INTERESTING ASSIGNMENTS HELPING ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER ON THE PHYSICAL FITNESS COUNCIL, NUMBER OF STORIES TRAVELING WITH ARNOLD. HE CAME TO NINDS YEARS BEFORE I GOT HERE TO DO SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. HE WAS RUNNING REVIEWS OF CONTRACTS AND HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE REVIEW OF SOME OF THE BIGGEST CONTRACTS WE HAVE DONE SUCH AS GENSET CONTRACT. HE ALSO WHILE I WAS CHIEF OF THE REVIEW BRANCH WAS THE PERSON WHEN YOU HAD SOMETHING A BIT UNUSUAL THAT REQUIRED RECRUITING NOT THE USUAL CAST OF CHARACTERS, PHILLIP WAS MY GO TO PERSON. WE HAD UNIQUE RFAs SOMETIMES NIH WIDE ONES, I REMEMBER ONE IN PARTICULAR FOR BRAIN DISORDERS AROUND THE WORLD ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN,NA DOESN'T COVER EVERYTHING I DON'T KNOW WHAT DOES, FULL LIP ASSEMBLED AMAZING PANELS TO DO THAT. EVERY GROUP HE PUT TOGETHER HELL ALWAYS TOOK PRIDE MAKE SURE REVIEWERS REWERE TREATED RIGHT. THEY HAD GOOD PLACES TO STAY T HOTEL HAD THINGS THAT WERE IN ORDER, FEDERAL RULES CHANGED OVER THE YEARS, CREATIVE WAYS TO WORK WITH THEM TO MAKE SURE CARE AND FEEDING OF REVIEWSERS WAS MAINTAINED. I'M GOING TO MISS THAT VERY MUCH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR MANY YEARS APPRECIATED SERVICE. [APPLAUSE] I ACTUALLY REALIZED I MESSED UP ONE THING, LAST COUPLE OF DAYS AT DEATH'S DOOR SICK. SO BASICALLY I WAS GOING TO ANNOUNCE INTERNALLY WHICH I'LL ANNOUNCE AT COUNCIL WHICH IS THAT SINCE ALAN LITTLE LARD MY DEPUTY IS TO BECOME WALTERS ACTING DEPUTY, THAT MEANS I WON'T HAVE A DEPUTY ANY MORE, SO AFTER A LOT OF THOUGHT I PICKED DAVE OWENS YOU JUST SAW TALK ABOUT MONA TO BE THE ACTING DEPUTY OF EXTRAMURAL BUT WHAT I FORGOT TO DO IS PREPARE INTRODUCTION WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS SO OFF THE TOP OF MY HEADILY SAY A FEW THINGS WHICH IS THAT DAVE WAS GRADUATE STUDENT WITH ARNOLD CRICKSTEIN AT COLUMBIA AND POST DOC WITH RON MCCAI AT NINDS INTRAMURAL. HE MADE ALL KINDS OF CONTRIBUTIONS I WON'T ATTEMPT TO GO THROUGH THOSE BECAUSE I COULDN'T OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. BUT HE HAS BEEN ESSENTIALLY OUR STEM CELL PROGRAM DIRECTOR SINCE HE CAME HERE AND HE'S DONE REALLY A SPECTACULAR JOB WITH A COLLECTION CHALLENGING PORTFOLIO OF ACTIVITIES SO DAVE WHEN STORY LEAVES, I BELIEVE ON OCTOBER 6TH IS WHEN THAT MONDAY AFTER STORY IS GONE, HE WILL COME AS ACTING DIRECTOR OF EXTRAMURAL. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT SENDING EMAIL THE LAST TWO DAYS BUT I WAS OUT OF COMMISSION. >> YOU HEARD IT FIRST HERE, BREAKING NEWS. OKAY. WE'RE MOVING TOWARDS THE ENDS OF THE INTRODUCTIONS, I THINK THAT WALTER IS GOING TO INTRODUCE A NEW PERSON FROM OFFICE OF CLINICAL RESEARCH ACTING -- HAS BEEN THE ACTING DIRECTOR OF THAT OFFICE SINCE (INDISCERNIBLE) LEFT US, A LOT OF CHANGES. >> REALLY GOOD ACTING IF YOU HAVEN'T NOTICED. I WANT TO DO MARIE GAIL. MARIE IS JOINING US CLINICAL VERGE AS PROGRAM ANALYST -- RESEARCH AS PROGRAM ANALYST COMING OVER FROM NIBIB WHERE SHE WAS BIOENGINEERING PROGRAM ANALYST WHERE SHE DID A LOFT THINGS SHE WILL BE DOING THINGS HERE INCLUDING TRACKING INCLUSION OF WOMEN MINORITIES IN CLINICAL RESEARCH. SHE EARNED BACHELOR'S IN BIOENGINEERING WITH MINOR IN NEUROSCIENCE AT PITTSBURG AND CURRENTLY UNDERGOING MASTERS STUDIES IN BIOENGINEERING HOPKINS AND FOCUSNESS ON NEUROPROSTHESIS AND BIOMATERIALS SO WE HOPE SHOW SHE WILL BE A CONTRIBUTOR TO NINDS IN MULTIPLE WAYS OVER THE NEXT COMING YEARS. >> LAST INTRODUCTIONSFROM RAJESH, HEAD OF OFFICE OF TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH. >> THANK YOU, BOB. I WANT TO BEGIN BY INTRODUCING DR. DERRICK WILKERSON JOINING AS PROGRAM ANALYST SUPPORTING THE BLUEPRINT PROGRAM, REPLACING (INDISCERNIBLE) IN THAT ROLE A COUPLE OF YEARS. DERRICK RECEIVED Ph.D. IN PSYCHOLOGY NEUROSCIENCE TEMPLE UNIVERSITY AND POST-DOC AT NIDA, NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR DRUG ABUSE INTRAMURAL AND JONATHAN CASPER'S GROUP. HE RECEIVED BACHELOR IN PSYCHOLOGY FROM WESTERN UNIVERSITY AND WORKED AS REGULATORY SPECIALIST ON IND APPLICATIONS BEFORE JOINING US. SECOND PERSON IS DR. SARA NORREN, SARA IS JOINING AS PROGRAM ANALYST SUPPORTING THE COUNTER ACT PROGRAM, COUNTER ACT IS THE COUNCILOR MEASURES AGAINST CHEMICAL THREATS PROGRAM THAT IS FUNDED THROUGH THROUGH DOD DOLLARS THAT COME THROUGH THE NIH OD THROUGH TO NIAID THROUGH NINDS TO ADMINISTER. SARA RECEIVED Ph.D. IN MOLECULAR PHARMACOLOGY AND PHYSIOLOGY UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN FLORIDA IN P&A TAMPA AND DID POST-DOC TRAINING THERE AS WELL. PRIOR TO THAT SHE WORKED IN SEFALON TELEPHONE PHARMACEUTICALS FOR FOUR YEARS IN AN MAT LITCAL METHOD DEVELOPMENT AND A YEAR AT PHAMACIA AS SCIENTIST IN THE MED CHEM DEPARTMENT. BACHELOR IN BIOLOGY FROM THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR PHYSIOLOGY NOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AT THE LAKE EERIE COLLEGE IN BRADENTON, FLORIDA. THIRD PERSON IS DR. MARY ANN PELLEMANTER OVER THERE. SHE JOINED OTR AS SCIENTIFIC PROJECT MANAGER. THE ROLE WE HIRED HER FOR WAS TO FOCUS ON OUR EFFORTS TO FIGURE HOW WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH RIGOR REPRODUCIBILITY AND ROBUSTNESS, SOMETHING I HAVE TALKED TO YOU ABOUT IN TERMS OF INITIATIVE A COUPLE OF COUNCILS AGO. BUT THERE'S GOING TO TAKE TIME FOR THESE EFFORTS TO RAMP UP SO ALSO SPLITS HER TIME WITH BLUEPRINTING PROJECTS THAT BLUEPRINTING NEEDS, HER SPECIFIC EXPERTISE WITH AT THE MOMENT. SHE RECEIVED Ph.D. PSYCHOLOGY NEUROSCIENCE BIOCHEMISTRY FROM UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA. -- I'M SORRY, COLORADO AND POST-DOCTORAL TRAINING WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA. AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR SHE SPENT SIX YEAR AT AMGEN FOUR YEARS AT (INAUDIBLE) PHARMACOLOGY GROUPS AND THEN SHE SPENT 11 YEARS AT BRISTOL MYERS SQUISHES WHERE SHE LED DISCOVERY OF OBESITY THERAPEUTICS SO A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME WORKING IN THE SPACE OF ANIMAL MODEL RESEARCH AND RELEVANCE TO DRUG DISCOVERY. LAST COUPLE OF YEARS SHE'S BEEN INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO PHARMA AND BIOTECH CLIENTS BEFORE JOINING US. SO THOSE ARE MY INTRODUCTIONS. THANK YOU. >> DEFINITELY SET THE RECORD FOR INTRODUCTIONS. STORY'S DIRECTOR TALK IS NEXT. >> SO MY FIRST COUNSEL MEETING IN SEPTEMBER 2003, 11 YEARS AGO, IT OCCURRED IN THE MIDDLE OF HURRICANE ISABELLE. WE WERE SMALL NUMBER OF PEOPLE CLUSTERED IN THE BASEMENT OF THE HYATT REGENCY DOWNTOWN WITH ALMOST EVERYBODY ON THE PHONE. WE HAD TO HAVE THE MEETING BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE COULDN'T GET THE GRANTS APPROVED TO FUND. SO THIS IS MUCH NICER COUNCIL MEETING. NO HUDDLING IN THE BASEMENT. ALMOST ALWAYS SEEM TO START THE TALK WITH A BUDGET OUTLINE. I THINK WE CAN ACTUALLY TAKE OUT THE FOUR FY 15 AND JUST LEAVE IT BUDGET UNCERTAIN. THERE HAS BEEN NO ACTION IN THE HOUSE T LABOR HHS APPROPRIATIONS, THE MARKUP, THERE HAS BEEN A MARKUP IN THE SENATE LHHS APPROPRIATIONS, CAN YOU HEAR HER? SO SOMEONE CAN'T HEAR ME? WE WOULD LIKE TO SHUT THAT OFF. SO WE DON'T HAVE A FORMAL BUDGET YET BUT WE DO HAVE A CONTINUING RESOLUTION PROPOSAL THAT'S IN THE HOUSE THIS WOULD RUN THROUGH DECEMBER 11, 2014, THAT WOULD BE AFTER THE ELECTIONS AND WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE. THE CONTINUING RESOLUTION FUND THE GOVERNMENT AT THE 2014 APPROPRIATION LEVEL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET, NIH OVERALL GETS INCREASE OF .7%, INCREASE FOR NINDS IS LARGER BECAUSE OF THE COMMITMENT TO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. AND THE SENATE MARK MATCHES FOR HUNDRED DOLLARS THAT SAME LEVEL. ONE THING THAT I THINK WE ARE NOT PAY AGO TENSION TO IS THE 14 AND 15 BUDGETS WERE PART OF THE NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT ABOUT SEQUESTER AND DEBT AND ONCE 15 IS OVER, UNLESS SOMETHING IS DONE, IT IS BACK TO FULL-FLEDGED IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEQUESTER. WE AT THE NIH AND EVERYBODY IN THE RESEARCH COMMUNITY NEEDS TO BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT. I TOLD YOU BEFORE FRANCIS COLLINS HAS BEEN UNBELIEVABLY COMMITTED TO DOING WHATEVER HE CAN TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF NIH. AND ITS ROLE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAPPENED THIS SUMMER IS THE EBOLA OUTBREAK IN AFRICA. AND I THINK YOU HAVE PROBABLY HEARD TONY FAUCI OR READ TONY FAUCI'S QUOTE VIRTUALLY EVERY DAY OUTLINING WHAT NIH HAS BEEN DOING. SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT OF VACCINES AND PROMISING TREATMENTS INCLUDING THE PRE-CLINICAL WORK ON ZMAM WHICH WHAT THE TWO AIDS WORKERS GOT. I THINK THREE GOUT. NOT CLEAR IT MADE A DIFFERENCE BUT IT WAS EVIDENCE THAT IN FACT NIH IS WORKING ON THIS NEGLECTED DISEASE. MOST RECENTLY YESTERDAY COLLINS TESTIFIED THE DEVELOPMENT OF EBOLA VACCINE WAS DELAYED BY LOSS OF NIH PURCHASING POWER WHICH I THINK WAS A VERY IMPORTANT THING TO SAY. BECAUSE OF THE CRISIS THE CLINICAL TRIALS OF THE VACCINES THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED HAVE BEEN PUSHED FORWARD AND THERE IS NOW PHASE 1 VACCINE TRIAL UNDERWAY IN THE NIH CLINICAL CENTER THAT CAME FROM A VACCINE THAT WAS DEVELOPED OR HYPOTHESIZED IN THE VACCINE RESEARCH INTRAMURAL PROGRAM, BEING DEVELOPED IN COLLABORATION WITH GSK AND THERE ARE OTHERS THAT ARE GOING TO BE LAUNCHED IN PHASE 1 TRIALS. THE FDA HAS ALLOWED THIS EXPEDITING THOUGH IT MEANS THAT THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE COMPLICATED IF IN FACT IT'S SAFE AND THERE'S AN IMMUNE RESPONSE. WHAT WILL BE THE MOST CHALLENGING PARTS OF THIS, AND DISCUSSIONS ARE ALREADY ON GOING, IS HOW DO YOU DO THE NEXT STAGE TRIAL? FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE -- IF YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE A LAUNCH PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIAL OF THE VACCINE, DO YOU HAVE A PLACEBO? WHERE DO YOU DO IT? SO THEY'RE VERY SERIOUS ETHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC STANDARDS THAT I THINK WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED. ANOTHER WAY RAISING CONSCIOUSNESS ABOUT WHAT NIH DOES IS WHEN NIH FUNDED INVESTIGATORS WIN LARGE PRIZES P. AND WE WERE DELIGHTED TO SEE THAT WILL MAYLN DELONG AND ALAN (INAUDIBLE) RECEIVED THE LASKER DEBAKY RESEARCH AWARDS. THEY HAVEN'T RECEIVED IT YET BUT IT WAS ANNOUNCED FOR DBS STIMULATION. DBS CAN MAKE A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE FOR PARKINSON'S PATIENTS IN THE MID STAGE OF THE DISEASE WHEN ELDOPA IS NO LONGER AS EFFECTIVE OR DOPAMINE AGONIST. AND IF YOU -- IT DOESN'T SLOW PROGRESSION SO IT'S NOT A CURE, IT'S A SYMPTOMATIC TREATMENT SO LOOKING AT NIH IN PARTICULAR NINDS CONTRIBUTION TO THE DEVELOP TESTIMONY, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR WE PLAY A VERY SIGNIFICANT ROLE THROUGH OUR SUPPORT OF MAYLON DELONG. HE WAS A FELLOW WHEN HE FINISHED HIS CLINICAL TRAINING CAME TO THE NIH AS A CLINICAL FELLOW. IN THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE. WORKED HERE A NUMBER OF YEARS, HE THEN TOOK WHAT HE LEARNED HERE AND SET UP A LAB AT EMORY, WORKED INCREDIBLY CAREFULLY TO MAP OUT HOW CIRCUITRY AND BASAL GANGLIA WORKS WITH INPUTS AND OUTPUTS. AFTER THERE WAS THE DISCOVERY THAT MTPT, REMEMBER THE FROZEN ADDUCTS COULD GIVE NON-HUMAN PRIMATE MODEL OF PARKINSONS, IRV COB HOW TO MAKE PRIMATE PAR KIN SEWNIAN AND THEN WENT TON LOOK AT HOW THAT CHANGED CIRCUITRY AND YOU HAVE THE REST OF THE TIME ON HERE. THAT'S A SECOND WAY WE CAN RAISE CONSCIOUSNESS. THEN A THIRD WAY THAT CONSCIOUSNESS IS BEING RAISED IS BY A CONGRESSIONAL INITIATIVE CALLED A PATH TO 21st CENTURY CURES. THIS IS AN INITIATIVE STARTED BY FRED UP TON AND DIANE DEGET. IT'S INVOLVED A SERIES OF WHITE PAPERS ROUND TABLES, CONGRESSIONAL HEARINGS TO PROVIDE A COMPREHENSIVE LOOK HOW TO ACCELERATE PACE OF CURES. IT'S NOT JUST FOCUSED ON TRANSLATION BUT IT'S DISCOVERY OF BASIC CLUES AN SCIENCE HOURS DO YOU GET THINGS FROM THE LAB TO THE PATIENT FASTER? WHICH INVOLVES FDA, AND ONCE YOU HAVE GOTTEN SOMETHING PROVED BENEFIT, HOW DO YOU GET IT ADOPTED BY PHYSICIANS IN THE LARGER PUBLIC HEALTH COMMUNITY. FOCUSED ON THE ROLE OF OF NIH AND FDA. SOME IS FUND BUG SOME ALSO IS ABOUT RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT HAMPER NIH AND FDA ABILITY TO DO THEIR WORK EFFICIENTLY. MANY ROUND TABLES ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND EACH ONE OF THOSE ROUND TABLES THERE HAS BEEN SOMEONE FROM NIH, ERIC FRANCIS COLLINS, MOST OFTEN, ERIC GREEN WITH GENOME INSTITUTE, CHRIS AUSTIN HEAD OF NCATS. CATHY HUDSON. A LOT OF ATTENTION BEING FOCUSED ON NIH AND ITS ROLE AND HOW WE COULD DO BETTER. INCLUDING MORE FUNDING. THE LAST PIECE WHICH I DON'T HAVE A SLIDE ABOUT IS FOR THOSE OF YOU NPR AFICIONADOS, NPR IS RUNNING A SERIES OF SHOWS THIS WEEK ON NIH, NIH FUNDING, THE PLIGHT OF SCIENTISTS, ORGANIZED OR PUT TOGETHER BY RICHARD HARRIS WHO IS VERY SKILLED INTERVIEWER AND I THINK THEY HAVE BEEN VERY INTERESTING STORY, I LOOK TO SEE IF THERE WAS A NEW ONE TODAY AND I DIDN'T SEE IT ON MY COMPUTER BUT GOOD TO WATCH THESE AND GOOD TO THINK ABOUT HOW THE MESSAGES THAT ARE BEING COMMUNICATED ARE THEY THE SAME MESSAGES THAT WE WOULD CHOOSE TO HAVE COMMUNICATED. SO WATCH THIS SPACE, WE'RE WORKING HARD TO TRY TO MAKE A COMPEL STORY FOR WHY FUNDING FOR NIH IS IMPORTANT FOR DISCOVERY, FOR NATIONAL COMPETITIVENESS T HEALTH OF THE NATION. EVERYBODY WHO BELIEVES THAT NEEDS TO BE ENGAGED. SO I WANT TO TALK A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS NOW THAT WE HAVE DONE THE BUDGET. WE HAVEN'T DONE THE BUDGET WE OUTLINE THE FACT THAT IT'S UNCERTAIN. ONE OF THEM IS THE REPORT THAT WAS MADE BY THE PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST WORK FORCE WORKING GROUP OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO THE DIRECTOR. ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO THEY COMPLETED A REPORT ON THE STATE OF THE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH WORK FORCE IN THE END THAT REPORT FOCUSED ALMOST ENTIRELY ON Ph.D. SCIENTISTS. A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS CAME OUT OF THAT WHICH HAVE BEEN IMPLEMENTED FOR EXAMPLE DECREASING TIME OF ELIGIBILITY FOR APPLICATION FOR K-99 R 00 AWARD. PUTTING LIMITS ON AMOUNT OF TIME THAT SOMEONE CAN BE SUPPORTED IN DOCTORAL TRAINING ON NIH FUNDING. THE NEED TO HAVE GOOD ACCOUNTING WHERE ALL TRAINING IS -- SO THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THINGS IMPLEMENTED. WHAT WAS VERY CLEAR WAS IT DID NOT DEAL AT ALL WITH PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS. IT WAS FELT TOO COMPLICATED, MANY OF THE FACTORS -- NOT ALL BUT MANY THAT INFLUENCE THE PHYSICIAN WORKING FORCE WERE POTENTIALLY DIFFERENT FROM Ph.D.s SO A SECOND WORKING GROUP WAS SET UP TO FOCUS ON PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS. THE CHARGE DEVELOP APPROACHES INTO FORM DECISION ANALYZE COMPETITION ASSESS NEEDS AND CAREER OPPORTUNITIES, IDENTIFY INCENTIVES NOW. THAT REPORT IS ON THE NIH WEBSITE, IT'S VERY LONG. IT'S INTERESTING TO ME THAT IF YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE REPORT, THEY DIDN'T -- ALL THESE THINGS THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO DO, DIDN'T ACTUALLY HAVE IMPLEMENTABLE CHANGES IN OUR POLICIES FOR TRAINING AND SUPPORT OF PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS. BUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS, NO MATTER THE CHARGE DIDN'T HAVE IT THEY MADE RECOMMENDATIONS ANYWAY. SO IT FOCUSED PRIMARILY ON THE PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS THAT ARE FUNDED BY NIH, EVERYBODY KNOWS THEIR ACADEMIC PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS FUNDED BY OTHER SOURCES PROFESSIONAL SCHOOL EDUCATORS WHO TEACH IN MEDICAL SCHOOL, THEN THERE'S WHAT WAS CALLED THE INVISIBLE PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST WORK FORCE IN PHARMA AND BIOTECH. WHAT'S INTERESTING IS IF YOU LOOK AT THE NIH FUNDED PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST WORK FORCE, AND THIS INCLUDED NOT JUST M.D.s BUT ALSO VETERINARIANS, DENTISTS NURSE SCIENTIST, ET CETERA. IT IS ABOUT -- M.D.s IT'S ABOUT 50/50 SPLIT BETWEEN M.D. Ph.D.s AND M.D.s. WHAT ARE THE ISSUES? THE NUMBER OF PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS ENGAGED IN RESERGE IS UNCHANGED OVER THE PAST DECADE. MEDICAL PHYSICIANS AT MEDICAL SCHOOLS HAS BEEN INCREASING A LOT. MEDICAL SCHOOLS AND HOSPITAL BUS NUMBER OF THOSE ENGAGED IN VERGE IS LARGELY UNCHANGED. THE POOL OF PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST WHOSE ARE ENGAGED IN NIH FUNDED VERGE ARE ACTUALLY AGING PROBABLY FASTER. THEY'RE NOT AGING FASTER BUT THE PROPORTION OF OLDER ONES IT'S STRESSFUL, THEY'RE IS GREATER THAN NON-PHYSICIAN POOL. THE TRAINING PATHWAYS ARE UNBELIEVABLY LENGTHY, COMPLICATED AND LEAKY. THE AVERAGE EDUCATIONAL DEBT IN 2013 IS $175,000 FOR M.D.. FUNDING IS DIFFICULT, THIS IS NOT UNIQUE TO M.D. Ph.D.. OR PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST. BALANCING WORK LIFE IS ALWAYS COMPLICATED PARTICULARLY WHEN FUNDING IS DIFFICULT FOR RESEARCH SCIENTISTS RESEARCH CLINICAL ACTIVITIES COMPLICATE THAT EVEN MORE. THIS IS THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS POOL IS MORE SENIOR. IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO FIGURE THIS OUT BUT THE BLUE, YELLOW IS ALL NIH RPG RESEARCH GRANT HOLDING PEOPLE IN 2003. THIS IS IN 2012. IF YOU LOOK, IN 2012 THIS IS 50% OR 40 TO 50, ABOUT 20% OR 51 TO 60. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST, IT'S 35% AND 35%. SO THERE ARE MORE SENIOR PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS ENGAGED IN RESEARCH THROUGH NIH. AND THESE LINES ARE DATA FROM THE AAMC. YOU CAN SEE IN 2003 THE PEAK OF AGE IS MAYBE IN THE 51 TO 60 AREA BUT -- THEN IT DROPS OFF BUT YOU CAN SEE HERE IN 2012 THE DROP OFF, SO THESE PEOPLE ARE STAYING IN AND YOUNGER PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ENGAGING IN RESEARCH. I'M NOT GOING TO SPEND ANY TIME AT ALL TALKING ABOUT THIS PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST PATHWAY, THERE ARE MULTIPLE MECHANISMS USED DIFFERENTLY BY EACH OF THE INSTITUTES, VERY COMPLICATED TO NAVIGATE THIS AND HAVE A CLEAR PATHWAY TO GETTING ACTUALLY TRAINED AND FUNDED. SO WHAT ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS? THEY MADE A LOT OF THEM. I HAVE BOLDED HERE THE ONES THAT I THINK AND I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BOLDED ONE MORE, ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT OR INTERESTING. SO THE FIRST IS TO SUSTAIN STRONG SUPPORT FOR M.D. Ph.D. PROGRAMS, THIS IS THE MSTP PROGRAM IN PARTICULAR. LOTS OF ARGUMENTS ABOUT THE VALUE OF THIS PROGRAM, HOW MANY DO YOU TRAIN ACTUALLY STAY, IS IT JUST A WAY FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO CLINICAL WORK TO GET THEIR MEDICAL SCHOOL PAID FOR. BUT THIS COMMITTEE FELT WE SHOULD SUSTAIN THAT SUPPORT. THEY MADE A COME COMPELLING ARGUMENT FOR ESTABLISHING A PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST SPECIFIC K-99 R-00 EQUIVALENT GRANTING MECHANISM. THIS IS THE PATHWAY TO INDEPENDENCE, IT MOSTLY FUNDS Ph.D.s NOW. THE COMMITTEE FELT THIS VERY IMPORTANT FOR A NEW MECHANISM WITH MORE BELLS AN WHISTLES FOR PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS. THE FOURTH IS THE ONE I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BOLDED. THIS IS A STRONG EXPAND LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAMS TO INCLUDE ALL RESEARCH AREAS AND TO INCREASE THE DOLLAR AMENDS LOAN FORGIVENESS. RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE TO BE DOING AIDS RESEARCH OR DOING CLINICAL RESEARCH. CLINICAL RESEARCH IS DEFINED AS HAVING AN IRB APPROVAL AVENUE PROVED PROTOCOL AS PART OF YOUR RESEARCH. YOU CANNOT AS A FUNDAMENTAL BASIC SCIENTIST DOING RESEARCH PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST DOING VERGE GET LOAN FORGIVENESS SO THAT IS A STRONG DISINCENTIVE FOR PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS TO DO THAT AND SUPPORT PILOT PROGRAMS TO TEST EXISTING AND NOVEL APPROACHES TO IMPROVE OR SHORTEN RESEARCH TRAINING. THESE ARE THE ONES I FOCUSED ON. THIS COMMITTEE WAS CHAIRED BY DAVID GIBBSBERG FROM MICHIGAN, SHERRY MILLS OFFICE OF EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH AND SUSAN SHEERIN WHO WAS THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF NHLBI AND EVENTUALLY RETIRE SOD THE CHAIRS AND THERE WERE A LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE ON THIS COMMITTEE. THE REPORT WAS DELIVERED IN JUNE AT THE ACD MEETING. THEY ARE NOW SETTING UP COMMITTEES TO DISCUSS IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND SOME WILL GET IMPLEMENTED AND SOME OF THEM WON'T BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR Y'ALL TO KNOW. THERE MAYBE OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOU TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK FOR WHAT SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED. THIS COMPLICATED SLIDE SHOWS THAT IF YOU TRAIN IN AN MSTP PROGRAM, YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO GET YOUR GRANT FUNDED WHEN YOU APPLY FOR ANY RPG GRANT. M.D. Ph.D.s DO BETTER THAN M.D.s IN GENERAL. STRAIGHT M.D.s. BUT AS M.D. Ph.D. YOU DO MUCH BETTER IF YOU HAVE BEEN IN AN MST PROGRAM THEN IF YOU HAVE GOTTEN COMBINED DEGREE THROUGH SOME OTHER MECHANISM THE INTEREST THING HERE IS THAT ONLY 13% OF RPG FUNDED M.D. Ph.D.s WERE SUPPORTED BY THE MSTP PROGRAM. WHILE GREAT PROGRAMSTHEY PRODUCE A RELATIVELY SMALL NUMBER OF PROPORTION OF M.D. Ph.D.s. THERE WERE DATA IN THE REPORT, 5% OF ALL MSTPs END UP CHOOSING NEUROLOGY AS THEIR RESIDENCY H N SAN IMPORTANT SOURCE FOR NEUROLOGY OF WELL TRAINED RESEARCH SCIENTISTS. WHAT ISN'T CLEAR TO ANYBODY, SO MSTP PROGRAM IS A GREAT PROGRAM, IT'S REALLY EXPENSIVE, PEOPLE WORRY ABOUT IS IT EFFECTIVE AS WE WOULD LIKE. EVERY TIME THIS COMES UP THE QUESTION RISES OF WHEN IS THE BEST TIME TO TRAIN PHYSICIANS AND RESEARCH AND HOW DO WE DO IT. SO FOR HERE MSTP YOU GO TO MEDICAL SCHOOL IN COMBINED DEGREE PROGRAM, USUALLY TWO YEARS DOING YOUR COURSE WORK AS M.D. AND THEN TAKE OUT ANYWHERE FROM 3 TO 5 YEARS DEPENDING ON THE PROGRAM TO DO YOUR Ph.D. WORK. YOU THEN FINISH MEDICAL SCHOOL, DO DRYNESS SANE THEN RETRAIN IN VERGE WHEN YOU'RE DONE, MAYBE NOT THE BEST WAY TO DO IT. DO YOU NEED TO SPEND FIVE YEARS DOING PRESIDENT. SHOULD THERE BE EXPOSURE BEFORE OR DURING COLLEGE AND DENTAL INSTITUTE DID A STUDY AND SHOWED NO ADVANTAGE TO RESEARCH IN COLLEGE SUPPORTED BY THE DENTAL INSTITUTE IN TERMS OF HOW MANY DENTISTS DURNED OUT RESEARCH DENTISTS. BEFORE OR AFTER DURING CLINICAL TRAINING AND WHAT DOSE OF RESEARCH TRAINING DO YOU DO. ALL BIG QUESTIONS AND WE HAVE NO ANSWERS. SO THE REPORT RECOMMENDED THAT WE TRY TO IMPROVE AND/OR SHORTEN RESEARCH TRAINING. SO FORGET THE M.D. Ph.D., DO A BETTER JOB TRAINING M.D.s WHO AREN'T M.D. Ph.D.s. THINK WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT W THE INTENT OF ACTUALLY TRYING TO GET AGE AT FIRST INDEPENDENT AWARD DOWN. SO NINDS IS GRAPPLING WITH THE QUESTION HOW DO YOU HELP PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS ACTUALLY BRIDGE THAT TIME FROM THEIR RESEARCH BEFORE RESIDENCE CITY TO RESEARCH AFTER RESIDENCY WITH R-25,S THAT CREATIVE PROGRAM THAT WALTER CORSHVETS CREATED UP TO 12 MONTHS DOING RESEARCH IN YOUR RESIDENCY, YOU'RE GUARANTEED A POST DRYNESS CITY YEAR OF FELLOWSHIP, WE HAVE INCREASED THAT AMOUNT OF TIME. THE HOPE IS PEOPLE WILL GO MORE QUICKLY FROM THEIR RESIDENCE SAY INTO A K AWARD PROGRAM AND WE DON'T HAVE THE DATA YET, IT'S ONLY BEEN IN PLACE FIVE YEARS. BUT WALTER AND STEVE HAVE ARGUED MAYBE LET PEOPLE THEM FINISH CLINICAL TRAINING AND HAVE RESEARCH EXPERIENCE THEN LAUNCH THAT INTENSIVE RESERGE EXPERIENCE. ISN'T THIS RESEARCH CLINICAL AND RESEARCH THEN CLINICAL SO THIS WILL BE VERY INTERESTING ALSO TO WATCH. THEN ONCE YOU FINISHED YOUR RESEARCH TRAINING HOW DO YOU GET TO BE INDEPENDENT WITH A FACULTY POSITION WITH RESOURCES. FOR Ph.D.s WE CREATED, THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS I DID AS DIRECTOR, VERY PROUD OF THIS PROGRAM THOUGH LOTS DON'T LIKE IT. THE K-99 R-00 AWARD TURNS OUT THAT ALMOST ALL PEOPLE WHO APPLY FOR THESE ARE STRAIGHT Ph.D.s. TWO YEARS OF POST DOC FELLOWSHIP TRAINING TO GET BUST AND FINISHED AND THEN YOU -- IF YOU GET A REAL JOB YOU GO DIRECTLY TO ROO FUNDENING YOUR REAL JOB. I FOR THE PEOPLE WHO MIGHT HIRE YOU, IT SHOWS YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET THIS KIND OF AWARD. LIKE YOU'RE PRE-CERTIFIED. WE HAVE ENCOURAGED ALL ALONG M.D. AND M.D. Ph.D.s TO APPLY. BUT YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT THEY DON'T DO IT. THIS YELLOW THE Ph.D. AND HERE IS THE M.D.s AND M.D. Ph.D.s. IF THEY APPLY THEY DO JUST AS WELL PROPORTIONATELY THEIR SUCCESS RATE IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAYBE A LITTLE BETTER THAN THE Ph.D.s BUT THEY DON'T APPLY SO RATHER THAN ENCOURAGING MORE PEOPLE TO APPLY FOR THIS AWARD, AS IT STANDS THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED CREATING A SPECIFIC K-99 R-00 EQUIVALENT GRANTING MECHANISM. HERE ARE THE DATA IN GRAPH FORM, HERE ARE Ph.D.ES WHO APPLY, AND HERE ARE THE M.D.s WHO APPLY. THE EVIDENCE FOR THINKING HAVING A K AWARD SUBPOENA A -- ANY KIND OF K AWARD IS GOOD FOR PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS BECAUSE MORE THAN 80% APPLY FOR RESEARCH GRANTS AND MORE THAN 60% GET THEM WHICH IS BETTER THAN PEOPLE WHO HAVEN'T HAD A K AWARD. WHAT THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED FOR THIS AWARD IS INSTEAD OF THREE YEARS OF R-00 SUPPORT YOU WOULD GET FIVE, THAT YOU WOULD INCREASE THE SALARY SUPPORT COMPONENT, ACTUALLY THE PRICE OF THE WHOLE GRANT AND THAT YOU WOULD ENFORCE THE MINIMUM 75% EFFORT PROTECTED TIME. SO THEY DON'T GET ENOUGH MONEY FOR SALARY IN THESE GRANTS TO PAY FOR 75% PROTECTED TIME, FOR Ph.D.s OR THE M.D.s OR THE M.D. Ph.D.s BUT WE SAY IF YOU GET ONE THE INSTITUTION HAS TO ALLOW YOU TO SPEND 75% OF YOUR TIME ON VERGE. AND I THINK THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS BETTER THAN THE CURRENT KO-8 K-23 AWARD. I THINK WALTER COULD MAKE A SERIES OF COMPELLING ARGUMENTS WHY IT ISN'T BETTER. AND I THINK TESTIFY RECOMMENDATION WAS FORGET THE K 08 AND K-23, DON'T FUND THOSE ANY MORE, JUST FUND THE K-99 R 00 FOR SCIENTISTS. THE K-08, K 23 ONLY BRING IN 8 DIRECTS, THE ROO BRING IN FULL DIRECT BUDGET IS SMALL. IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO RUN A REAL RESEARCH PROGRAM. THE TRICKY THING ALSO TO GET THE R-00 TOUGH HAVE A REAL PACKAGE FROM YOUR CHAIRMAN AND YOUR INSTITUTION. YOU HAVE TO HAVE SPACE, STARTUP MONEY, STARTUP FUNDS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY NEUROLOGY DEPARTMENTS OR NEUROSURGERY DEPARTMENTS FOR THAT, AFFECT WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT. SO VERY COMPLICATED, SET OF DECISIONS AND I THINK WE NEED RA SEAT AT THE TABLE AND PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS DEPARTMENTS CLINICAL DEPARTMENTS NEED TO PROVIDE INPUT. SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS PHYSICIAN WORK FORCE REPORT? A LOT OF CHANGES THAT COULD HAVE BENEFIT OR COULD ACTUALLY FURTHER DISRUPT SOMEWHAT UNSTABLE SYSTEM. >> WHAT WILL DETERMINE WHAT HAPPENS? >> THE IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE IT IS CHAIRED BY SHERRY MILLS WHO IS IN THE OFFICE OF EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH AT NIH, THERE WILL BE PROGRAM STAFF APPOINTED TO THAT COMMITTEE, THERE'S A DISCUSSION AT THE IC DIRECTOR LEVEL. AND WHILE I WOULD LOVE THAT DISCUSSION T WALTER IS REPRESENTING THE INSTITUTE. SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING FOR YOU ALL TO THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES INTENDED AND UNINTENDED OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WERE MADE. SOME OF THE MOST DISRUPTIVE RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY PREVIOUS GROUP WERE NOT IMPLEMENTED. THEY RECOMMENDED FOR EXAMPLE THAT WE NOT ALLOW ANY GRADUATE STUDENTS TO BE SUPPORTED ON RO-1s THAT I MEAN TO SHOULD ALL BE SUPPORTED ON EITHER TRAINING GRANTS INDIVIDUAL OR INSTITUTIONAL TRAINING GRANTS THERE WAS A DECISION MADE WOULD BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT DID HARM SOP ALTERNATIVE SUGGESTION THAT WAS MADE NOT CLEAR HOW WELL THAT'S WORKING OUT WHICH IS THE BEST. TIM >> DESCRIPTION OF THE TRAINING PATH I USE THE TERM THERE'S LEAKAGE IN IT SO I WAS INTERESTED HOW YOU DEFINE LEAKAGE. >> THAT IT TURNS OUT THAT AS YOU EACH -- LEAKAGE TO ME IS YOU END UP GOING INTO CLINICAL PRACTICE. IF YOU DON'T GET YOUR -- SO THE DEPARTMENT HAS YOU AS RESIDENCY, YOU'RE THE BEST REGISTER -- RESIDENT THAT YEAR, THEY GIVE YOU FELLOWSHIP AND YOU EAR WORKING IN SOMEONE'S LAB AND YOU WRITE A K AWARD, THEY PROTECT YOUR TIME FOR FINITE YEAR OR TWO OR WHATEVER YOU, DON'T GET YOUR K YOU DO MORE CLINICS. GIVEN HOW UNCERTAIN FUNDING IS, IT'S NOT JUST FOR M.D.s, PHYSICIANS, IT'S -- PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST, FOR EVERYBODY. PEOPLE LOOK AT THAT AND THEY SAY OH MY GOD, HOW AM I EVER GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL AND MENTORS SAY HOW AM I KEEP BEING SUCCESSFUL. THE LEAKAGE IS FULL TIME CLINICAL PACK PRACTICE AND ALSO TO PHARMA, THOUGH SINCE PHARMA IS NOT INTERESTED AS IT WAS IN BRAIN DISORDERS, THAT'S NOT AS ATTRACTIVE PATH. BETH. >> I'M CURIOUS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION WORKING GROUP IF YOU ARE INCLUDING INDIVIDUALS EMERGING FROM THESE PROGRAMS TO GET THEIR PERSPECTIVES THAT HURDLES THEY SEE AS OPPOSED TO A TOP DOWN APPROACH. >> IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE WILL BE COMPRISED OF NIH STAFF. I HAVE ARGUED STEVE CORN WHO WORKED EXTREMELY HARD ON ISSUES RELATED TO PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS TRAINING MADE A NUMBER OF CHANGES IN THE WAY WE DO IT. HARD TO BE ON THE COMMITTEE, I THINK THAT THAT QUESTION HOW CONSUMERS FEEL ABOUT THE PROGRAMS, COMMITTEE WAS TOP LEVEL, THEY PROBABLY AD RFI BUT WHO KNOWS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION. SO THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE THING TO THINK ABOUT. >> SOMETHING I FOUND INTERESTS IS POSSIBILITY OF DOING THE M.D. FIRST AND THEN RESEARCH OPPOSED TO TRADITIONAL 232, ONE THING WE CONVINCE STUDENTS Ph.D. Ph.D. OR HOWARD HUGHES PROGRAM IN BETWEEN IS THEY WANT TO MATRICULATE WITH THAT CLASS T. OTHER ISSUE IS MANY DON'T DECIDE THE SPECIALTY UNTIL THEY GO INTO CLINIC. SO THE RESEARCH IS DISJOINTED FROM WHAT CLINICAL PRACTICE WILL BE. >> SO IN THE OLD DAYS, PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS, MANY OF THEM, DID AN M.D. AND TRAINED IN RESEARCH. WALTER DID THAT. STEVE KATZ, DIRECTOR OF NIAMS, MY HUSBAND DID THAT. YOU COULD GET A K WADE TO DO THAT KIND OF TRAINING. -- AWARD. YOU DIDN'T HAVE FIVE PUBLICATIONS IN A SINGLE WORD JOURNAL. SO THE QUESTION, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO STRUCTURE PROGRAMS THAT PAY PEOPLE ENOUGH IN THE TRAINING PERIOD AND GIVE THEM RIGOROUS ENOUGH TRAINING TO DO THREE YEAR TRAINING POST RESIDENCY AND HAVE A DR. KAY DAY OF PEOPLE SUCCESSFUL SO A LOT OF INTERESTING QUESTIONS. BUT WE'RE NEVER GOING TO TRIPLE THE NUMBER OF MSTP STUDENTS, TOO EXPENSIVE AND MAYBE ONE THING DIRECTOR OF NIGMS WILL TELL YOU THIS AFTERNOON HE WANTS TO CUTS NUMBER OF MST PEOPLE SO A LOT OF QUESTIONS. COMMENTS? RALPH? >> I WANT TO ALSO SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THE LOAN REPAYMENT PROGRAM WHICH I THINK HAS BEEN A TREMENDOUS SUCCESS FOR MULTIPLE M.D.s COMING UP WITH HUGE DEBT, THAT'S SOMETHING I RECOMMEND EXPANDING. ONE OTHER COMMENT IN TERMS OF R-25 PROGRAM, THE ACGME IS WORKING AGAINST US A LITTLE BIT AS THEY CONTINUE TO ADD ON MORE REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBSPECIALTY TRAINING, IT IS HARD TO INCORPORATE RESEARCH INTO SUBSPECIALTY PROGRAMS, WE NEED NOVEL APPROACHES TO COMBINE VASCULAR NEUROLOGY TRAINING WITH RESEARCH, OTHER FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM ARCCGME OR CERTIFIED RESEARCH MAKES IT DIFFICULT AND INSTEAD WE HAVE COMPARTMENTALIZED SEPARATE. >> WE DON'T HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ACGME AND YOU GUYS DO. AND SOCIETIES DO, WE WOULD BE DELIGHTED. THE REST OF NINDS WOULD BE DELIGHTED AS THIS GOES FORWARD TO WORK WITH YOU AND FORMULATING ARGUMENTS. AND THERE'S ALSO THE NOTION THAT YOU HAVE TO TAKE ALL THESE SOFT, TOUGH SPEND TIME ON SOFT ISSUES, PATIENT INTERACTION, THE REQUIREMENTS CONTINUE TO MOUNT AND THAT CUTS TO TIME AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. SO I WANT TO MOVE ON TO A COUPLE OF -- >> ONE THING. >> YES. >> SO STEVE AND LIB WORKING HARD ON THIS ISSUE OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS. WE ARE TRYING TO REACH OUT AND GET ADVICE AS THINGS COME THROUGH SO PEOPLE HAVE IDEAS, PLEASE LET US KNOW AND IF WE CAN CALL ON YOU AND CHAT AS THESE THINGS GO ALONG, WE APPRECIATE IT. WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO MEET AT THE ANA WITH LEADERSHIP, SURGERY LEADERSHIP, AS MUCH INPUT AS WE CAN. >> ONE INFLUENCING WHAT THE IMPLEMENTATION IS, AN TWO, INDEPENDENTLY THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN DO THE BEST JOB, YOU MIGHT SET UP A WORKING GROUP OF COUNCIL TO HELP WITH THIS. >> CAN I SAY ONE THING. THE PROBLEM FOR YOUNG PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS IS THE PROBLEM FOR THE YOUNG WOMEN IN SCIENCE WHO HAS A BABY. AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO ADDRESS. >> AND TRIPLE THAT, IT'S A YOUNG WOMAN PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST WITH A BABY. >> THEY'RE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. YOUNG WOMAN HAVING A BABY NEEDS NIH SUPPORT FOR DAY CARE AT HOME. AND NOT THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ANY TIME SOON. YOU WONDER ABOUT THE PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST HAVING SUPPORT WHICH IS NOT ON RADAR AS FAR AS I CAN SEE TO HAVE A NURSE PRACTITIONER WORKING FOR THEM SO IF THEY WANT TO DO REAL TRANSLATION WORK AND SEE PATIENTS IN THE CLINIC, AND HAVE A LABORATORY THEY NEED ADDITIONAL HELP N. A RIPE SPOT FOR PUTTING SOMEBODY. >> ALL THOSE THINGS ARE UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN UNTIL THE NIH BUDGET CAN ACCOMMODATE FIRST IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC OPPORTUNITIES THAT EXIST. IF WE DON'T HAVE A WORK FORCE, IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN ARENOID BATTLE WITH DISEASE, YOU'RE NOT PRO-- AN ARMY, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BATTLE. COUPLE OF SMALL THINGS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT. MODULAR BUDGETS. MODULAR BUDGETS USE A SIMPLIFIED PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AND REVIEWING APPLICATION BUDGETS, WE KNOW YOUR INSTITUTIONS WON'T LET YOU SEND IN A PODS LAR GRANT WITHOUT GIVING A DETAILED BUDGETS. TRUE OF MANY INSTITUTIONS SO IT DOESN'T SAVE TIME FOR APPLICANTS. MODULAR PROCEDURES, THERE'S A CAP OF 250K DIRECT COST AND MODULES OF 25K. THESE BUDGETS WERE IMPLEMENTED IN 1999 AND THE THOUGHT WAS TO REDUCE THE WORKLOAD FOR APPLICANTS I JUST TOLD YOU THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN. AND REDUCE THE WORKLOAD FOR REVIEWERS. REVIEWERS SOMETIMES FOCUS ENTIRELY ON HOW MUCH IT WAS GOING TO COST, DID YOU NEED THAT POST DOC AND HOW MANY MEETINGS WERE YOU GOING TO GO TO AND GUILTY OF THAT AND FOCUS REVIEWSER EVALUATEING THE SCIENCE RATHER THAN BUDGETS. WHAT HAPPENED OVER TIME? WHILE THEY WERE INITIALLY PUT IN PLACE TO REDUCE BURDEN THEY HAVE BECOME DE FACTO A FAYWAY TO CONTROL COSTS. A WAY TO CONTROL COSTS. THE MODULAR BUDGET IS DEFAULT FROM IS THE 250K BUDGET REQUEST IS DEFAULT REQUEST FOR RO-1. SO WE DIDN'T GO BACK TO 1999 TO ANALYZE BUT IF YOU HAD A MODULAR BUDGET IN 2013, AND YOU CALCULATE THE REAL DOLLARS, IT'S NOT 250K ANY MORE, IT'S ONLY 181 TO $150,000. SO IF YOU WANTED A MODULAR BUDGET IN NOW, WORTH WHAT IT WAS IN 2003, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE $344,000. SO I'M CO-CHAIR OF THE EXTRAMURAL ACTIVITIES WORKING GROUP, WE PROPOSE TO INCREASE THE CAP ON THE MODULAR BUDGETS AND GOT ROUNDLY TOLD NO BY THE IC DIRECTORS BECAUSE TO INCREASE THE CAP WITHOUT CONTROLLING THE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS EVERYBODY FELT WOULD INCREASE THE COST BUT THERE WOULD BE FEWER GRANTS. IN EFFECT THE MODULAR BUDGETS, MODULAR GRANTS ARE ALMOST DISAPPEARING OF THEIR HOMOOWN ACCORD. THIS IS DATA SHOWING YOU THIS IS NOW THE DE FACTO BUDGET. YOU CAN LOOK. THIS IS THE NUMBER OF APPLICANTS WHO REQUEST BUDGETS OF THIS PARTICULAR SIZE AND THAT BIG GREEN SPIKE IN THE MIDDLE IS 250K MODULAR BUDGETS. IF YOU GET FUNDED BY HUNDRED DOLLARS YOU DON'T GET 250K BECAUSE WE CUT 12.5% OFF. IF YOU LOOK PEOPLE ARE BEGINNING TO MOVE NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS BEYOND THAT AND THE NEXT SPIKE IS 475 TO 499 BECAUSE ONCE IT HITS 500K YOU HAVE TO ASK US IF YOU CAN SUBMIT THE GRANT AND WE NOW REVIEW THOSE VERY RIGOROUSLY. THIS SHOWS YOU THAT IN -- WHEN MODULAR BUDGETS WERE PUT IN PLACE PROBABLY 85, MAYBE 90% RO-1 APPLICATIONS HAD MODULAR BUDGETS, IN 2007 IT WAS 72%, AND THE MOST RECENT DATA FROM 2014 SUGGESTS IT'S MAYBE CLOSER TO 50%. FOR THIS YEAR. THE REASON PEOPLE DON'T ASK FOR MORE WHICH THEY OBVIOUSLY NEED T TO RUN THE SAME PROGRAM MAYBE WITH A TECHNICIAN, POST DOC OR TWO, GRADUATE STUDENT IN DECENT SUPPLY, IS BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE IF THEY APPLY FOR A NON-MODULAR BUDGET THEY'RE NOT AS LIKELY TO GET FUNDED. SO THESE DATA ARE NOT OPTIMAL, THEY CAME FROM OER AND WE DIDN'T ASK EXACTLY THE RIGHT QUESTIONS. BUT THIS LOOKS AT THE AWARD RATE FOR MODULAR GRANTS ON THE TOP LINE, RO-1s AND THE AWARD RATE IS 15%. THIS IS NON-MODULAR GRANTS OVER 250 AND AWARD RATE IS 16.2%. THE REASON WHY THIS ISN'T AN IDEAL COMPARISON IS BECAUSE THIS IS ALL RO-1s. RO-1s FROM THE PARENT RO-1 FOA, REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS, PROGRAM ANNOUNCEMENTS WITH SET ASIDES SO IT SOLICITED AND ALL OF THOSE NIH SOLICITATIONS MAKE IT MORE LIKELY MORE GRANTS WILL GET FUN SOD WE HAVE ASKED THE OFFICE OF EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH TO RUN THE DATA AGAIN JUST WITH INVESTIGATOR INITIATED PARENT RO-1 NUMBERS. RIGHT HERE IT LOOKS AS IF IT'S URBAN MYTH IF YOU ASK FOR MORE YOU'RE LESS LIKELY TO GET FUNDED. SO BEST GUESS, WITHOUT ANY INTERVENTION ON NIH PART THIS GRAPH WILL CONTINUE TO DROP AND MORE PEOPLE WILL OF THEIR OWN ACCORD, IF YOU ACTUALLY HAD $380,000 IN RO-1, YOU WOULDN'T IMMEDIATELY APPLY FOR A SECOND RO1. THIS WILL BECOME PART OF DISCUSSION I THINK JOHN LORSCH WILL PRESENT AND BOB WILL BE PRESENTING. A SECOND FACTOID. A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO NIH AS PART OF THE PEER REVIEW ANALYSIS GOT RID OF THE A-2, THE THIRD TIME YOU COULD SUBMIT AN APPLICATION ON THE SAME RESEARCH QUESTIONS. THE COMMUNITY HATED THAT. FRANCIS COLLINS AND SALLY ROCKEY SAID THEY GOT MORE EMAILS AND CALLS AND BUTTON MORE MEETINGS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE THAN ALMOST ANYTHING ELSE THEY HEARD ABOUT. SO NIH RESISTED CHANGE FOR SOME TIME, THEN WE WERE TOLD WE HAD TO HAVE A CHANGE. THE CHANGE WE MADE WHICH MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE RIGHT ONE, WAS TO SAY OKAY, YOU HAVE YOUR A-0, YOU DON'T GET FUNDED, PUT IN A-1 FIRST REVISION, YOU DON'T GET FUNDED. USED TO BE YOU HAD TO COME ONE A PROJECT THAT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN A-1 THAT DIDN'T GET FUNDED. NOW, YOU CAN -- YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT. YOU CAN JUST SEND IN AS A-0 THAT GRANT WITH APPROPRIATE REVISION. YOU DON'T GET TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU CHANGE BUT YOU CAN SEND IT BACK IN N. WHAT HAPPENED TO SUBMISSIONS AS CONSEQUENCE OF THIS POLICY. SO PROBABLY MOST IMPORTANT LINE HERE IS THAT IF YOU JUST LOOK AT RO-1s, THERE WAS A 22.6% INCREASE IN FY 2015 RO-1 TYPE 1 A-0 APPLICATIONS COMPARED TO 2014. THAT IS A HUGE INCREASE IN NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS. AND IT HAS CONSEQUENCES FOR REVIEW. IT HAS CONSEQUENCES FOR PAY LINES. AND THE PRESUMPTION IS EVERYBODY DUSTED OFF THOSE GRANTS THAT DIDN'T GET FUNDED. AND WHAT THE HEY, NO PROBLEM. WE HAVE SEEN -- THIS IS NIH WIDE, WE HAVE SEEN SIMILAR INCREASE IN RO-1 APPLICATIONS. SO AS WE TRY TO THINK GOING FORWARD ABOUT SETTING THE PAY LINE FOR 2015 WE GOT TO KNOW WHAT THE BUDGET IS. WE DON'T KNOW HOW THESE GRANTS WILL BE L GET REVIEWED, IT'S ALL COMPLICATED. NIH SAW A DECREASE IN R-21s. AND RO-3 BUT WE DIDN'T SEE THAT AND THE HYPOTHESIS FOR THE DECREASE IN NIH-WIDE IS THAT IF YOU DIDN'T GET YOUR RO-1 FUNDED ON THE A-1 YOU WOULD TAKE THE IDEA REFORMAT AND SET FOR SMALLER GRANT WHICH WAS LEGAL. WE DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHY WHEN HE CONTINUE TO SEE INCREASE IN R-21 APPLICATIONS BUT WE DO. SO THIS IS ONE, INTERESTING ON INTENDED CONSEQUENCE AND IF YOU PROJECT OUT, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WHEN THIS STRATEGY DOES IF IT DOESN'T SUCCEED FOR INVESTIGATORS, THEY'LL STOP DOING IT. WEAL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE. QUESTIONS ON THOSE TWO TOPICS? IT'S REALLY IN THE WEEDS BUT IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THOSE WHO ARE ADVISING YOUNG INVESTIGATORS AND FOR FOUNDATIONS WHICH SUPPORT RESEARCH. THE LAST THING TO FINISH UP WITH IS THE BRAIN INITIATIVE. I KNOW Y'ALL HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT A LOT. BUT WE THOUGHT IT GOOD TO BRING YOU UP TO DATE. THE BIG CHALLENGE FOR THE 21st CENTURY IN HEALTH PUBLIC HEALTH IS GOING TO BE NON-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES. INFECTIOUS DISEASES, IT'S CLEAR AS WE HAVE BETTER CONTROL OVER MOST INFECTIOUS DISEASE THOUGH YOU CERTAINLY WOULDN'T MAKE THAT ARGUMENT FOR EBOLA. THEN BRAIN DISORDERS COME TO THE TOP OF CHRONIC NON-COMMUNICABLE DISEASE, NEURAL DEVELOPMENTAL, NEURODEGENRETIVE, IT IS A MAJOR ISSUE. WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HOW THE BRAIN WORKS, TO REALLY ADDRESS THIS CHALLENGE. SO ALL OF YOU KNOW. IF APRIL OF 2013. THE BRAIN INITIATIVE WAS ANNOUNCED. ADVANCING INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGIES THERE WAS A WORKING GROUP BY FRANCIS COLLINS CHAIRED BY BILL KNEWSOME AND CORRY BARKMAN THAT CAME OUT WITH INTERIM REPORT THE FINAL REPORT WAS PRESENTED. IT'S A WONDERFUL DOCUMENT. IF YOU HAVEN'T READ IT IT'S WELL WORTH THE READ AND HARD TO DO IT IN ONE SITTING. THERE'S RHETORIC IN THERE. THERE'S A BIG PLAN. FIRST FIVE YEARS TO FOCUS ON TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, SECOND FIVE YEARS TO FOCUS ON DISCOVERY-DRIVEN SCIENCE, NOT EXCLUSIVE DISCOVERY DRIVEN SCIENCE THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND YOU NEED TO CONTINUE TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT. IT'S NOT ALL NEUROSCIENCE, NOT ALL BRAIN RESEARCH, THE DECISION WAS MADE TO FOCUS ON MAPPING CIRCUITS, ON FOCUSING ON CIRCUITS MAPPING THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO HAVE BRAIN, MEASURING FLUCTUATING ACTIVITY ELECTRICAL AND CHEMICAL, FLUCTUATING PATTERNS OF ELECTRICAL AND CHEMICAL ACTIVITY IN THE CIRCUITS AND HOW THOSE CIRCUITS MAKE US THINK, REMEMBER, ACT. AND THE THOUGHT HERE WAS THAT WHILE MANY PARTS OF NEUROSCIENCE GENE DISCOVERY UNDERSTANDING CELL MOLECULAR BIOLOGY OF THE BRAIN CIRCUITS LAGGED BEHIND. THE COMMITTEE CAME ONE 7 HIGH PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS, DISCOVERING DIVERSITY, ALL THE GIVEN CELL TYPES IN THE BRAIN. MAPS AT MULTIPLE SCALES, CIRCUIT DIAGRAMS FROM SYNAPSES ON NEURON TO HOW THE PRE-FRONTAL CORTEX CONNECTS TO THE AMYGDALA AND VICE VERSA. THE BRAINIACS, MAPS TO SOME EXTENT STATIC BUT HOW CIRCUITS FUNCTION IN THE BEST OF ALL CIRCUMSTANCES AN BEHAVING ANIMAL. AND THEN DEMONSTRATING CAUSALITY. IT'S NOT ENOUGH TO SAY WHEN THIS IS HAPPENING THE ANIMAL WALKS, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO PERTURB THE CIRCUIT AND SAY OKAY, THESE PARTS OF THE CIRCUIT ARE CRITICAL FOR THAT BEHAVIOR. THEN IDENTIFYING FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES. IN THE NOT JUST OBSERVE BUG ABSTRACTING FROM THOSE OBSERVATIONS HOW THINGS WORK MAKING MODELS AND TESTING THOSE WORK, THOSE MODELS. RECOGNITION THAT THERE ARE ANIMAL MODELS, ANIMAL MODELS WHICH ARE GREAT FOR STUDYING BRAIN BUT IN THE FEND WE UNDERSTAND HUMAN NEUROSCIENCE, THAT WILL REQUIRE TECHNOLOGIES THAT AREN'T TRANSLATEED FROM WHAT YOU CAN DO IN A PRIMATE. TO ALSO CREATE AND SUPPORT INTEGRATED HUMAN BRAIN RESEARCH NETWORKS. AND THEN TO TURN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE INTO AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE BRAIN. THE WORKING GROUP FELT STRONGLY THAT THERE WERE PRINCIPLES THAT NEEDED TO BE PURSUED. HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN ANIMAL STUDIES IN PARALLEL, WE NEED TO CROSS BOUNDARIES IN INTERDISCIPLINARY COLLABORATION. YOU WANT ENGINEERS TALKING TO MATHEMATICIANS, TALK TO NANOTECHNOLOGIST, SPATIAL AND TEMPORAL SCALE, CONSIDER THE ETHICAL IMPLICATION OF THE NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH, THIS IS A VERY HOT TOPIC AND YOU HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTABLE TO NIH TAXPAYERS AND REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AN THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN WATCHING THE BLOWUP OF THE EUROPEAN HUMAN BRAIN PROJECT RECOGNIZE THERE HAS DEVELOPED A DISCONNECT BETWEEN SENIOR LEADERSHIP OF THAT AND THE BROAD NEUROSCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY IN EUROPE. THAT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR US. THEN I HAVE HIGHLIGHTED TWO, WE NEED TO ESTABLISH PLATFORMS FOR SHARING DATA AND TOOLS, IT DOESN'T DO GOOD TO COLLECT DATA AT THE -- IF THEY AREN'T SHARED. AND IF YOU HAVE TECHNOLOGY THAT IS REALLY GROUND BREAKING AND TRANSFORMATIVE, IT NEEDS TO BE VALIDATED AND NEEDS TO BE DISSEMINATED. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS THINK DEVELOPMENT OF OPTOGENETICS BY CARL AND THE FACT THAT THAT HAS PERMEATED THE ENTIRE NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH COMMUNITY IS USED BY MANY, MANY PEOPLE AND HAS BEEN I THINK TRANSNORMATIVE AND THAT REQUIRES THE FACT THAT IT WAS DISSEMINATED AND TOOLS MADE AVAILABLE. THE BRAIN WORKING GROUP WAS ASKED, FORCED, TO COME UP WITH ESTIMATED BUDGET. THIS IS THEIR ESTIMATED BUDGET. I WON'T SAY WE WOULDN'T EMBRACE IT. YOU CAN SEE INITIALLY AN INVESTMENT IN NEUROTECHNOLOGY. THAT IS THEN ADDED ON P INVESTMENT IN NEUROSCIENCE, INFRASTRUCTURE SUBPOENA CRITICAL AND THE TOTAL, YOU CAN SEE -- INFRASTRUCTURE IS CRITICAL, YOU CAN SEE IN FY 18, 19 IT REACHES STEADY STATE OF ABOUT 400 MILLION A YEAR, 500 MILLION H -- 500 MILLION FY 2021. BY 2025 THIS WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT OVERALL. NOW, THIS IS A WISH LIST, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION AND OBVIOUSLY WE NEED TO MAKE THE CASE FOR WHY THIS MONEY WILL BE INCREDIBLY WELL INVESTED. THIS WAS JUST AN NIH BUDGET, I SHOULDN'T SAY THAT. THERE ARE OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES THAT ARE ENGAGED. NSF HAS A COMMITMENT TO THIS. THEY HELD A NUMBER OF WORKSHOP, THEY ESTABLISHED A NEW MIT BASE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY CENTER FOR BRAINS, MICE AND MACHINES AND IN AUGUST 2014 THEY AWARRED 36 EARLY -- AWARDED 36 EXPLORATORY CONCEPTS FOR VERGE OR EAGER GRANTS, THESE ARE SMALL GRANTS BUT THEY WERE A COMMITMENT AND DRPA IS WAY OUT THERE. THEY ACTUALLY AS A CONSEQUENCE I THINK OF THE BRAIN INITIATIVE, ESTABLISHED A NEW BIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGIES OFFICE TO SUPPORT ALL THOSE THINGS AND THEY IDENTIFY THIS DID NOT EXIST BEFORE. THEY ASKED JEFF LINK WHO WAS AD HOC MEMBER OF BUDGET COUNCIL TO BE DIRECTOR AND THEY HAVE COME UP WITH A NUMBER OF BRAIN-RELATED PROGRAMS, SUBNET, THIS IS TO DEVELOP INANYTIMELY BETTER DEEP BRAIN STIMULATION TO DEAL WITH PSYCHIATRIC DISEASE AND TBI AND PTSD. THEY HAVE COME UP WITH A PROGRAM FOR RESTORING ACTIVE MEMORY. THESE ARE CONTRACT BASED EFFORTS, TEHERAN BIG COMPETITION, PEOPLE APPLY, THEY SELECT ONE OR TWO GROUPS TO DO IT. IT'S MILESTONE DRIVEN. SUPPOSED TO HAVE A PRODUCT IN FIVE YEARS WHICH IS WARP SPEED. THEY ALSO PUT TOGETHER NEUROFAST, THIS IS NOT ONE BIG INITIATIVE BUT A SET OF EXPLORATORY GRANTS SOME WHICH OVERLAP. WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT NIH IS DOING. ALSO REPAIR AND A FINAL ONE CALLED ELECTRICS AND THIS IS BRAND NEW AND MEANT TO FIGURE HOW YOU USE THE PERIPHERAL NERVOUS SYSTEM TO CONTROL END ORGAN FUNCTION. IF YOU HAVEN'T ROOKED AT THEIR WEBSITE, -- LOOKED ATE AT THEIR WEBSITE WHICH I DID RECENTLY, THEY ARE A TRIP H. IT'S BLACK WITH VIBRANT COLORS AND GREAT RHETORIC. IT MAKES THE NIH WEBSITES LOOK STODGEY. IT WAS DONE IN A SHORT TIME FRAME, THEY DESERVE MELD MEDALS OF HONOR TO DO IT. ONCE THE INTERIM REPORT BECAME JOB OF NIH STAFF TO WORK AT WARP SPEED WHICH WENT OUT DECEMBER 19th. THE APPLICATION CAME IN THE END OF MARCH AND WE HAD TO -- IT REVIEW OVER 360 APPLICATIONS THAT CAME INTO THESE RFAs. FOR BY AUGUST WITH A PAY PLAN. YOU WILL BE HEARING ABOUT THE LAST THREE PAY PLANS FROM THE LAST THREE AT THE END OF OUR -- DURING OUR CLOSED SESSION. MANY, MANY STAFF PARTICIPATED IT WAS A CROSS INSTITUTE INITIATIVE. WE'RE GOING TO SPEND IN THE END $46 MILLION FUNDING THIS FIRST SET OF REQUEST FOR APPLICATIONS. WHERE DID THE MUST BE COME FROM. HERE IS A LIST OF WHERE IT CAME FROM. BLUEPRINT NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH WHICH INVESTED IN LARGE PROJECTS INCLUDING THE HUMAN BRAIN CONNECTOME AT WASU AND MASS GENERAL. NIMH. NINDS DRUG ABUSE AND NIBIB EXPAND TO TEN. THE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND WOMEN'S HEALTH BECAME INTERESTED IN THIS, THEY PUT IN A MILLION DOLLARS AND WE WERE GRATEFUL FOR THAT. PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN ONE RFA AND THEN IN THE END BESIDE WHAT WE COMMITTED TO SPEND, HUNDRED DOLLARS AND NIMH TOOK MONEY FROM OUR FISCAL -- THIS FISCAL YEAR'S BUDGET TO FUND A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL GRANTS TO REALLY ROUND OUT THE PORTFOLIO. OF THIS MONEY # 2 MILLION WAS NEW MONEY FY 14 BUDGET. THAT MONEY WENT TO NINDS. NIDIB GOT LATE. AND THEN THE 10 MILLION IS MONEY THAT WOULD NOT HAVE GONE INTO RO1s. THE MAJORITY FUNDS FOR THIS INITIATIVE WERE NOT H COMPETING WITH RO-1 FUNDING. THEN THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET CROSS YOUR FINGERS. 46 IS ONGOING COMMITMENTS FOR THIS YEAR AND THERE'S NEW COMMITMENTS MADE. AT MEETING A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ON WHAT WE INVEST FY 15 MONEY IN. SO DISCUSSION, YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUTNA IN A MINUTE, WAS THAT WE WOULD REISSUE AND POTENTIALLY REFOCUS THE FY 14 FOAs CELL CLASSIFICATION NOVEL TOOLS NEXT GENERATION HUMAN IMAGING. THESE, WE MAY, WE MAY NOT, WE DON'T KNOW. WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT, WE NEED A PORTFOLIO ANALYSIS. THEN A NUMBER OF CONCEPTS APPROVED FOR NEW INITIATIVES WHICH ARE DESCRIBED HERE. IMPORTANTLY, VERY CLEAR IN THE REPORT TRAINING PEOPLE NEW TECHNOLOGY DATA ANALYSIS IS ESSENTIAL. WE SHOULD ENGAGE THE SMALL BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND CREATE TOOLS FROM WHAT SCIENTISTS PRODUCE. MULTI-SCALE APPROACHES, HUMAN BRAIN RECORDING AND MODULATION. VIRTUALLY NONE OF THE APPLICATIONS FUNDED ONE OF SIX HAD HUMAN IMAGING GRANTS IN IT. THE OTHER FIVE RELATIVELY FEW HUMAN PROJECTS WERE FUNDED. SO THERE'S A SPECIAL EMPHASIS ON HUMAN BRAIN RECORDING AND MODULATION INCLUDING NON-INVASIVE TOOLS. I WILL NOW TURN IT TO ALAN WILLARD, DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL FOR A GROUP YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR ABOUT. HE WILL PRESENT THEN LARRY ABBOTT, A REP ON THAT COMMITTEE WILL PRESENT. THAT IS NOT TYPICAL AROUND NIH JUST AS YOU HEARD ABOUT THE BIOMEDICAL WORKING FORCE, IF THERESANT GROUP SPECIFICALLY CHARGED WITH WATCHING WHAT HAPPENS IN RESPONSE TO SOME REPORT, PARTICULARLY ONE WITH LONG TERM GOALS AS THIS, THERE IS A RISK THAT IT WILL GET DILUTED AS IT GETS DIVIDE AMONG MANY INSTITUTES. IN THIS CASE SINCE THERE ARE TEN INSTITUTES AND CENTERS AT NIH INVOLVED IN NEUROSCIENCE RESEARCH RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING THIS HAPPEN, THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT WITHOUT SOME SPECIFIC GROUP OVERSEEING WHAT'S GOING ON FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF BRAIN, JUST AS YOU SEE THIS MORNING, THE DISCUSSION OF BRAIN WILL BE ONE PART OF COUNCIL MEETING BUT EVERY INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTE THOSE COUNCILS HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO, THEIR MAIN REASON FOR BEING SNOT LOOK AT BRAIN. SO WHAT THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP -- WHAT THE WORKING GROUP ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO DIRECTOR RECOMMENDED WAS TO THE CREATION OF A MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP THAT DO THE THINGS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE IN TERMS OF HELPING MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED IN THE REPORT IS FOLLOWED RECOGNIZING THIS IS A RAPIDLY DEVELOPING AREA. AND THAT THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE SEEMED APPROPRIATE AT THE TIME THE REPORT WAS WRITTEN MIGHT GET DATE SOD THERE'S A NEED TO REALLY KEEP TRACK OF WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT ALSO TO HAVE A GROUP THAT'S LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT BRAIN AND PROVIDING ADVICE TO THE INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL. SO IN TERMS OF MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP WILL FIT IN, IT'S UP HERE. ENOUGH ANY INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTE THE ADVISES VISERY COUNCIL ADVISES THE INSTITUTE DIRECTOR, IN THIS CASE TEN BRAIN INSTITUTE DIRECTORS WHO ARE ADVISED BY I WILL SHOW YOU WHO THEY ARE IN THE NEXT SLIDE. BUT NORMALLY THIS GROUP DOESN'T EXIST. DOWN HERE YOU CAN SUBSTITUTE THE CLUSTERS AN OPPOSITES PROGRAM STAFF WHO ARE COMING UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS AND THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE WHAT WE DISCUSS IN CLOSED SESSION AT COUNCIL. IN THIS CASE BECAUSE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF BRAIN, MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP, THAT WILL IS GOING TO BE LOOKING JUST AT BRAIN ACTIVITIES AND WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS. THE STRUCTURE OF THIS MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP A MEMBER FROM EACH OF THE TEN BRAIN INSTITUTES AND CENTERS. SO AS STORY SAID, LARRY ABBOTT WILL BE OUR MEMBER, YOU WILL RECOGNIZE A NUMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE LOOKING AROUND HERE SO RICK, MARK, EMORY BROWN, FRANCIS, BRAD HYMAN ARE ALL PEOPLE THAT IMMEDIATELY COME, JIM, ALL PEOPLE THAT COME TO MIND AS MEMBERS OF THIS WORKING GROUP. THERE ARE ALSO EXOFFICIO MEMBERS FROM SOME OF THE OTHER AGENCIES WORKING ON BRAIN INCLUDING NSF, IMPORTANTLY THERE'S EXOFFICIO MEMBERS IN FDA AS WELL. THIS GROUP WILL BRING IN REAL EXPERTISE THAT CAN LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON AT BRAIN AND THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS CAN FEEDBACK AND PROVIDE INFORMATION COMING FROM THIS TO THE INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL. IT'S IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THIS IS A WORKING GROUP. THIS WORK DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE PAY PLANS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT IS THE DUTY OF COUNCIL, EACH COUNCIL IS DOING THAT WORK FOR ADVISING THE DIRECTOR OF THE INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTE. IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT THINGS IT MAYBE BIG TICKET HIGH ITEMS LIKE BRAIN, IT WILL PUT COUNCIL AT EASE TO KNOW PROPOSED PLANS ARE LOOKED AT AND THOUGHT CAREFULLY EXPERTISE IN THE FIELD. THAT'S ONE OF THE IMPORTANT FUNCTIONS OF THIS MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP. THE OTHER ONE AS PROGRAM STAFF WORKING ON NEW CONCEPTS OR FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS WE WILL USE THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP AS A PLACE FOR CONCEPT CLEARANCE. YOU WILL HEAR ABOUT CONCEPT CLEARANCE FOR A PARTICULAR IDEA THIS AFTERNOON, I THOUGHT I WOULD REMIND YOU WHAT CONCEPT CLEARANCE IS. SO IN PARTICULAR, IF NIH INSTITUTE INTENDS TO ACTUALLY TAKE PART OF ITS APPROPRIATION AND SET ASIDE SPECIFICALLY SUPPORT RESEARCH IN SOME AREA, WE CAN'T JUST DECIDE IN A CLOSED ROOM FEDERAL EMPLOYEES WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, HAVE TO CONSULT WITH THE PUBLIC TO DO THAT. THAT'S GETTING CONCEPT CLEARANCE. THAT'S A NECESSARY BUT NOT SUFFICIENT STEP, IT ALSO HAS TO BE HIGH HAY AMONG PRIORITIES OF THE INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTES. EXAMPLES OF THAT INPUT, ADVISORY COUNCIL ARE ONE, WE USE EWE YOU AS SOURCE OF CONCEPT CLEARANCE OF THINGS WE WANT TO DO. IT CAN ALSO COME FROM THINGS AS CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE OR WORKSHOPS THAT CONVENED SPECIFICALLY TO SOLICIT PUBLIC INPUT. MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP WILL PROVIDE THAT FOR CLEARING CONCEPTS AND DISCUSSING THEM. HELPING STAFF APPRECIATE WHETHER OR NOT THINKS PROPOSED FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS ARE KEEPING US ON THE PATH TIE CHIEFING THE GOALS PUT FORTH IN THE BRAIN REPORT. SO WITH THAT, I CAN ASK IF THERE'S QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR, TURN IT TO LARRY TO TALK ABOUT THINGS AT THE FIRST MEETING OF THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. P QUESTIONS ON JUST WHAT THE COMMITTEE IS OR WHAT IT DOES. >> THIS IS A NOVEL MECHANISM FOR NIH, TOLL MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUPS IN EXISTENCE. THE FIRST WAS SETS UP FOR BD 2K BIG DATA TO KNOWLEDGE. THAT IS EVEN MORE COMPLICATED THAN BRAIN. THIS THEY HIRED A NEW ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR BIG DATA. WHO IS RUNNING THAT WILL PROGRAM AND OURS IS THE SECOND. IF THESE WORK OUT IT MAY BECOME A MORE COMMON STRATEGY FOR OTHER TRANS-NIH INITIATIVES. THE ONE BULLET I ADDED TO ALAN'S SLIDE, THE LAST ONE, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WE GET AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN IS HOW ARE YOU COORDINATING, THERE'S A FEDERAL AGENCY THEN THERE'S THE HOWARD HUGHES. ALAN BRAIN INSTITUTE. AND GATSBY AND CONLEY AND SIMONS FOUNDATION. HOW ARE COORDINATING THE FEDERAL AGENCIES WHERE THERE'S SOME CONTROL. HOW ARE WE COORDINATING WITH THOSE PRIVATE AGENCIES. AND ONE SUGGESTION UP AT THE LAST MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP IS WE CAN INVITE THEM, THEY CAN BE INVITED TO THE NEXT COUNCIL WORKING GROUP TO DISCUSS THEIR PLANS. SO IT WOULDN'T BE FORCED COORDINATION BUT AT LEAST BE INFORMATION SHARING AND FOR SURE DRPA AND NSF WILL COME AND PRESENT IN ADDITION TO AD HOC MEMBERS. >> THOSE ARE A SLIDE THAT I GOT FROM STORY T. ACROSS THE TOP, THE GOALS THAT THIS -- IN THIS WONDERFUL REPORT WERE LAID OUT. THEN DOWN THE LINE ARE THE DIFFERENT 2014 PROGRAMS AND THEN THE IDEAS FOR 2015 THAT WE DISCUSSED. I THOUGHT I WOULD DISSECT THIS AND START WITH THESE. WE'RE FORTUNATE ON THIS COMMITTEE THAT THE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE DID SUCH A GREAT JOB. I THINK EVERYBODY IS ON BOARD THESE GOALS ARE GOOD. THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO. SEVERAL PEOPLE FROM THE PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ARE ON THERE INCLUDING CORY BARGMANN SO IT MAKE IT IS JOB EASIER TO HAVE A PROGRAM LAID OUT. WHAT OUR ROLE AND WHAT OTHER PEOPLE DO ARE TWOFOLD BROAD SCALE. GOING DOWN FROM THESE IDEAS AND GETTING GOOD GRANTS FUNDED AND ALL THAT, THAT'S THE USUAL MECHANISM, THAT'S THE REVIEW PANELS AND COUNCILS AND ALL THAT. WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE ARE TWO THINGS. ONE, THERE'S A BALANCE ACROSS THESE IDEAS. THE OTHER, THERE'S A LATERAL FLOW FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. THESE AREN'T PARALLEL LINES OF RESEARCH NO MATTER HOW GREAT. BUT THAT WE LEARN FROM THEM. AS I GET INTO TALKING ABOUT WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT YOU WILL SEE TWO THEMES COMING UP SO I DIVIDED THESE PROGRAMS INTO THE MORE TECHNOLOGICAL TOOL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS THAT I LISTED HERE AND THE NEXT SLIDE TALK ABOUT THE MORE USE OF THE TOOLS FOR SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PROPOSALS. SO WHEN YOU THINK DEVELOPING A TOOL I HAVE DRAWN A TIME LINE HERE FROM ALL THE WAY FROM INNOVATION TO PERHAPS ULTIMATELY CLINICAL USE BUT CERTAINLY USED IN EXPERIMENTS. ONE THING THAT CAME UP THAT WE TALKED ABOUT A LOT, IN THESE DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES YOU SEE LISTED WHERE ARE WE ALONG THIS SCALE? AND ARE THE FUNDING MECHANISMS AND LEVELS AND ALL THAT, APPROPRIATE TO WHERE TECHNOLOGY IS. IN PARTICULAR IN THE CELL TYPE CLASSIFICATION, DISCUSSION CAME UP WHETHER FUNDING WASN'T AHEAD OF THE GAME. THERE WERE MORE BASIC ISSUES TO BE DEALT WITH IN THE TECHNOLOGY BEING USED FOR THAT. IN GENERAL THESE PROGRAMS AND IN GENERAL THE BRAN WANTS TO FUNDS ALL LEVELS SO OUR GOAL STOW MAKE SURE THAT IT DOES EXTEND ACROSS ALL LEVELS AND AS I SAID THE APPROPRIATE LEVEL IS BEING ADDRESSED FOR THE TECHNOLOGY. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT WAS DISCUSSED QUITE A BIT, IT WILL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HUMAN STUDIES AN NON-HUMAN STUDIES. HUMAN STUDIES ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT THAN NON-HUMAN STUDIES. IN NEUROSCIENCE. THERE IS A BIGGER DEDIVIDE THAN NEEDS TO BE. ONE THING WITH ENTHUSIASM ARE BETTER UNDERSTANDINGS OF NATURE OF SIGNALS RECORDED FROM HUMANS AS OPPOSED TO SIGNALS RECORD FROM ANIMALS. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FMRI SIGNALS AND OPTICAL IMAGING SIGNALS OR ELECTRICAL RECORDING SIGNALS THAT YOU GET FROM ANIMALS. AS A WAY, AGAIN, THIS IS ONE OF THESE LATERAL THINGS TO TRY TO BRIDGE THESE GAPS. ALSO THERE ARE CONVENTIONAL ELECTRODE RECORDINGS FROM HUMAN PATIENTS. BUT HOW DO WE GET THE STUDY OF THEM INTO THE FOLD OF THE MORE CONVENTIONAL STUDIES MORE COMMON STUDIES THAT WE SEE IN ANIMALS. SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE LATERAL ISSUES THAT WE DISCUSSED. SO HERE ARE THE SCIENTIFIC END OF THINGS. HERE THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT SCALE. BOTH IN THE ANATOMY WHICH IS NUMBER TWO AND IN PHYSIOLOGICAL STUDIES, WE STUDY THE NERVOUS SYSTEM AT MANY SCALES IN ANATOMY FROM EM TO OPTICAL TO COURSE TRACING TO FMRI DIFFUSION TENSER TECHNIQUE, THINGS LIKE THAT. AGAIN, IN THE IDEA OF THIS LATERAL FLOW THAT I THINK IS REALLY CRUCIAL IF THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE A LOT OF GOOD RESEARCH BUT A UNIFIED GOOD RESEARCH PROGRAM AND SOMETHING SPECIAL TO CROSS THOSE SCALES. SO THAT LED TO DISCUSSION OF NUMBER 3 ITEM HERE THAT VAGUELY BEING FORMULATED, SO VAGUE BUT IT'S BEING FORMULATED. BUT NEVERTHELESS WE HAVE TO EXPLORE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THE MECHANISMS OF LEARNING FROM ONE SCALE TO THE OTHER. THAT'S THE FLOW BY WHICH THIS KNOWLEDGE IS GOING TO GET TO THE HUMAN BRAIN IN THE END. THE OTHER THING IS THIS IS CROSS DISCIPLINARY. THE SHORT COURSE ADDRESSES THAT AS STORY TALKED ABOUT. BUT ALSO IT'S GOING B TO BE IMPORTANT AS WE GO AHEAD IN MAKING SURE THE RESEARCH FOSTERS THOSE KINDS OF CROSS DISCIPLINARY COLLABORATIONS. GIVING THE OPPORTUNITIES PEOPLE FROM OTHER FIELDS TO CONTRIBUTE BY FRAMING RESEARCH QUESTIONS APPROPRIATELY. FINALLY I MENTION THERE WAS QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF THIS, THAT HOW DO WE BALANCE THE BREADTH VERSUS THE FOCUS. IF ALL GOES WELL THIS IS GOING TO GROW INTO A LARGE PROGRAM. THAT'S GREAT BUT WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE FOCUS ON THE TOP. SOME THIS IS WHAT WE WILL CONTINUE TO DEAL WITH. HOW TO KEEP FOCUS IN A VERY LARGE PROGRAM AND LATERAL FLOW OF INFORMATION AS MAXIMUM AS POSSIBLE. I'LL STOP THERE. >> GREAT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I HAVE TO SAY THAT NONE OF US KNEW -- NONE OF US NIHERS OR MAYBE EVEN THE MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP HAD ANY IDEA HOW IT WOULD WORK. I THINK IT WAS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE A GREAT MEETING, A LOT OF HONEST FEEDBACK. DEFINITELY NOT IN THE WEEDS LIKE I DON'T LIKE SPECIFIC NUMBER X BUT LOOK AT BALANCE ACROSS THE INVESTMENTS. LARRY WAS QUITE GOOD AT REMINDING US THAT WE WEREN'T MAYBE DOING ENOUGH IN THE THEORY AND DATA ANALYSIS AS OTHERS POINTED OUT. I THOUGHT WHILE WE WEREN'T SURE IT WOULD WORK BECAUSE OF THE PEOPLE ON IT AND THEIR COMMITMENT, I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE AN INCREDIBLY VALUABLE TOOL FOR MAKING SURE THIS INITIATIVE STAYS ON TRACK, MOVES FORWARD AND ACTUALLY DELIVERS ON WHAT EVERYONE HOPES IT WILL. LARRY WILL TAKE QUESTIONS, I WILL TAKE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AND ALAN WOOD AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON. THANKS A LOT. GREAT. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT THIS EVENING. OKAY. SO THE NEXT -- ARE YOU GOING TO INTRODUCE? SO THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A REPORT BY DR. ROBERT DARNELL WHOM YOU ALL KNOW WELL, PROFESSOR AND PHYSICIAN ROCK FELL H ALREADY UNIVERSITY HHI INVESTIGATOR. THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM AT NIH ARE REVIEWED PIECEMEAL INVESTIGATOR BY INVESTIGATOR. BY THE BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNSELORS, SO EVERY INVESTIGATOR IS REVIEWED BY THIS BOARD EVERY THREE TO FOUR YEARS. WE GET A GRADE ON HOW GOOD THAT PROGRAM IS AND ADJUST RESOURCES ACCORDING TO THAT GRADE. THAT DOESN'T DO IS IT DOESN'T GIVEN AN OVERVIEW OF OUR WHOLE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM SO YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT BY LOOKING AT IT PIECEMEAL WE DON'T HAVE A SENSE OF THE WHOLE PROGRAM NIH INSTITUTED BEFORE I CAME HERE SCIENTIFIC DIRECTOR, MORE THAN 19 YEARS AGO, A POLICY THAT EVERY INTRAMURAL PROGRAM SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE BLUE RIBBON PANEL. EVERY FIVE TO SIX YEARS. WE JUST HAD OUR FIRST BLUE RIBBON PANEL. THERE WERE LOTS OF REASONS WE DIDN'T DO IT EARLIER. IT SEEMED ESSENTIAL WE DO ONE AT THIS TIME. IN PART BECAUSE NIH AS A WHOLE IS GOING TO BE LOOKING AT H A LONG RANGE PLAN FOR THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. JUST AS THERE'S BEEN HUGE FISCAL PRESSURE ON THE EXTRAMURAL PROGRAMS, EXTRAMURAL INVESTIGATORS, INSTITUTIONS, MEDICAL SCHOOLS, UNIVERSITIES, RESEARCH INSTITUTES, THAT SAME PRESSURE HAS BEEN FELT IN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM BUDGET HAS DECREASED 20 TO 25% IN REAL DOLLARS JUST AS THE EXTRAMURAL -- P INTRAMURAL DECREASE JUST AS EXTRAMURAL HAS, IF YOU GRAPH THAT OUT WITH NO RELEASE, RELIEF, WE BETTER HAVE A PLAN IN PLACE TO FIGURE HOW THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM CONTRIBUTES IN A COMPELLING FASHION TO THE ENTIRE BIOMEDICAL VERGE ENTERPRISE. AS WE PREPARE TO PUT IN OUR SUGGESTIONS FOR THE LONG RANGE PLAN, WE FELT IT WAS CRITICAL TO HAVE A BLUE RIBBON PANEL REVIEW OF OUR INSTITUTE AND HAVE THAT SHAPE WHAT WE PROPOSE. >> BOB SUGGESTED THAT WE TAKE A BREAK NOW WHILE HE TRANSITIONS. SO WHY DON'T WE TAKE ABOUT A 15 MINUTE BREAK UNTIL 10:10 AND COME BACK HERE. >> I THINK WE'RE GOING TO START AGAIN, STORY SHOULD BE HERE MOMENTARILY. BEFORE BOB STARTS WITH BLUE RIBBON PANEL REPORT ALAN CORESKI THE DIRECTOR OF THE SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM WILL SAY A FEW WORDS. >> I WANTED TO THANK BOB FOR DOING THAT'S SPECIALLY THE TIME HE WAS TRYING TO GET OFF COUNCIL. THE COMMITTEE THAT CAME TO US WAS QUITE OUTSTANDING, MIKE GREENBERG AN BETH DAVIDSON TO KEEP THEM TOGETHER AND FIGURE HOW TO GET A CONSENSUS, REALLY DESERVES A LOT OF CREDIT. I MUST SAY ESPECIALLY THE NEW MEMBERS THAT EVERY YEAR THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM TAKES UP SOME OF YOUR TIME, TYPICALLY IN THE SPRING AND WHEN SPRING COMES, WE WILL REPLY TO THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS TIME IS INFORMATIONAL AND NEXT TIME WILL SAY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IN RESPONSE TO SUGGESTION. >> ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S A PLEASURE TO PRESENT TO YOU NOW THAT I'M A MEMBER OR NOT OF COUNCIL. I CAN'T FIGURE WHERE IT STANDS. I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH HUNDRED DOLLARS INTRAMURAL EXPRAY MURAL PROGRAM FOR YEARS, -- NINDS INTRAMURAL PROGRAM FOR YEARS, CHAIR OF THE BSC FOR A WHILE THEN >> -- USE A MIC PLEASE. >> THIS MIKE? -- THIS MIC? THERE WE GO. SO IT'S BEEN I HAVE TO SAY UP FRONT, A GREAT EXPERIENCE BEING INVOLVED WITH NINDS, INTERIM AND EXTRAMURAL. SO NOW THAT I SAID THOSE BAD THINGS ABOUT STORY LANDIS,TY I'M GO FOG GIVE YOU WHAT WE DID STORY INTRODUCED THE CONCEPT THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM NEEDED REVIEWS, THE ONLY INTRAMURAL PROGRAM AT NIH THAT HADN'T HAD INTRAMURAL REVIEW AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND. I HAVE TO SAY I WAS A LITTLE PRODDED BY DAVID GINTY WHO IS ASKING QUESTIONS OF COUNSEL FOR QUITE A WHILE. WHICH I COULD NEVER FIGURE THE ANSWER TO, I'M INTERESTED IN THE WEEDS A LITTLE BIT I WILL DO THAT A LITTLE BIT WITH YOU GUYS SO UP FRONT THANKS KATIE WHO COULDN'T BE HERE BUT HELPED DO A LOT OF ORGANIZATION AND CHRIS PALMER WHO HELPED WRITE UP THE REPORT. I WILL TELL YOU WHAT THE PROCESS WAS FOR THIS REVIEW, FAIRLY INTENSIVE WE HAD NUMBER OF CONFERENCE CALLS THROUGH MAY AND JUNE, ONE INCLUDED OPEN CALLS WITH STORY AND ALMOST AS WELL AS EXECUTIVE SESSIONS DISCUSSING WHERE WE WERE THINKING THEMSELVES AND THAT LED TO THIS TWO DAY MEETING HERE AT THE END OF JUNE WHERE WE MET WITH LEADERSHIP, WE HEARD PRESENTATIONS FROM EVERY ASPECT OF THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM NINDS AS WELL AS REALLY INTERESTINGLY WE MET SEVEN SCIENTIFIC DIRECTORS AND TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED, REVEALING. SO THAT WAS BRAVE OF NINDS LEADERSHIP TO PUT THESE GUYS IN FRONT OF US. IT WAS FASCINATING. WE MET IN DETAIL WITH FACULTY, STUDENTS, TRAINEES. THIS LED TO 48 PAGES OF NOTES DISTILLED DOWN TO A 20 PAGE REPORT. I WOULD SAY OVERLAID ON THIS WHICH IS STRICTLY A REPORT NINDS INTRAMURAL PROGRAM, HOW IT'S BEEN AND STANDS NOW, THERE'S A SIMULTANEOUS LONG TERM VISION REPORT THAT WAS A SEPARATE REPORT THEY I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT STORY AND WE PUT TOGETHER IN PARALLEL WHICH IS A DIRECTION WHERE NINDS IS GOING. THIS IS THE PANEL I CHAIRED THIS THING, MY TWEET UP FRONT YOU'RE WELCOME TO TWEET THIS LIVE OR AFTER THE FACT. WE HAD A TERRIFIC GROUP OF PEOPLE, BOB BROWN UMASS MASTER AT LOU GEHRIG'S DISEASE, DAVID WHO SHEER, TOM CAR MOTORCYCLE WHO IS A GREAT CONTRIBUTOR TO THIS T. BABE WHO IS HERE, MIKE GREENBERG, VERY THOUGHTFUL AS WAS RICK. MARK JOHNSON, NEUROSURGICAL PERSPECTIVE AND BRUCE. SO THE OVERALL TAKE ON THIS WAS SEVERAL. I WANT TO GO THROUGH WHAT WE SAW AS THE STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES OF THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. FORTUNATELY FOR YOU GUYS, MOST OF THE SLIDES BUILD UP STRENGTHS, FEW ABOUT WEAKNESS. THE OVERALL BIG PICTURE HERE ARE LEADERSHIP WOULD DEEM BY BLUE RIBBON PANEL FROM START TO ANY NICHE EXCEPTIONAL. THAT'S -- TO FINISH EXCEPTIONAL THAT'S STORY AND ALAN WORKING AS A TEAM THERE'S MANY THINGS THEY DID THAT HELPED TRANSFORM THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM FROM THE TIME THEY CAME ON BOARD, I DON'T KNOW THE YEAR THAT WAS UP TO PRESENT BUT IT WENT THROUGH AMAZING TRANSFORMATION FROM OLD SCHOOL SYSTEM TO MODERN VISION OF INSTITUTE THAT I THINK WE'RE ALL ALIGNED WITH. TO TAKE A MOMENT TO COMMENT ON STORY LANDIS'S LEADERSHIP BECAUSE WE CAN'T HELP -- NOBODY ELSE GETS TO ROAST HER, I WOULD POINT OUT THE WORD LANDIS DERIVES FROM THE OLD ENGLISH LAND SO IT REALLY HAD TO DO WITH SEVERAL LEVELS OF MEANING DATING BACK TO EARLY MIDDLE AGE. SO THESE WERE LAND OWNERS, BUT THAT WAS A NICE TERM FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE REALLY PIXIE, THE OLD TRADITIONAL TERM. THE PROBLEM WAS WHICH I FIND FASCINATING PARALLEL TO THE CURRENT. PEOPLE WHO LIVED IN FIRST MORE OR LESS PIXIES UP IN ENGLAND. BUT THE GOVERNMENT COULDN'T STAND IT BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE DIDN'T PAY TAXES. SO THEY WENT OUT TO THESE PIXIES AND GAVE THEM A NAME AND THE NAME WAS LAND. SO THAT WAY THEY COULD TAX THEM WHICH IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM STORY FACES TODAY RUNNING THE NINDS, BEING TAXED IN WAYS THAT ARE WITHOUT FULL REPRESENTATION SO SHE'S DEALT WITH THAT, IT'S PROBABLY IN HER GENES TO BE NINDS DIRECTOR. IS THAT AS FAR AS I COULD GO FOR ROAST FOR STORY. (OFF MIC) [LAUGHTER] >> PIXIE WHO CAN FIGHT THE GOVERNMENT, WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED? SO I DID NOT DO CORINSKY SO ALAN YOU'RE OFF THE HOOK, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT CORETSY IS. SO BUT AGAIN SO THE BIG VISION HERE WAS THAT THE OLD NINDS WAS OLD STYLE ROCKEFELLAR UNIVERSITY. VERY HIERARCHICAL, RESEARCH FUNDS WENT INTO ONE BIG HEAD OF LABORATORY WHO HAD LARGE PROGRAMS UNDERNEATH THEM. THAT WAS THE -- GOING TO BE THE KISS OF DEATH FOR ROCKEFELLAR UNIVERSITY WHICH BROKE INTO SMALL LABORATORIES SO VERY TUNED IN WHEN I CAME HERE TO WATCH THAT TRANSITION STORY AND ALMOST WERE UNDERTAKING THE BREAK UP OF VERY LARGE MONOLITHIC TO A MORE EGALITARIAN SYSTEM, MORE JUNIOR FACULTY FOCUS, SO A KEY INSIGHT AND NOT ONLY INSIGHT BUT THEY IMPLEMENTED. IT. IN ADDITION, THEY WERE PRESSURED I THINK STICKING TO THIS IDEA OF THE BALANCE BETWEEN BASIC SCIENCE AND CLINICAL SCIENCE, WE KNOW AND ENAMORED WITH SCIENCE PUSHING FORWARD AND HAVING GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR CLINICAL TRANSFORMATION BELABOR AT THE SAME TIME DON'T THROW OUT THE BABY WITH THE BATH WATER, AS CAME OUT IN THE LAST YEAR, WITH STORY'S VERY PUBLIC INITIATIVE OBVIOUS YOU GUYS WERE CRITICAL TO MAKE CLEAR AN QUANTITATE THE DANGER OF LOSING BASIC SCIENCE FOCUS ON CLINICAL SCIENCE, STORY WAS AHEADS OF THAT. SHE AN ALAN MAINTAIN AD STRONG STRENGTH AND FOCUS ON BASIC SCIENCE. SO THESE ARE KEY ASPECT WHAT IS LEADERSHIP HAS DONE. SOME DISTINCTIVE FEATURES THE INTRAMURAL RESEARCH PROGRAM THAT FALL FROM THIS LEADERSHIP. ONE IS THIS EFFORT IN TERMS OF THE FOCUS ON THE SCIENCE, TO ESTABLISH A VERY HIGH BAR FOR THE SCIENCE AND KEEP IT THEY HAVE DONE THAT IN RECRUITING AND WEEDING OR BEAM ARE NOT AS STRONG, AND THE MECHANISM THEY USE TO DO THAT, TO ESTABLISH A STRONG EMPOWERED WHATEVER BSC STANDS FOR, THE OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE. BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNSELORS. I USED TO CHAIR THAT. SO THE BSC IS SOMETHING ALAN MADE THE POINT, BSC IS INDEPENDENT GROUP OF THOUGHTFUL SCIENTISTS CLINICIAN SCIENTISTS BASIC SCIENTIST WHOSE DO RIGOROUS REVIEWS OF INTRAMURAL SCIENCE HERE AND SCIENTISTS. AND WHAT THEY SAY CARRIES WEIGHT AND ALMOST MAKES THIS POINT, I SEE HIM NODDING HIS HEAD. IT'S TRUE. HAVING WATCHED THIS OVER THE YEARS, THE EXTRAMURAL REVIEW, THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM IS CRITICAL IN MAINTAINING THE QUALITY. SO THAT'S SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT THEY ESTABLISHED. THEY ALSO HAD A BIG FOCUS IN THIS SWITCH AS I ALLUDED TOWARD BIG LABORATORIES TO JUNIOR LABORATORIES T. THERE'S STILL SOMETHING UNFINISHED THERE, RECOGNITION FOCUS ON WOMEN AND MINORITIES THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF, THERE'S UNFINISHED BUSINESS THERE. THIS FLAG STRUCTURE I ALLUDED TO WHICH IS PART OF THE SAME IDEA OF SWITCHING FROM BIG LAB TO SMALL LAB. THE OTHER POINT HERE IN TERMS OF BSC REVIEW, IS SOMETHING THAT I TAKE WINNING POINT FROM HOWARD HUGHES REVIEWS THAT I THINK WAS H DONE HERE AT BC. REVIEWS ARE FOCUSED ON PAST PERFORMANCE NOT WISH LIST WHAT YOU WANT TO DO OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, NOT THAT THAT'S ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT BUT AT LEAST TWO-THIRDS, ONE-THIRD IS SORT OF RATIO OF THE WAY INTRAMURAL SCIENTISTS ARE REVIEWED, MOSTLY WHAT YOU DO YESTERDAY, NOT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO FOR ME TOMORROW. THAT'S THE OTHER THING INVOLVED, HUGHES APPRECIATE THAT. SO YOUR FEET ARE HELD TO THE FIRE. THIS OTHER SPECIAL INITIATIVE PROGRAM QUITE IMPORTANT, IT WAS SET UP IN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM HERE, FLEXIBILITY. SO THERE ARE ADDITIONAL FUNDS ON TOP OF FUNDS ALLOCATED BY THE BSC AND ALAN AND STORY MORE PARTICULAR LABORATORIES ABOVE AND BY BEYOND THAT, FLEXIBLE FUNDS ALAN CAN USE TO SEED NEW INITIATIVES THAT.'S QUITE PRODUCTIVE. EVERYTHING IS BLACK AND WHITE TO KEEP YOU AWAKE. SOME OF THE PROGRAM STRENGTH DOWN NITTY GRITTY, THE RESOURCES, BY RESOURCES I MEAN BOTH MONEY AND TECHNOLOGY AND MATERIAL. RESOURCES ARE LESS THAN 10% NINDS BUDGET. THAT IS THE NUMBER CAUSES ANGST FOR MEMBERS OF COUNCIL APPROXIMATE INCLUDING ONE SITTING OVER THERE. I WON'T GO INTO DETAILED REVIEW HOW THAT MONEY IS SPENT, BUT WE WENT INTO A LOT OF DETAIL, THERE'S A LOT OF INTERESTING ASPECTS OF THAT, THAT EXPLAIN WHERE THAT MONEY WENT TO TO OUR SATISFACTION, MY SATISFACTION. SO GOES TO SCIENCE PROGRAM THEMSELVES, INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE SCIENCE PROGRAMS, A BIG PIECE OF THAT IS -- TWO THINGS. ONE IS THE PUSH TO DO THE PORTER NEUROSCIENCE BUILDING. THIS WAS SOMETHING REALLY PUSHED FORTH BY STORY FOR VALUE OF THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM, THERE'S NINE INSTITUTES SITTING IN THIS BUILDING. SO THOUGH IT'S A NEUROSCIENCE BUILDING, IT'S NOT ALL NINDS SO KEY ASPECT AND INSIGHT HERE WAS TO MAKE THIS INTERINSTITUTIONAL AGGREGATE FOR SYNERGISTIC SCIENCE. SO BIG RESOURCE AND PUSH TO PUSH THAT THROUGH. THE OTHER BIG SUPPORT FOR THIS IS SUPPORT FOR NIH CLINICAL CENTER. MORE TO SAY ABOUT THAT. THE MOST TANGIBLE OUTPUT MIGHT BE THE TERRIFIC SUPPORT FOR THE MRI FACILITIES, IMAGING FACILITIES THAT ALAN IS HEAVILY INVOLVED WITHND WE TOURED THE FACILITIES, WORLD CLASS I SURPASSED I WOULD SAY IN THE WORLD -- THIS IS A GREAT ASSET FOR INTRAMURAL SCIENCE AS WELL AS THE EXTRAMURAL POTENTIAL THIS HAS. THERE'S OTHER INITIATIVES LIKE TRANS-NIH PARKINSON'S DISEASE CLINIC. THE NMR RESEARCH WHICH I ALLUDED TO IN PART HERE IS A BIG ASSET FOR BASIC SCIENTISTS HERE. STEM CELL FACILITY, TO PUT NUMBERS WHERE FUNDS ARE GOING HERE, ON THE ORDER OF $150 MILLION IS THE TOTAL BUDGET WHICH IS BROKEN UP BETWEEN SUPPORTING THESE CORE FACILITIES AND SUPPORTING THE PIs AND THEIR STAFF AND NUMBERS ARE HERE. ABOUT 50 PIs, 60 STAFF SCIENTISTS AND 250 TRAINEES. OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROGRAM ARE THE COMB DOWN STRENGTHS OF BASIC AN TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCES ARE, ALAN MAY -- HE DOESN'T REALLY LIKE THE BREAKDOWN OF BASIC AND CLINICAL AND HE'S WISE IN THAT SOME WAYS, EVERYTHING IS MERGED HERE. THERE'S GREAT INTERCONNECTIVETY BETWEEN LABS DOING BASIC SCIENCE RESEARCH AND PROP TENIAL CLINICAL OUTPUT FROM THAT. NONETHELESS PARTICULAR STRENGTH HERE IS MORE BASIC CATEGORY TALKED ABOUT BEFORE. WHEN I CAME ON BOARD AT THE BSC THERE WERE HISTORICAL STRENGTHS FOR EXAMPLE NEUROIMMUNOLOGY MAINTAINED HERE, SOME OF THESE ARE BUILT UPON OVER TIME, SOME HAVE BEEN REVISITED BY (INAUDIBLE) FOR EXAMPLE. AREAS OF SPECIAL NOTE IN TERMS OF STRENGTH HERE, THERE'S TREMENDOUS WORLD CLASS STRENGTH HERE ION CHANNEL TRANSPORTER, STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION W TALKED TO SCIENTISTS IN DETAIL AND EVERYBODY ON THE REVIEW PANEL SIMILAR PRESSED. SAME WITH SCIENTISTS WORKING ON SYNAPTIC FUNCTION AN STRUCTURE, AND SAME IN GENETICS OF NEUROLOGIC DISEASE AN INTERFACE BETWEEN GENETICS AN CELL AND DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY. I WILL TALK ABOUT THAT AS WELL. THESE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE INTEGRATED WITH THE CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE SO THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGE IN THAT. THEN IMAGING RESEARCH WHICH IS LED BY ALAN AND IS ONE OF THE PREMIERE PROGRAMS HERE AT THE NINDS INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. STATE-OF-THE-ART ELECTRON MICROSCOPY AND LIGHT MICROSCOPY BUT INTEGRATED WITH AMAZING MRI TECHNOLOGY, CUTTING EDGE AND FEEDS NICELY TO THE BRAIN INITIATIVE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT. SO THE CLINICAL PROGRAM HAS GROUNDS WITH TRANSITION WITH TURN OVER OF LEADERSHIP AND RECRUITMENT OF NEW LEADERSHIP WHICH IS A DIFFICULT PROCESS. AND SUCCEEDED IN THE HIRING OF AVI, I DON'T KNOW IF AVI IS HERE BUT HE HAS BEEN CLEARLY AN EFFECTIVE LEADER IN BUILDING HIS OWN PROGRAM AND RECRUITING PEOPLE TO COME ON BOARD. THIS IS THE AREA IN MY VIEW AND THE VIEW OF THE BLUE RIBBON PANEL IN MANY WAYS OF GREATEST OPPORTUNITY FOR UNIQUE NICHE IN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM THE INTERSECTION WHAT THE CLINICAL CENTER HAS POTENTIAL TO OFFER, SCIENTISTS WORKING WITH TRANSLATIONAL SCIENTIST, THAT THREE WAY TRIANGLE. SO WHAT'S ESTABLISHED NOW INCLUDES A NUMBER OF BEST IN CLASS PEOPLE WHO ARE PARADIGMS OF WHAT THE CLINICIAN SCIENTIST IS NOW GROWING OUT OF IT WILL TRADITIONAL M.D. Ph.D. PROGRAM. SO FOR EXAMPLE, KIRK FISCHBECK IS A NEUROGENETICIST. INTERESTINGLY, CELL BIOLOGY AND DOING TERRIFIC WORK BOTH OF THEM. AND I WILL COME BACK TO SOME OF THE THINGS THEY'RE DOING RATER. -- LATER. NEUROIMMUNOLOGY IS REINVAGUE RATED INCLUDING NEURAL CONNECTION TO NEURAL BIOLOGY WHICH IS QUITE INTERESTING. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THESE THINGS MERGED NEUROGENETICS NEUROIMMUNOLOGY, NEUROVIROOLOGY CAN BE NICELY INTEGRATED TOGETHER. THEN THE NMR CENTER AGAIN, TO REVISIT THAT. IN THE CLINICAL WORLD, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALAN SHOWED WAS AMAZING ABILITY TO DO VERY HIGH RESOLUTION IMAGING NEXT GENERATION IMAGING OF PATHWAYS IN HUMANS. AND AGAIN. MOM TED AGREED WITH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE GENERALLY AND WITH THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM SPECIFICALLY AND BEYOND THE NINDS. SO FOCUS ON AIMING TOWARDS TREATMENT IN MULTIPLE DOMAINS. WITHIN THE CLINICAL PROGRAM, THIS FIRST IN FRONT OF PEOPLE'S MINDS TO THINK TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH TO CLINICAL TREATMENTS FOR PATIENTS. SO KIRK IS INTERESTED IN THINKING ABOUT TREATMENTS. FOR MYOTONIC DUE SHANE AND SMA, THERE ARE TREATMENT TRIALS FOR NEUROIMMUNOLOGY, INTRAFECAL RETUXIMAB IS AN ONGOING TRIAL. THE NEUROSURGEONS HANS AND OTHERS DOING TREATMENT TRIALS FOR PAIN AND INTERESTING ENTRE TO BIOLOGIC WHICH IS ARE VIRAL RIGHT NOW TO BRAIN TUMOR CLEO MAS. SO THAT'S AN INTERESTING IMPORTANT FOCUS FOR CLINICAL PROGRAM. AN INTERESTING POINT THAT CAME OUT, WHERE PATIENTS COME FROM. BOTH AN OPPORTUNITY FOR INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. I WOULD SHARE CURRENTLY FOR MANY OF THE PROGRAMS THERE'S A LIMITATION AND THIS IS ESPECIALLY TRUE IN NEUROSURGERY. FOR HOW MANY PATIENTS CAN THEY GET INTO THE CLINICAL CENTER TO OPERATE ON. TO THINK INVASIVE APPROACHES LIKE THESE NEUROSURGICAL/NEUROLOGIC PROBLEMS. SO IN THE CASE OF STROKE, ALAN AND WALTER HAVE BEEN BEHIND THIS, THERE WAS A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT TO INTEGRATE WITH OTHER HOSPITALS TO DO A MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH TO STROKE. WHICH I THINK WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL, INCLUDED WASHINGTON HOSPITAL AND SUBURBAN HOSPITAL AND THIS OFFER AS NICE TEMPLATE FOR HOW THIS IS CUT AND PASTE TO OTHER ASPECTS OF THE CLINICAL PROGRAM LIKE SURGICAL NEUROLOGY. FINALLY IN THE CLINICAL PROGRAM THE FELLOWS PROGRAM IS SAKE OPPORTUNITY, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY IN MANY WAYS BUT H MAYBE COME BACK TO THIS LATER BUT WHERE ARE WE GOING FIND NEXT GENERATION PEOPLE TO POPULATE TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH WHERE YOU ARE SEEING PATIENTS DOING CLINICAL TRIALS WHERE PATIENTS AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND DISEASE MECHANISM T SPACE WE IDEALLY WANT TO SEE THE NINDS INTRAMURAL PROGRAM LEAD. THAT UNDERSCORES MY THOUGHT AND THE THOUGHT OF THE PANEL THAT WILL THE FELLOWS PROGRAM ITSELF IS A VERY, SMALL SPACE TO IDENTIFY PEOPLE, YOU GET PEOPLE SEVERAL YEARS YOU CAN LOOK AT, NURTURE AND HARVEST THE BEST TO GET THEM TYPE THE PROGRAM. SO ALONG WITH SUPPORTING THE FELLOWS PROGRAM HAND IN HAND THERE'S A NEED FOR TRAINING THEM IN SCIENCE AND HOW TO DO CLINICAL VERGE SO THERE'S A TERRIFIC OFFICE OF INTRAMURAL TRAIN HEARING THAT WE MET WITH. THEY HAVE AMAZING RESOURCE, TEACHING PEOPLE HOW TO DO IRB PROTOCOL. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BOTH AN OPPORTUNITY AND CHALLENGE GOING FORWARD WHICH IS I GUESS THE OFFICE OF INTRAMURAL TREATING AND -- TRAINING AND EDUCATION. THAT WAS I THOUGHT REAL RESOURCE FROM CLINICAL PROGRAM HERE. OTHER STRENGTHS ARE I ALLUDED TO EARLIER, AMAZING LEADERSHIP ROLE THAT THE NINDS HAS TAKEN. SO THIS WAS NOT EVER EVIDENT, STORY IS TOO MODEST, I HAVE TO CALL HER OUT ON THIS. AND ALAN AS WELL, IS BEING ABSOLUTE INTEGRATORS OF SCIENCE HERE AT THE NIH. SO THE NINDS INTRAMURAL PROGRAM WAS JUST CALLED OUT LITERALLY BY MULTIPLE SCIENTIFIC DIRECTORS WHO MET WITH SEVEN OF THEM, ALL SEVEN ARTICULATED NINDS IS THE LEADER IN THE NIH PROGRAMS FOR SYNERGIZING AND AGGREGATING COLLABORATIVE SCIENCE SO THERE'S SOMETHING SPECIAL THAT'S TWOFOLD. ONE IS BASIC -- NEUROSCIENCE ITSELF HITS MANY DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. SO I THINK ALAN ALLUDED TO TEN DIFFERENT PROGRAMS THAT DO DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF NEUROSCIENCE, WE COUNTED 12. THERE'S MANY INSTITUTES NIMH, NIA HEART LUNG BRAIN ET CETERA, ONE AFTER ANOTHER THAT HAVE RESPONSIBILITY FOR DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF NEUROLOGIC DISEASE. SO HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH THAT? THE NINDS INTRAMURAL PROGRAM HAS LED NUMBER AGGREGATING THIS AND PULLING PEOPLE TOGETHER. PART IS THE VISION OF THE PORTER NEUROSCIENCE BUILDING ITSELF, PART IS JUST THE INTELLECTUAL LEADERSHIP AND STRENGTH AND ENERGY TO DO IT. IT'S NOT A SELF-ASSEMBLABLING GROUP, IT'S A GROUP THAT NEEDS NUDGING. SO THIS IS ONE OF THE BIG, BIG PLUSES PLUSES OF THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM HERE. SOME OF THE EXAMPLES OF THE INTERACTIONS ARE LISTED HERE. THE HEART LUNG AND BRAIN INTERACTIONS ARE VERY DEEP WITH ALAN'S GROUP, AS YOU CAN IMAGINE WITH IMAGING, NEI IS INTERESTED IN PRIMATE WHY BIOLOGY AND IMAGING, NIA AND THE NIMH IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE, MULTI-DISCIPLINARY MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL GROUPS WORKING ON THAT. NIAID WITH IMMUNOLOGY WORKING WITH THE METH GROUP IN NEURAL VIROLOGY, THIS IS REALLY SOMETHING SPECIAL THAT IS BELOW THE RADAR BUT NEEDS TO BE ARTICULATED. TRAINING PROGRAMS HERE, I WOULD POINT OUT A FEW AMAZING THINGS THAT ARE ALSO NOT OBVIOUS WITHOUT SITTING IN'S LOOKING WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, THERE ARE JOINT Ph.D. PROGRAMS WITH OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE AND BROWN UNIVERSITY, THERE ARE STRONG WAYS TO BRING POWERFUL Ph.D. STUDENTS TO WORK HERE. THESE PROBABLY NEED TO BE STRENGTHENED AND EXPANDED BECAUSE OUR IMPRESSION WAS THAT THERE ARE MORE Ph.D. STUDENTS WHO ARE NEEDED HERE TO WORK WITH THE INTRAMURAL INVESTIGATORS. THERE ARE GOOD ENVIRONMENTS WE THOUGHT FOR POST BACK AND POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWS. STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES, I CAN GET INTO THE WEEDS BUT THERE'S APPRECIATION FOR IMPORTANCE OF THIS HERE. H THIS OFFICE OF INTRAMURAL TRAINING AND EDUCATION I ALLUDED TO, THIS IS USED BY GRADUATE STUDENTS, IT'S NOT -- SITTING THERE VACANT, THEY COME AND GET TRAINED IN REAL ASPECTS OF HOW TO WRITE GRANTS AND GET ACTUAL HANDS-ON HELP FOR TRAINING TO BE A PI. THEN THERE IS A DEDICATED COMMITTEE HERE TO MENTORING AND TRAINING STUDENTS. ONE SUBCOMMITTEE MAYBE, NOT SURE WHAT IT IS, IS THE CRAIG BLACKSTONE'S OVERSIGHT OF MSTP CANDIDATES THIS STOOD OUT A SPECIAL STRENGTH HERE, THE MSTPs ARE OBVIOUSLY KEY TO A CLINICAL TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE VISION. THERE IS A NUMBER ATTESTING TO THE VALUE OF THIS PROGRAM WHO WON ROADS SCHOLARSHIPS AND COMMERCIAL SCHOLARSHIPS AN GATES SCHOLARSHIPS SO THIS IS A STRENGTH OF THE TRAINING PROGRAM. SO SOME OF THE CHALLENGES AN OPPORTUNITIES, THE CLINICAL PROGRAM IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY HERE, AGAIN, JUST RECAP ON THAT. THERE'S ALSO NO PLACE IN THE COUNTRY CERTAINLY NO PLACE TO ENHANCE THE SCALE TO DO REAL PATIENT RESEARCH WITH PATIENTS IN BEDS AND NO CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT FUNDING RESTRICTION AND DISCHARGE FROM THE HOSPITAL CAN BE BROUGHT IN STRICTLY ON IRB PROTOCOL TO BE STUDIED FOR INDEFINITE PERIODS OF TIME DEPENDING ON THE PROTOCOL. THAT'S A TREMENDOUS ASSET. THAT WITH THE IMAGING AND THOUGHTFUL MOLECULAR APPROACHES TO DISEASE, OFFER IT IS POSSIBILITY OF TRULY BEING UNIQUE PLACE SO THIS IS A CRITICAL ASPECT OF THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM HERE. REALLY ALMOST NO PLACE TO DO CERTAINLY AT THE SCALE NIH HAS. NONETHELESS THERE IS A LOW NUMBER OF CLINICAL TRIALS IN PLAY UP AND RUNNING. THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE IMPRESSIVE BUT WAS OUR SENSE THIS COULD BE EXPANDED. WHAT ARE THE LIMITATIONS ON THAT. ONE OBVIOUS ONE IS THE ONE EVERYBODY DEALS WITH AT EVERY INSTITUTION WHEN WE DO CLINICAL TRIALS IS BURDEN OF THE IRB PROCESS. WHICH ONLY GETS WORSE OVER TIME, INTERESTING TO ATTACK THAT HEAD ON AND MAKE IT CONSORTIUM BASED STANDARDIZED IRB STRUCTURE WHICH IS NOT COMPLETELY UNREASONABLE TO THINK COULD BE AIMED FOR. THE OTHER IS ARTICULATED IN THE OTHER ASPECTS THE INTEGRATION OF MODERN SCIENCE IS NOT ESSENTIAL FOR DOING GOOD CLINICAL TRIALS BUT ATTRACTING PEOPLE INTERESTED IN DOING CLINICAL TRIALS. SO THAT INCLUDES INTEGRATING GENOMICS, INTEGRATING THOUGHTFUL APPROACHES TO MOLECULAR MECHANISMS OF DISEASE. OVERLAID WITH THOUGHTFUL TRIALS, NOT -- YOU WANT INVESTIGATOR INITIATED TRIALS THAT ARE BREAK THROUGH CUTTING EDGE IDEAS. SO THAT REQUIRES INTEGRATING PEOPLE THROUGH SEMINARS, CONVERSATIONS, PUTTING CLINICIANS TOGETHER WITH SCIENTISTS AND PROVOKING PEOPLE TO BE RISK TAKING SO THEY NEED RESOURCES FOR THAT. H H H H IN THE WORLD OF GENOMICS PROS LE ADVERTISING, THIS IS -- IT IS HERE FOR NEUROSCIENCE IN PARTICULAR. HAS THIS IS A PROBLEM WITH GREAT OPPORTUNITY AND GREAT CHALLENGE SO IT NEEDS INTEGRATION WITH SUPPORT FOR EXAMPLE INFORMATIC SUPPORT, COMPUTATIONAL SUPPORT, BIOINFORMATIC SUPPORT. AND THAT'S ONE POINT THAT CAME OUT FROM VARIOUS INVESTIGATORS. POINTING THAT OUT TO US. THE NUMBER OF PATIENTS IS LIMITATION ON NUMBER OF CLINICAL TRIALS THAT ARE DONE, THIS WAS EVIDENT IN THE NEUROSURGICAL PROGRAM AND I SUGGEST AD WAY THAT MIGHT BE ATTACKED BY DOING MULTI-INSTITUTIONAL APPROACHES. THE NEUROSURGICAL PROGRAM ITSELF NEEDS SUPPORT IN BEING PROVOKED THE SAME THE REST OF THE CLINICAL TRIALS PROGRAMS DO. THIS INTERFACES WITH THE QUESTION OF HOW DO YOU RECRUIT CLINICIAN SCIENTISTS. WE DISCUSSED THIS IN DETAIL, ONE LIMITATION, THE OBVIOUS ONE CAPS ON SALARY FOR EXAM THAT ARE IMPOSED BY INTRAMURAL STRUCTURE HERE. I THINK OUR THOUGHT OF A SOLUTION HERE WHICH MAYBE ON A SUBSEQUENT SLIDE BUT I'LL JUMP THE GUN A BIT, IS THAT THE SWEET SPOT IS YOUNG PEOPLE, NUMBER ONE, NUMBER TWO, YOUNG PEOPLE WHO ARE INTERESTED IN TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE IN ESTABLISHING A CAREER IN A SOMEWHAT IDEALISTIC WAY, NOT GIVING UP CLINICAL CONNECTION BUT TRYING TO DO THOUGHTFUL APPROACHES TO SCIENCE. USING PATIENTS AS A RESOURCE. AND AGAIN, FOR ME GENOMICS IS THE SLAM DUNK HOME RUN HOW YOU CAN INTEGRATE ALL THIS IN ONE FELL SWOOP HERE. AN INTERESTING SIDE LIGHT OF YOUNG PEOPLE WILLING TO BE LESS CONCERNED ABOUT SALARY CAPS SEGUE DOWN A STEP TOWARD FELLOWS IDENTIFYING AND SUPPORTING FELLOWS WITHIN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM AND WITHOUT TO BECOME AWARE OF WHAT THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM AND CLINICAL RESOURCES HERE ARE, EXPOSE THEM TO IT THEY WILL COME MAYBE HOPEFULLY. OTHER CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN THE AREA OF TRAINING, AWARENESS OF RESOURCES, SO AGAIN I THINK THERE COULD BE MORE RECOGNITION OF WHAT THIS OFFICE OF INTRAMURAL TRAINING HAS TO OFFER FOR CLINICAL FELLOWS. THERE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WE IDENTIFY FOR ENGAGING THE GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE INTELLECTUAL LIFE, WE HEARD FROM STUDENTS THEMSELVES TO INTEREST AND WANT TO BE PART OF THE LIFE HERE. THEY WANT TO SET UP SEMINAR SERIES THAT'S GOOD FOR THEM TO DO THAT SORT OF THING. THERE ARE GRADUATE STUDENTS AS WELL AS CLINICAL RESIDENTS GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE PROGRAM, I DON'T HAVE NUMBERS ON THE RATIO OF THE TWO, BUT TWO POINTS, ONE IS THERE NEEDS TO BE PROBABLY A CONCERTED EFFORT TO MAKE CLEAR THERE IS GRADUATE OPPORTUNITY FOR STUDENTS TO COME HERE AND TRAIN IN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. THERE IS EFFORT BUT THAT CAN BE ENHANCED, AND IT IS ENHANCE BUD THERE ARE EFFORTS TO DO THAT. ONE OF MY COMING SLIDES. BULL DOWN SIDE HERE IS IF IT'S NOT, IT WILL HAVE A NEGATIVE FEEDBACK ON RECRUITING FACULTY. IN TERMS OF CHALLENGES AN OPPORTUNITIES ADMINISTRATIVELY, TO GET TO THIS ISSUE WITHOUT DETAIL ON THE BUDGETS, THERE'S A CONSTRAINT ON FIXED COSTS TWO-THIRDS NINDS BUDGET FIXED COST. ON TOP OF THAT, THERE ARE GREAT CONSTRAINTS ON THE TITHING SYSTEM THAT WE BECAME AWARE OF. THAT RELATES TO TAXATION WITHOUT FULL REPRESENTATION ON THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM SO THAT CHUNK OF MONEY TO THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM IS TAXED. LIKE IT OR NOT TO SUPPORT THE CLINICAL CENTER. AND THAT TAXATION MAYBE DISPROPORTIONATE ONE MIGHT ARGUE TO THE AMOUNT OF BAD MANY UTILIZED BY THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. THAT'S A CHALLENGE OF COURSE TO FOSTERING INNOVATIVE SCIENCE, IF RESOURCES ARE BEING SIPHONED IN A WAY THAT STIFLE CREATIVITY FROM THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE SORT ALAN IS DOING. SO THE SALARY CAP IS THE SAME IDEA, THERE ARE STRATEGIES FOR THINKING ABOUT THAT TITLE 38 REFERS TO THE VA HOSPITALS AND VA SYSTEM WHAT THEY HAVE DONE TO CIRCUMVENT CAPS ON SALARIES SO THERE ARE WAYS TO THINK ABOUT WORK AROUNDS FOR SOME OF THAT. SMALLER ISSUES BUT NOT INSIGNIFICANT, NINDS NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT INTRAMURAL INVESTIGATORS TO BE MEMBERS OF PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES, THERE'S A CAP ON THAT UNEXPLICABLE WHY THAT SHOULD BE. THE SAME IDEA THERE'S RESTRICTIONS ON TRAVEL SUPPORT THAT ARE -- DON'T MAKE SENSE AND ARE INHIBITORY FOR INTEGRATING THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM IN THE LARGER COMMUNITY EXTRAMURAL SCIENCE. THE LONG TERM VISION IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS PART OF THE INTRAMURAL REPORT BUT IT WAS LOOKED AT IN PARALLEL AND I HAVE ONE SLIDE TO COMMENT ON THIS. BEING SEPARATELY WRITTEN UP AND PUT FORTH BY STORY IN COLLABORATION WITH THE THOUGHTS THAT WE HAD ON THIS PANEL SO WE DID MEET WITH NINDS LEADERSHIP AND DIRECTORS NIMH NIDCD AN NEI TO THINK ABOUT THE LONG TERM PLAN. WE HEARD PREGNANTS FROM THE MAJOR GROUPS STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY, BIOPHYSIC, SYNAPTIC GROUP, CELL DEVELOP MENTAL TRANSLATIONAL NEUROSCIENCES FOR WHAT THE CRAFT OF THE LONG TERM VISION SHOULD BE. THIS IS A BOILERPLATE STATEMENT SAYING LONG TERM GOALS THAT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE IRB TO ACCESS TO THE CLINICAL CENTER AND THE VAST POTENTIAL FOR COLLABORATION AMONG THE IRBs WITHIN THE NIH. P SO THAT'S A NICE WAY OF SAYING MY ELEVATOR RIDE TAKE HOME IS I THINK THERE IS EMERGING POTENTIAL FOR VIRTUOUS PSYCH OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK LOOP HERE, WHICH THE SYNERGY OF THE BASIC AND CLINICAL NEUROSCIENCE CAN ADVANCE THE NINDS MISSION WHICH IS IN FACT UNDERSTANDING THE BASIC CLINICAL ASPECTS OF NEUROLOGIC DISEASE. I REALLY WANT TO GET TO WEEDS BUT I WOULD SAY IT IS CLEAR SEEING CLINICAL RESEARCH PATIENTS IS NOW IN MANY WAYS, AGAIN APOLOGIZE BEING SINGLE MINDED FOCUSED ON GENETICS BUT STUDYING THE GENETICS OF NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASE OR NEURO-- CANCER IN THE NERVOUS SYSTEM OR NEUROINFLAMMATORY DISEASE BY CLINICIANS, PUTTING GENETICS VARIANTS TOGETHER WITH CLINICAL PHENOTYPEING IS SPECIAL IN THE HOSPITAL, NOT ELSE W. THAT CONNECTION BETWEEN H GENETIC MUTATION AN PHENOTYPE LEADS TO I WILL STOP FOR QUESTIONS. I WILL FLY THROUGH THEM BUT TOUCHDOWN BEFORE, OKAY? AN THESE GO SORT OF ALMOST REVERSE ORDER, NOT REALLY BUT THE LAST TWO ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT. SO YOU HAVE TO STAY AWAKE UNTIL THE END. SO FIRST ONE IS ALSO THE MOST IMPORTANT. INCREASE ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE NIH CLINICAL CENTER. SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SAY HERE NICELY, AS POSSIBLE IS TAXATION MAY -- SHOULD PROBABLY IN THE IDEAL WORLD BE PROPORTIONAL AND THE FLIP SIDE IS BY HAVING A TITHING OF FUNDS THAT ISN'T PROPORTIONAL TO USE HAMPERS THE ABILITY OF THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM TO BE CREATED WITH FUNDS AND WITH FUNDING NEW INITIATIVES. TO THE DEGREE THAT LAB -- ALAN HAS BEEN ABLE, HE'S BEEN SUCCESSFUL TAKING INVESTIGATORS OFF TRACK OR INVESTIGATORS LIKE RICHARD WHO HAD NEW DISCOVERY AND NEW OPPORTUNITIES AND PAIRING THEM WITH MONEY, TO GO FORTH AND DO GOOD. SO THAT SORT OF THING IS CRITICAL FOR HAVING A SUCCESSFUL CENTER HERE. RECOMMENDATION TWO IS PUSH PHYSICIAN SCIENTIST SPACE WE ARBITRARILY PICKED A NUMBER OF RECRUITING AT LEAST FIVE TOP TIER PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS THAT'S MEANINGLESS, DOESN'T HAVE A TIME LIMIT OR RATIONALE. THE REAL POINT IS TO EMPOWER THE NINDS INTRAMURAL PROGRAM TO GO OUT AND IDENTIFY TOP TIER PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS THAT TEASE SWEET SPOT FOR THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. AND I THACKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT APREACHES -- I TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT APPROACHES TO THAT. A LOST OPPORTUNITY IS HERE AT RISK. PATIENTS BEING SEEN AND DATA IS NOT CAPTURED SO THAT INCLUDES PHENOTYPIC DATA, BIOMARKER DATA, GENETIC DATA, WONDERFULLY PHENOTYPED PATIENTS COMING IN THE HOSPITAL AND THAT DATA NEEDS TO BE CAPTURED INTO FORMATS THAT ARE USABLE AND SEARCHABLE FOR OTHER INVESTIGATORS NEW DISCOVERY WILL COME FROM THAT SO THIS IS AN IMPORTANT IDEA HERE. THE H NIH NINDS LEADER H SO THAT GOES HAND IN HAND WITH THE BIOINENURETICS STRUCTURE, THOSE TWO THINGS NEED TO BE EMPOWERED CONSTANT ATTENTION TO A VERY DIFFICULT PROBLEM. I PUT DOWN HERE NUMBER FOUR SET AMBITIOUS GOALS. ONE GOAL WE CAME ONE IS TO IDENTIFY ALL BRAIN DISEASE DISEASE GENES. NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THAT MEANS BUT I LIKE THE SOUND OF IT. I THINK WHAT IT MEANS IS IT WOULD BE INTERESTING AS AN ABSOLUTE MINIMUM TO MAKE A CATALOG OF EVERY DISEASE BEING SEEN IN THE CLINICAL CENTER THAT HAS A NEUROLOGIC PHENOTYPE. EVEN IF IT'S CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, IMMUNOLOGIC DISEASE, INFECTIOUS DISEASE AN AGGREGATE ALL THIS T NEUROLOGIC PHENOTYPES WITH THE ADVENT OF GENETICS, THERE WILL BE INTERESTING VARIANTS THAT INFORM DISEASE FROM A NEW PERSPECTIVE. SO LIKE THIS IDEA THOUGH I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT MEANS. FLOSS THERE ARE GAPS IN DEVELOPING TREATMENTS FOR NEUROLOGIC DISEASE, THERE'S AN INTERESTING ONE FOR EXAMPLE WITH THE IDEAS THAT PHARMA IS BACKING OUT OF RARE DISEASE THOLENA MAY CHANGE OVER TIME BUT THERE IS GREAT POTENTIAL GAINING REAL MECHANISTIC INSIGHTS TO RARE UNDIAGNOSED DISEASE THROUGH GENETICS. LARGELY I WISH DAVID GOLDSTEEN WAS HERE TO SUPPORT ME ON THIS. BUT THESE ARE AREAS WHERE PROGRESS CAN BE MADE, VERY CONCRETE SHORT TERM AND A SPACE PEOPLE ARE NOT DOING. IMPROVE PATIENT RECRUITMENT SAN ISSUE THAT CAME UP, AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING VERY DIFFICULT, I BELIEVE THERE IS A NEW OFFICE TO SET UP TO TRY TO SUPPORT THIS. OR THERE'S A DEDICATED PERSON I DON'T KNOW THE FULL SCOPE TO DO OUTREACH FOR AND EMPOWER THE INTRAMURAL CLINICIAN SCIENTIST HERE TO MAKE CONNECTIVITY TO PATIENT GROUPS. THIS COULD USE MORE STRENGTHENING BUT THIS IS TIED TO NUMBER TWO. THEN PROVIDE TRAINEES WITH MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATION IN DEVELOPMENT I MENTIONED INCREASE COLLABORATION BETWEEN BASIC SCIENCE PROGRAM AND CLINICAL PROGRAM SO THIS IS SOMETHING AT RISK FOR EVERY INSTITUTE THAT DOES TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE IS THESE CAN BE SPLINTERED OR INTEGRATED, I LION THE IDEA OF GENOMICSES, MECHANISM DISEASE FOCUSED AS IMPORTANT INTEGRA FORS. PURE CLINICIANS WITH NO CONNECTION TO MECHANISM OF DISEASE, PURELY PHENOTYPING DISEASE, P ARE AT RISK, LEGIT MILY SO BEING OUTLIERS FROM THE INSTITUTE WANTS AS INTEGRATED APPROACH TO CLINICAL AND MECHANISTIC DISEASE. SO THAT IS A NICE WAY OF SAYING PEOPLE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER AND NOT BE SILOED. SO THIS IS ONE OF THE QUOTE HERE THAT GOES BACK TO AN EVE MARTER ISSUE, ONE THE NINDS HAS BEEN AT THE FOREFRONT OF. WE HOPE THE STRONG SUPPORT OF BASIC RESEARCH WON'T BE LOST IN THE DRIVE TOWARDS TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH. MAKE THAT OVERT STATEMENT THAT I AS TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCHER ARE ATTENTIVE TO NOT HAVING BASIC SCIENCE BURIED. I DON'T THINK WE'RE AT RISK THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM IS QUITE STRONG THERE AND AWARE OF THIS ISSUE. EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATION WITH EXTRAMURAL COMMUNITY. I LIKE THIS IDEA BLUEPRINT FUNDS IS A NICE WAY TO TRACK EXTRAMURAL SCIENTISTS TO COME IN AND WORK WITH INTRASCIENTISTS. A WAY TO STRENGTHEN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM AND BETTER VISIBILITY. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT IDEA. VERY LAB GROUP SIZE TO REFLECT NEEDS OF DIFFERENT DOMAINS. SO WHAT DO I MEAN BY THIS? TRADITIONALLY IN THE -- APPROPRIATELY I WOULD SAY IN THE CONTEXT OF SWITCHING FROM AN OLD EUROPEAN MONOLITHIC GERMANIC SYSTEM ROCKEFELLAR HAD AND THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM HERE HAD WHERE THERE'S A LEADER OF A LARGE GROUP THERE'S A NICE TRANSITION TO SMALLER GROUPS AND THERE REALLY IS ESSENTIALLY A CAP OR AT LEAST A CAP THAT HAS BEEN VALUABLE TO KEEP GROUPS SMALL. SO THEY'RE CUTTING EDGE AND PRODUCTIVE AND NONETHELESS THERE'S BEEN SUPPORT TO HAVE EXTRA PEOPLE, RECOMMENDED WHEN THERE'S PRODUCTIONTY ATTACHED TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING SO REASONABLE FLEXIBILITY THERE. HOWEVER, ONE THING THAT WAS MIKE GREENBERG THAT BROUGHT UP IN REVIEWS THERE IS AN AREA OF SCIENCE THERE IS REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MULTI-DISCIPLINARY SCIENCE. CONNECTING IMAGING PHYSIOLOGY, MECHANISM OF DISEASE, SEEING PATIENTS WITH GENETICS, WITH BIOINFORMATICS AND COMPUTATIONAL SCIENCE. THERE ARE GROUPS LIKE MINE TO TRY TO DO THAT OR MUCH THAT. AND IN THE END IT BECOMES LIMITING. THERE HAVE IS A BALANCE THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE THERE OBVIOUSLY TO KEEP AWAY FROM THE GERMANIC APPROACH OF THE MEGA LAB BUT NOT NECESSARY TO RESTRAIN EVERY LAB AS CERTAIN GIVEN FICTION SIZE AND KIRK FICK FISHBECK WAS AN EXAMPLE OF BRIDGING DIFFERENT INTRAMURAL PROGRAMS AND BEING ABLE TO BUILD LARGER PROGRAM THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO. SO SOME FLEXIBILITY IS WHAT WE SUGGEST HERE. TO -- FOR LEADERSHIP TO THINK ABOUT. BETTER UTILIZATION OF THE PORTER NEUROSCIENCE BUILDING. THIS IS EASY ONE, IT'S AN ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC RESOURCE FOR EVERYBODY THAT'S ALREADY GOT NINE DIFFERENT INTRAMURAL PROGRAMS AS PART OF IT. AND THERE IS EMPTY SPACE. SO THAT MEANS RECRUITING SPACE TOP TIER INTO A SYNERGISTIC COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT. WHAT MORE CAN YOU ASK FOR FOR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE SO THAT NEEDS TO BE OOH ADVERTISED AND PUSHED. A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR NINDS. CONSOLIDATE EFFORTS IN NEUROSCIENCE ACROSS THE NIH. THIS AGAIN I HAVE ALLUDED TO 10 OR 20 INSTITUTES DURING -- DOING DIFFERENT ASPECT OF BRAIN AND NEUROLOGY RESEARCH. THAT'S A CHALLENGE AND A GREAT OPPORTUNITY. AGAIN, THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM HAS LED IN THIS AND CLEARLY ARTICULATED BY THE DIFFERENT SCIENTIFIC DIRECTORS BEING THE LEADER IN THIS AND I THINK GOING FORWARD IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE ONGOING CHALLENGE FOR ALAN AND GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE PEOPLE DO INTRAMURAL MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACHES TO BRAIN DISEASE. OTHERWISE THE FLIP RISK SPLINTERING IN A WAY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE. AND THAT GOES WITH FOSTERING SYNERGISTIC SCIENCE. SO THESE LAST TWO POINTS, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FOSTER INTERDISCIPLINARY, INTERINSTITUTIONAL SCIENCE, AT THE SAME TIME HOW DO YOU YOU, THE LEADER IN THAT IS THE HUNDRED DOLLARS THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. THE IT WAS SAID BY 7 OUT OF 7 DIRECTORS TO BE THE LEADER SO PUTTING ALL OF THAT TOGETHER, OUR META RECOMMENDATION IS A NON-GRATUITOUS PLEA FOR MORE FUNDING FOR THE HUNDRED DOLLARS. NON-GRATUITOUS MEANING WE MEAN IT. NOT THAT IT WILL NECESSARILY HAPPEN BUT THIS IS A MESSAGE THAT CAN BE TAKEN HIGHER UP THE FOOD CHAIN TO SAY THERE IS A RECOGNITION, THERE NEEDS TO BE THE IMPORTANCE OF NEUROSCIENCE, OBAMA BRAINTIVE IS A PIECE OF THAT. THE NINDS IS A LEADER IN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM AND TO DO THAT IN A WAY THAT SYNERGIZES AND CAPITALIZES ON THE STRENGTH HERE IS GOING TO REQUIRE I WOULD SAY A DOUBLING OF THE BUDGET FOR THE NINDS SO THAT'S WHAT WE PUSH FOR. THAT PRETTY MUCH SAYS ALL I WANTED TO SAY. I ENDED ON THE RIGHT NOTE. >> AND ON THAT NOTE, YOU COUNCIL IS ULTIMATELY GOING HAVE TO VOTE WHETHER TO ACCEPT THIS REPORT WHICH IS ADVISE TO STORY, THE QUESTION, DO YOU SEE GLARING OMISSIONS, THINGS THAT YOU STRONGLY AGREE WITH, STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH AND QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS. >> SO I WILL -- I WAS A FELLOW LONG AGO SOY CAN SEE THE TRANSITION AND THE QUALITY OF THE REM SEARCH AND RESEARCH CULTURE HAS SUBSTANCE ACCOMPLISH IMPROVED OVER TIME, SO VERY IMPRESSED WITH THAT. YOU DID MENTION BOB IN YOUR EARLY PRESENTATION THAT DIVERSITY, THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM WAS AWARE THERE WAS UNFINISHED BUSINESS, THAT HAS BEEN DON CERTAIN TO ME AND I DON'T -- CONCERN TO ME AND I DON'T FEEL THERE'S EXCESSIVE URGENCY IN INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES IN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM YET. SO WHAT I WOULD -- IN FACT I BELIEVE THAT THAT SHOULD PROBABLY BE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 15 ON THAT LIST. GLARING OMISSION. SO MY QUESTION, IS THERE A PLAN TO INCREASE DIVERSITY IN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM, IF THERE IS OR NOT PLAN, IS THERE A AND WILL THERE BE ATTEMPT INTEGRATE WITH THE EXTRAMURAL PROGRAM DOES HAVE A STRONG DIVERSITY COMPONENT IN ITS TRAINING PROGRAM AN IT IS SUCCESSFUL, AND I THINK IT WILL PROVIDE A NATURAL MIGHT BE TO INCREASE THE NEXT GENERATION OF SCIENTISTS BOTH INTRAMURAL AND EXTRAMURAL PROGRAM SO I HOPE THAT'S ADDED AND REINFORCED IN THIS SUPPORT. >> I THINK ALAN STARTED OFF BY SAYING THAT HE WILL RESPOND TO THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AT A LATER MEETING. SO AT THAT POINT WE'LL PUT THAT ON THE TOP OF THE LIST OF ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE COMMITTEE RENTING THE COMMITTEE WILL SPECIFIC -- >> WE COMPLETELY ENDORSE THE NEED TO PUSH DIVERSITY OUTREACH AND UNFINISHED BUSINESS SO IT IS IMBEDDED IN TERMS OF RECRUITMENT, BUT WHICH YES, I WOULD BE COMPLETELY IN FAVOR OF ARTICULATING THAT MORE EXPLICITLY. I WOULD SAY THERE ARE IDEAS THAT WE THOUGHT OF OF HOW THIS CAN BE DONE AND ALAN HAS ALREADY THINKING ABOUT AS WELL. I BELIEVE IN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN EVERY SENSE OF THE WORD. SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE AN ONGOING POSITIVE EFFORT TO OVERCOME THIS PROBLEM. IT HAS TO START UNFORTUNATELY I THINK AT A YOUNGER AGE, I LIKE NEW YORK TIMES ARTICLE LAST WEEKEND ABOUT THIS, I LIKE THE IDEA OF GETTING OUT AND EDUCATING KIDS FROM THE YOUNGEST AGE ONWARDS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SCIENCE OPPORTUNITIES. I DON'T SEE GREAT SOLUTION SHORT OF THAT. >> COMMENT TO DR. FORD AND TO THE REPORT. WE HEARD IN THE BREAK OUT SESSIONS, BOB AND I WERE IN DIFFERENT BREAK OUT SESSIONS PAN WE ASKED WOMEN AND DIVERSITY AND IN TRAINEES, NOT SO MUCH UPPER LEVEL FACULTY BUT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INITIATIVES TAKING PLACE THAT I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH. SO AGAIN TAKE THAT AS A BASELINE DELAY DOING GOOD JOB TO MOVE TO ANOTHER REALM. THE INDICATION YOU MAY HAVE GOT FROM THE WORDING HERE WAS THAT IT WASN'T HAPPENING IT VERY MUCH IS HAPPENING SO IT WAS IMPRESSIVE TO TALK WITH FACULTY MENTORS FOSTERING THOSE RELATIONSHIPS. >> I WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT WITH YOUR FIRST BULLET POINT ON CHALLENGES AN OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE CLINICAL SECTION, WHICH IS LACK OF CLINICAL TRIALS. YOU POINT TOIRB CHALLENGE. ANOTHER THING I HEARD FOR SPECIFICALLY INDUSTRY SPONSORED TRIALS IS LACK OF AWARENESS THIS OPPORTUNITY EXISTS AND PERCEIVED NOTION OF IP ISSUES. SO I THINK THAT ONE THING YOU POINTED TO AS WAY TO WORK ON IS TRYING TO FOCUS ON RARE ORPHAN DISEASE SPACE BECAUSE THE CLINICAL CENTER MIGHT BE SET UP TO RUN SMALLER ORPHAN DISEASE TRIAL WHICH IS PHARMA MAYBE RELUCTANT TO DO SO TRYING TO GET THE WORD OUT IS PERHAPS NOTIRB CHALLENGE BUT LACK OF KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THAT OPPORTUNITY. >> MY QUESTION FOLLOWS UP ACTUALLY ON RECOMMENDATION NUMBER 6, AS WELL. FILL IN PHARMA GAP IN RARE NEUROLOGICAL DISEASE. I THINK EVERYONE AGREES THAT PHARMA IS MOVING OUT OF THE NEUROSPACE IN GENERAL. BUT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO FOCUS ON FOR RARE ORPHAN DISEASES FOR LARGER LOWLY MOVING NEUROLOGICAL DISEASE. SO I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO KNOW WHERE THAT DATA CAME FROM THAT THEY'RE POOLING OUT OF RARE, I WAS WITH A CHIEF OFFICER AT ELY LILLY YESTERDAY AND HE MADE THE POINT THEY WAS THE INCENTIVES TO AN EXAMPLE HE USED TO DO RESEARCH TO COME UP WITH PST BUT DON'T HAVE INCENTIVE TO TAKE THAT APPROVED THERAPY AND SEE IF IT MIGHT WORK IN A DISEASE LIKE PARKINSON'S SO I WAS WONDERING ABOUT THAT CONVERSATION. >> FASCINATING, IT'S A LITTLE SEMANTIC BECAUSE THERE ARE BOTH SIDES OF COIN, THERE IS A RECOGNITION, THAT'S WHY I WAS HEDGING THERE IS EMERGING RECOGNITION IN PHARMA, THERE IS SOMETHING OF VALUE TO THEM BUT THAT THERE HAS BEEN -- IT'S SWITCHING, I THINK OVER TIME RIGHT NOW. I HATE TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE, GENETICS IN IDENTIFICATION OF PATHWAY FITS THE POSSIBILITY OF WHAT'S ON THE PHARMA OR WHAT'S -- THOSE HAVE POTENTIAL TO COME TOGETHER IN A RATIONAL APPROACH TO IDENTIFICATION AND TREATMENT OF STRATEGIES. THE CLINICAL CENTER IS CHEW UNIQUELY POSITIONED IF INTERESTED IN CLINICAL SCIENCE HERE TO AGGREGATE THOSE PATIENTS. >> I WAS INTERESTED IN RECOMMENDATION NUMBER TEN. YOU SPENT A GREAT DEAL OF TIME TALKING IMPORTANCE OF COLLABORATION WITHIN THE INSTITUTES AND DIFFERENT INTRAMURAL PROGRAMS BUT THERE'S EXTRAORDINARY OPPORTUNITY FOR THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM FOR NINDS TO BE LEADER IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AREAS AND SYNERGIZE RESEARCH BOTH INTRAMURAL AND EXTRAMURAL WITHIN THE DIFFERENT AREAS. I WONDERED IF THE COMMITTEE HAD MADE ANY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS IN THAT REGARD. >> THE ONE ON TON OF MY HEAD, TWO THINGS ONE IS ADVERTISING IN BETTER WAY WHAT IS THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM IS DO PARTLY SCIENCE AND PARTLY DONE THROUGH SYMPOSIA FOR EXAM SO WE SUGGESTED NINDS LED SIMILAR POEIA IN SPECIFIC AREAS OF NEUROSCIENCE, PARKINSON DISEASE OR IMAGING AND THAT WAS ONE IDEA. DAVID, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING THERE? >> WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT GETTING THE INTRAMURAL SCIENCE OUT INTO THE EXTRA MURAL COMMUNITY BY IMPROVING THEIR ABILITY TO TRAVEL THE MEDIA. SO THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE DOING. Q. GREAT PRESENTATION, BOB. MY COMMENT IS THAT THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM IS A HUGE INVESTMENT FOR THE NINDS, 10% OF THE BUDGET IS $150 MILLION A YEAR, THERE'S 50 OR SO LABS SO ESSENTIALLY $3 MILLION PER LAB PER INVESTMENT ON THE NINDS. WHICH IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY. THE HOPE OR EXPECTATION IS THAT THESE THEREFORE ARE THE PREMIER TOP BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH LABORATORIES IN THE COUNTRY IF NOT THE WORLD. SO THAT DEPENDS ON OUR ABILITY TO HIRE AND RECRUIT THE TOP SCIENTISTS IN THE WORLD. SO MY QUESTION FOR YOU AND THIS EVALUATION IS DOES THAT HAPPEN? IN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM ARE WE CAPABLE RECRUITING AN RETAINING THE BEST SCIENCES AND IF NOT WHAT ARE THE ROADBLOCKS TO THAT? Q. I WANT WILL TAKE A SHOT AND OTHERS CAN CHIP IN HERE. SO COUPLE OF POINTS. ONE, THAT WAS FOREMOST IN OUR CRITICAL REVIEW. YES AWARE OF THE NUMBERS YOU JUST SPAT OUT AND ONE THING THAT CAME OUT LOOKING IN THIS IN DETAIL THE 150 MILLION ITSELF IS MISLEADING. THERE'S -- I DON'T KNOW AN EASIER WAY TO ARTICULATE THIS THAN SAY THE AMOUNT OF RESEARCH RESOURCE PER LAB IS NOT DISPROPORTIONAL TO WHAT YOU GET ON THE OUTSIDE AND PROBABLY SNOT WHAT YOU WOULD GET ADS HHMI PROFESSOR. THE REST OF THE MONEY IS NOT BEING WASTED, IT'S EITHER TITHED OR USED IN WAYS THAT ARE -- THERE'S NO EASY WAY AROUND. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT IS THE INVESTMENT T. INVESTMENT ON THE PART OF THE NINDS IS $3 MILLION PER LAB THAT INCLUDES THINGS LIKE INDIRECT COSTS THAT ARE HARD TO COMPARE TO ACADEMIA. BUT BOTTOM LINE THAT'S WHAT IT COSTS. >> IT'S SUPPORTING THE NIH IN GENERAL. Q. IT WOULD BE GOOD WHEN ALAN TALKS ABOUT -- I'M GOING ON ALMOST TALK AND WALTER. INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH NOT JUMP JUST THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM BUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THE EXTRAMURAL PROGRAM AS WELL. SO WHAT THE REAL INDIRECT COST RATE IS, WE HAVE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO FIGURE OUT AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE INTRAMURAL WOULD LOVE TO KNOW. THEY DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THE TAPS THAT COLLEEN BARROWS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT OR THE SPACE, IT JUST SEW SO I THINK THE 3 MILLION FIGURE, YOU COULD GET RID OF THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM, GET RID OF THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM AND A CHUNK OF THOSE COSTS WOULD STILL REMAIN EVEN FELONY THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM WAS GONE. I KNOW EVERYONE WOULD LOVE TO KNOW WHAT'S THE REAL COST, NO WAY TO GET BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO FUND THE BEST SCIENCE WE CAN AND THE MAJOR TOOL IS THE BOARD OF SCIENTIFIC COUNSELORS. >> IT IS HARD NUMBER TO CALL LATE AND IMPOSSIBLE TO THE EXTRAMURAL WORLD BUT ON THE OTHER HAND IT'S A HUGE INVESTMENT SO HOW DO WE MAKE'S THIS SHOULD BE THE PREMIER BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE IN THE WORLD BASED ON SUPPORT THAT WE PROVIDE. (OFF MIC) >> I FEEL YOUR POINT STRONGLY, JUST TO POINT PUTT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE I TRIED TO HUNT WHAT TO COMPARE 3 MILLION TOTAL FOR PI COST TOO, AT WHITE HEAD THEY'RE SPENDING 4.5 MILLION FOR PI, THAT'S THE WHITE HEAD SPENDING -- >> BUT THERE ARE FEW PLACES I CAN GET A TOTAL BUDGET I CAN'T DO THAT ON YOU BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA L -- TRANSPARENCY AT HARVARD OR HOPKINS. YOU MAY KNOW YOUR DEPARTMENTAL BUDGET BUT I CAN'T FIGURE WHAT HARVARD IS PUTTING TO YOUR DEPARTMENT BUT ROCKEFELLER IS 3.3 MILLION FOR PI S IT'S HIGH. WHICH MEANS WE SHOULD BE AS GOOD AS THOSE PLACES. IT'S WHAT WE STRIVE TO AS GOOD AS ROCKEFELLER, THE WHITE HEAD, THE BROAD IS IT 10 MILLION, THAT'S GREAT PLACE TO BE. >> YOU CAN'T MAKE THAT COMPARISON, THIS IS NINDS COMMITMENT. >> THESE ARE ORGANIZES I CAN SEE THE TOTAL BUDGET AND DIVIDE BY PI WHICH IS WHAT YOU JUST DID. IT'S HIGH BUT TRE ARE MANY PLACES LIKE THAT AS WE STRIVE TO BE AS GOOD AS THEM THAT'S THE ONLY CONTEXT. IT'S NOT OUTRAGEOUS, IF WE WERE THE HIGHEST I WOULD GO MY GOD YOU'RE RIGHT LET'S GIVE SOME BACK BUT YOU ARE THE HIGHEST IN TERMS OF NIH COMMITMENT THAT'S MY POINT. SO $3 MILLION NIH COMMITMENT PER LAB COMPARED TO 3 MILLION PER LAB, THE ROCKEFELLER THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ROCKEFELLER CONTRIBUTION HHMI CONTRIBUTION AND EVERYTHING ELSE. >> THERE'S NO OTHER SOURCE OF FUNDING. >> A LOT HAS TO DO WITH DIRECT COST TO SUPPORT THE LAB VERSUS INDIRECT AND OPAQUE COSTS SO THAT'S WHILE THE DIVISION NUMBERS AREN'T REALLY WHAT YOU THINK THEY ARE, BUT THAT'S REALLY NUMBER ONE HERE, >> LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION. WE DON'T HAVE TO ARGUE ABOUT DOLLARS. >> YES, WE DO. >> I THINK EVERYBODY WOULD AGREE THE COMMITMENT IS GREAT AND SHOULD BE. SO MY QUESTION IS, HOW DO WE MAKE THIS VISIBLE AS THE TOP PREMIER BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE IN THE WORLD FOR PURPOSE OF RECRUITING THE BEST PEOPLE. WHAT ARE THE ROADBLOCK? WHY IF THAT'S NOT THE CASE, ARE WE NOT ABLE TO RECRUIT TOP SCIENTISTS AN RETAIN THEM? WHAT ARE THE ROADBLOCKS >> MIGHT BE HELPFUL WORKING SCIENTISTS WE APPRECIATE DIRECT COSTS EACH YEAR, BE INTERESTING TO KNOW WHAT THE DIRECT COST EACH LAB HAS AVAILABLE TO RUN LABORATORIES. >> IN FACT, THOSE DATA WERE IN THE FULL REPORT YOU GUYS DIDN'T LOOK AT T. MAJOR LIMITATIONS ARE FROM SALARY CAP, REINTRUSIONS ON TRAVEL, RESTRICTIONS ON CONSULTING, RESTRICTIONS ON A WHOLE SERIES OF ACTIVITIES WHICH MAKES THIS A LESS ATTRACTIVE PLACE TO WORK, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE CURES FOR IF 21st CENTURY PROCESS FOR THE AUTHORIZING COMMITTEE IS LOOK AT IMPEDIMENTS ACROSS THE NIH INTRAMURAL AND EXTRA MURAL. Q. TESTIFY ANSWER TO THE QUESTION WHO IS WORKING MY LAB ACTIVITY WHEN I RECOMMEND TO MY POST-DOCS AND POST BACKS I KNOW LOOKING FOR JOB WHAT IS THE BEST POSITION THEY CAN BE OR FIND, THE NUMBER ONE QUESTION IS THE ANSWER TO WHO IS GOING TO WORK IN MY LAB. SO DO POST-DOCS AND STUDENTS WANT TO COME HERE? THAT'S THE QUESTION I HAVE. WHY DO WE HAVE A NEAR GRADUATE PROGRAM WITH ONLY BROWN AND CAMBRIDGE, WHY NOT SOMETHING MORE ROBUST? JUNIOR FACULTY IN PARTICULAR NEED ROBUST GRADUATE PROGRAM, AND ACCESS TO TOP POST DOCS. WHAT ARE THE ROADBLOCKS THERE? >> THERE ARE MANY MORE GRADUATE PROGRAMS THAN THE OXFORD CAMBRIDGE AND CAROL LINSKA. ONE BIG CHANGE HAROLD VARMUS MADE WAS INSTITUTING THE MOTION OF HAVING NIH COLLABORATE THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THROUGH COLLABORATIONS WITH DEGREE GRANTING INSTITUTIONS FOR HAVING GRADUATE STUDENTS ON CAMPUS. HE PUSHED HARD TO HAVE AN NIH GRADUATE PROGRAM AND THE DECISION WAS MADE THAT WE SHOULDN'T DO THAT. THOSE ARE ALL GOOD POINTS AND SOMETHING WE WORRY ABOUT. RALPH THEN DAVID THEN WE'LL CREASE THE DISCUSSION, HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT AND HAVE THE GROUP NEW DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES START HIS PRESENTATION. WE'RE A LITTLE BAIT LATE. >> FOLLOW-UP TO AMY, I LIKED RECOMMENDATION TEN AND COULDN'T FINDS IN THE REPORT THAT I READ IN THESE REAL CONCRETE EXAMPLES SO I WOULD ASK ALAN AND OTHERS WHEN THEY COME BACK TO GIVE MORE EXAMPLES WHAT WE CAN DO OPPOSE TO ADVERTISING WHAT HAPPENS IN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM THAT REALLY ENCOURAGE BETTER OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATION WITH EXTRAMURAL BECAUSE CLEARLY WITHIN THE TRANSINSTITUTE COLLABORATION AND INTRAMURAL PROGRAM, NINDS IS SUCCESSFUL BUT I WORRY NUMBER TEN AND SECOND WHAT AMAY SAID. >> DAVID, THEN -- >> LAST COMMENT. Q. I WANT TO THANK BOB, THAT WAS A GREAT SUMMARY OF WHAT HAPPENED ANDTY COMPLETELY AGREE EVERYTHING SAID. ONE ADDITION, WHICH IS ON ONE OF THE POINTS, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH BEFORE THIS, IN ORDER TO BUILD THE QUALITY OF PHYSICIAN SCIENTISTS AND INTRAMURAL PROGRAM, I THINK IT WOULD REALLY BE GOOD TO -- WHICH LIST UNDER INTEGRATING RESIDENCY PROGRAMS FROM AROUND THE COUNTRY WITH THE NIH AT THAT STAGE, NOT AFTERWARDS BUT EVEN DURING THERE IS MANY WAYS THAT CAN BE DONE, NOT GAZELLE CAMLY BUT AROUND THE COUNTRY, DOING JOINT PROGRAMS TOGETHER WITH WHATEVER THEY ARE AND THE NINDS PROGRAM, I THINK -- BECAUSE THEN IF THE FEW THIARAEDLY GET INVOLVED, I THINK IT WOULD BE A PIPELINE FOR PEOPLE INTO THE PROGRAM. >> THIS ISSUE BY NO MEANS CLOSED ALMOST WILL COME BACK WITH POTENTIAL RESPONSES TO SOME OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS BUT WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THIS REPORT ALL BE IT WITH CONCERNS RAISED WHICH ALSO WILL BE PASSED ALONG OFFICIALLY SO IS THERE A MOTION FOR EXAMPLE TO ACCEPT THE REPORT? MOTION TO ACCEPT. SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, ALL OPPOSED. ANY ABSTENTIONS? NEW GUYS CAN'T VOTE. OKAY. THANKS A LOT. THANKS A LOT, BOB. THANKS A LOT FOR BEING INTERESTED. >> SO IT IS NOW MY HUGE PLEASURE TO INTRODUCE DR. JOHN LORSCH WHO IS DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF GENERAL MEDICAL SCIENCES, HE HAS COME RECENTLY TO THIS POSITION. AS THE DIRECTOR OF NIGMS, NIGMS DOESN'T HAVE AN INTRAMURAL PROGRAM SO HE WAS PUZZLED BY DISCUSSION. IT FUNDS BASIC RESEARCH IN CELLS BIOLOGY, BIOPHYSIC, GENETICS PHARMACOLOGY PHYSIOLOGY, BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY, A LOT OF STUFF. IT ALSO SUPPORTS A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF RESEARCH TRAINING INCLUDING M.D. Ph.D., MSTP PROGRAM AND NUMBER OF PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO DIVERSE THE BIOBEHAVIORAL RESEARCH WORK FORCE, HE CAME FROM JOHNS HOPKINS, PROFESSOR DEPARTMENT OF BIOPHYSICS AN BIOPHYSICAL CHEMISTRY. HE EARNED THE Ph.D. IN BIOCHEMISTRY FROM HARVARD UNIVERSITY AND POST-DOCTORAL FELLOW IN BIOCHEMISTRY AT STANFORD. DURING HIS POST-DOCTORAL WORK HE BEGAN STUDYING THE MECHANISM WHICH MOLECULAR MACHINE LESS KATE THE BOFFING THE PROTEIN CODING REGION OF RNA MOLECULE, TRANSLATIONAL INITIATION AND HE WILL HAVE AN INTRAMURAL LAB AT NIH I WOULD SAY I WAS ON THE SEARCH COMMITTEE THAT IDENTIFIED AND HELP RECRUIT JOHN, AND IN THE FIRST INTERVIEW SAT DOWN AND RAISED A WHOLE LOT NOT SURE WHY WHICH UNDERSTAND WHY WE DO THIS THE WAY WE DO, THINK ABOUT DOING THINGS DIFFERENTLY, NOT SURE WHY WE'RE INVESTING A BILLION DOLLARS IN STRUCTURAL PROTEIN BIOLOGY, I JUST THOUGHT THIS IS GREATEST PERSON TO TAKE OVER THIS INSTITUTE AND HE'S SINCE COME IN AND DONE A SERIES OF INTERESTING STUDIES AND HAS CHANGED SOME OF THE THINGS THAT NIGMS IS DOING AND CHANGE THE THINGS THAT NIH AS A WHOLE DOES. WELCOME, JOHN. >> THANK YOU STORY FOR INVITING ME, I WANT TO STARTS BY ECHOING WHAT I'M SURE IS IN ALL OF YOUR MINDS AND HAS BEEN SAID BEFORE THIS MORNING, HOW MUCH I WILL MISS STORY. SHE WASN'T JUST ON THE COMMITTEE BUT CO-CHAIRED IT. SO I OWE HER A GREAT DEBT FOR HELPED RECRUITING ME HERE, IT WAS NO SMALL PART MY BEDECISION TO COME TO HAVE COLLEAGUES LIKE STORY. AND SINCE I ARRIVED WHENEVER I HAVE A HARD PROBLEM I NEED ADVICE ON, STORY IS ONE OF THE FIRST PEOPLE I HAVE GONE TO FOR ADVICE. I WILL ACUTELY MISS HER BUT GET HER EMAIL ADDRESS IN MAINE AND HER PHONE NUMBER AND I WILL STILL AVAIL MYSELF OF WISDOM. SO LET'S START WITH BRIEF OVERVIEW OF NIGMS. MANY ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE INSTITUTE BUT TOLL -- IN ORDER TO LAY A FOUNDATION FOR ADVANCES IN DISEASE DIAGNOSIS TREATMENT AND PREVENTION. THE SECOND WHICH IS RELATED THE FIRST TOO ENABLE DEVELOPMENT OF BEST TRAINED INNOVATIVE AND PRODUCTIVE BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH WORK FORCE POSSIBLE. I WOULD HIGH LIGHT PHRASE LAY FOUNDATION BECAUSE'S WHAT NIGMS IS ABOUT THROUGH RESEARCH MISSION AND TRAINING MISSION, WE ARE LAYING THE FOUNDATION WHICH THE OTHER INSTITUTES WHICH ARE FOCUSED ON DISEASES OR ORGAN SYSTEMS, BUILD RESEARCH AND TRAINING PORTFOLIOS. STORY ALSO ALLUDED, WE HAVE FIVE SCIENTIFIC AREAS WRITE GOING TO COVER THE BROAD SWATH OF BASIC BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, CELL BIOLOGY AND BIOPHYSICS LED BY CATHY LEWIS, PHARMACOLOGY, PHYSIOLOGY AND BIOLOGICAL CHEMISTRY BY GLENN ROGER, BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY BIOINENURETICS AND COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY BY NEWEST DIVISION DIRECTOR SUSAN GREGORY WHO CAME TO US FROM DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY TRAIN WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT AND DIVERSITY WHICH AT THE MOMENT WE'RE RECRUITING A NEW DIVISION DIRECTOR FOR, THAT SEARCH IS WELL UNDERWAY. FINALLY GENETICS AND DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY LED BY JUDITH GREENBERG. THEY SAY YOU DON'T KNOW INSTITUTE UNTIL YOU KNOW BUDGET STORY SHADE WE HAVE $2.4 BILLION BUDGET TRUE IN 2012. A LITTLE LESS POST RECEIVE QUESTIONSER BUT THE PIE CHART SHOWS HOW TO INVEST TAXPAYER MONEY IN BIOMEDICAL VERGE SO NEARLY 90% GOES TO EXTRAMURAL RESEARCH, RESEARCH CONDUCTED AT RESEARCH UNIVERSITY AND MEDICAL SCHOOL AND OTHER INSTITUTIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. ABOUT 8% GOES TO TRAINING WORK FORCE DEVELOPMENT DIVERSITY BUILDING, THERE'S A GRAY AREA IN HERE AS WELL, SO IT'S SOME THIS ALSO TRAINING COMPONENTS IN IT. BUT STORY MENTIONED WE HAVE LITTLE INTRAMURAL RESEARCH LESS THAN 1% BUDGET GOES TO INTRAMURAL RESEARCH. IN ALMOST ALL IS SENIOR POST-DOCTORAL RESEARCH PROGRAM, WHICH FUNDS POST-DOCTORAL FELLOWS THROUGHOUT THE NIH INCLUDING NINDS AS WELL AS FDA. SO WE ARE A COMPLETELY ALMOST OUT WARD FACING INSTITUTE. WHAT STORY ASKED ME TO DO WAS TALK TO YOU ABOUT A COUPLE OF HOT ISSUES WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON AT NIGMS SEE HOW MUCH TIME I'LL TRY TO GET YOU BACK AN TIME. WE HAVE TO HAVE LUNCH. WE'LL SEE BUT TWO BIG ONES I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT, THE FIRST IS WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON RENEWING AN REINVIGORATING OUR COMMITMENT TO INVESTIGATOR INITIATED QUESTION-DRIVEN RESEARCH. WHEN I TALK ABOUT INVESTIGATOR INITIATED RESEARCH I'M NOT DRAWING A DICHOTOMY WITH SINGLE VERSUS TEAM SCIENCE. PI SCIENCE IS INVESTIGATOR INITIATED. A DICHOTOMY BETWEEN INVESTIGATOR INITIATED RESEARCH ONE HAND AND WHAT IS SOMETIMES PROGRAMMATIC RESEARCH OR TOP DOWN RESEARCH ON THE OTHER. AND IN WHICH NIGMS ALWAYS IN CONSULTATION WITH OUTSIDE GROUPS DECIDES SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC AREA WE ISSUED AN FOA TO MONEY INTO THAT AREA OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH. NIGMS HISTORICALLY FOCUSED ON INVESTIGATOR INITIATED RESEARCH, THAT'S WHAT IT'S KNOWN FOR, SO YOU MAY WONNER WHY DO WE NEED TO SPEND ANY EFFORT RENYING AND REINVIGORATING OUR COMMITMENT TO IT. LY SHOW YOU DATA THAT TELL IT IS STORY. THIS SHOWS TWO RELATED THINGS THIS ACCESS IS AND BLUE BAR IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY NIGMS INVESTED IN THAT PROGRAMMATIC OR TOP DOWN RESEARCH, RESEARCH ASSOCIATED WITH TARGETED FOAs DIRECTED AT SPECIFIC AREA OF SCIENCE. OF TIME. WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS IN THE EARLY 1990s, WHEN I SAY VERY LITTLE MONEY INVOLVED IN TARGETED RESEARCH -- INVESTED IN TARGETED RESEARCH. BETWEEN 1998 AND 2003 WHICH AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW CORRESPONDS TO THE BUDGET DOUBLING, THE DOUBLING OF THE NIH BUDGET THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY GREW DRAMATICALLY, CONTINUED TO GROW AFTER THE BUDGET DOUBLING WAS OVER. THERE WERE A LOT OF REASONS TO INVEST IN TARGETED RESEARCH WHEN THERE WAS NEW MONEY COMING TO THE SYSTEM EVERY YEAR. THAT IS WHAT IS BORNE OUT HERE. THE RED LINE THIS AXIS SHOW IT IS RECIPROCAL OF THIS, THE PERCENT OF NIGMS PORTFOLIO THAT WAS DEDICATED TO THE INVESTIGATOR INITIATED RESEARCH. AGAIN IN THE EARLY 1990s, 99% OF NIGMS PORTFOLIO WAS INVESTIGATOR INITIATED RESEARCH. THAT PERCENTAGE FELL DURING THE BUDGET DOUBLING, IT CONTINUED TO DECLINE UNTIL THE CURRENT STATE WHEN I ARRIVED IN NIGMS ONLY 80% OF OUR PORTFOLIO WAS INVESTIGATOR INITIATED. SO COMES NO SURPRISE TO YOU THE BUDGET DOUBLING IS OVER FOR A DECADE. WE HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION WE NEED TO REEQUILIBRATE THE SYSTEM TO MORE EFFICIENTLY AND MORE EFFECTIVELY IN THIS NEW ENVIRONMENT WE FIND OURSELVES. THAT MEANS MOVING THE RED LIGHT UP CLOSER TOWARDS WHERE IT USED TO BE WHICH MEANS MOVING BLUE BARS DOWN. SO THAT NEEDS TO FOCUS ON INVESTIGATOR INITIATE RED SEARCH CAN BE SEEN IN ANOTHER WAY. , SHOWN IN THIS GRAPH. THIS SHOWS THREE RELATED THINGS FIRST ON THIS AXIS IS NUMBER OF RESEARCH PROJECT GRANTS MOST WHICH ARE RO1s I'M SURE YOU KNOW. NIGMS FUNDED BETWEEN 2002 AND 2013 T. AND WHAT SHOULD STRIKE YOU IMMEDIATELY IS THAT HAS BASICALLY BEEN FLAT DURING THAT TIME PERIOD. IT DECLINED LALE BIT DURING THE SEQUESTER. BLUE LINE SHOWS NUMBER OF RPG APPLICATIONS RECEIVED, THAT'S GROWN SUBSTANTIALLY BY 50% IN THAT SAME PERIODS OF TIME. THE GREEN CURVE THIS AXIS HERE IS SUCCESS RATE. THAT'S SIMPLY THE NUMBER OF RPGs WE FUND DIVIDED BY TOTAL NUMBER OF APPLICATION WE GET. THAT'S A PERCENT. WHAT YOU SEE HERE STRIKINGLY IS THAT NUMBER DECLINED FROM 40%? 2002 TO JUST UNDER 20% IN 2013 SO CUT IN HALF IN THAT TIME PERIOD. WE FEEL THAT DECLINE WHICH IS DRIVEN BY COMPLEX FACTORS, DRIVEN BY INCREASE IN APPLICATIONS, AS WELL AS NOWHERE BUDGET PRIORITIES ARE SET AS WELL AS OVERALL BUDGET. NONETHELESS, WE FEEL THIS UNDER 20% NUMBER IS UNSUSTAINABLE FOR FUND MEN FALL BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, WE NEED TO GET THIS SUCCESS RATE HIGHER IN ORDER TO REINVIGORATE THE FUNDAMENTAL BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH ENTERPRISE, OUR MISSION TO SUSTAIN. SO WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING IN OTHER WORDS TO DO THIS. IN ORDER TO BOLSTER INVESTIGATOR INITIATED RESEARCH. WHEN I FIRST GOT TO NIGMS, STORY ALLUDED TO, I CAME TO A NUMBER OF LARGE TARGETED INITIATIVES THAT STARTED BUDGET DOUBLING SO THEY STARTED A TIME WHEN NEW MONEY COMES TO THE SYSTEM, IT MADE SENSE TO TRY TO CATALYZE DEVELOPMENT IN THE NEW FIELD BUT IT WAS CLEAR AFTER 15 YEARS IT WAS TIME TO SUN SET THESE AND ROLL THE MONEY BACK INTO OUR INVESTIGATOR INITIATED RESEARCH PROGRAM. SO THE FIRST DECISION TO MAKE WAS TO SUN SET AS STORY MENTIONED, THE PROTEIN STRUCTURE INITIATIVE OTHERWISE KNOWN AS STRUCTURAL GENOMICS, THIS WAS DEVELOPING METHODS FOR HIGH THROUGH PUT STRUCTURE DETERMINATION. IT WAS A SUCCESSFUL INITIATIVE IN TERMS OF DEVELOPING TECHNOLOGY NEEDED TO DO THIS BUT WE REASONED AFTER EVALUATION OF THE PSI, THAT AGAIN THAT JOB HAD BEEN DONE AND IT WAS TIME THE TAKE $75 MILLION APPROXIMATELY EACH YEAR INTO THE PROGRAM AND USE THEM ANOTHER WAY. SO WE HAVE BEGUN THAT SUN SET PROCESS COMPLETED NEXT YEAR IN 2015. ANOTHER BIG INITIATIVE IT WAS PHARMACOGENOMICS RESEARCH NETWORK. ITS GOAL WAS TO CREATE THE FIELD OF PHARMACOGENOMICS AND CATALYZE DEVELOPMENT AND INCREASE AMOUNT OF RESEARCH GOING ON IN THAT AREA. AGAIN AFTER 15 YEARS WITH CONCLUSION WAS MADE IT WAS TIME TO LET THIS FIELD THRIVE ON ITS OWN AND I WOULD ITSELF SHOULD MR. PITRE: IN THE REGULAR RESEARCH MECHANISMS, RO1s ET CETERA WITH OTHER INVESTIGATOR INITIATED GRANTS SO WE'RE TRANSITIONING THAT PROGRAM BACK INTO REGULAR INVESTIGATOR INITIATED GRANT POOL MECHANISMS. WE ALSO MADE SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR BUDGET AND OUR PORTFOLIONA SHORTER TERM IN ORDER TO BOLSTER SUCCESS RATES. SINCE I SHOWED YOU DECLINE ALARMINGLY IN A DECADE SO JUST THIS YEAR, WE REDUCED FUNDING TO MOST CENTER AWARDS, P-41st, TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT CENTER, VARIOUS P-50s AN U-54s, EXCEPT THOSE FUNDED BY THE IDEA AIDS PROGRAMS FROM SEPARATE BUDGET ALLOTMENTS. BY 10%. THIS WAS DIFFICULT DECISION TO MAKE BUT IN ORDER TO BOLSTER THAT INVESTIGATOR INITIATED POOL, WE REASONED WE NEED TO RESET THE BUDGET TO THESE LARGER PROGRAMS SO THIS WAS RESETTING BASELINE BUDGET INITIATIVES. WE ALSO HAD NUMBER OF FOAs ON THE BOOKS COMING OUT, THIS YEAR FUNDING. WE MADE THE HARD DECISION WE WERE IN FACT REDUCED BY HALF THE SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR THESE FO'SAs SHOWN HERE. THEY SPAN THE RESEARCH GAMUT OF THE KIND OF THINGS THAT NIGMS FUNDS. THESE DECISION, NONE OF THEM ESPECIALLY ACUTE SHORT TERM WERE NOT EASY TO MAKE. WE RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS GOING TO MEET HARDSHIPS FOR CENTERS WHO BUDGETS WE WERE REDUCING AND DISAPPOINTMENTS FOR THE INVESTIGATORS APPLYING FOR THESE FOAs. THE FLIP SIDE WE THOUGHT A MORE COMPELLING ARGUMENT WHICH WAS THERE ARE LAB ACE CROSS THE COUNTRY THAT ARE STRUGGLING TO KEEP THEIR FUNDING GOING, THESE ARE PRODUCTIVE EXCELLENT SCIENTISTS, WHOSE LABS ARE CLOSING. THIS CAME INTO NO, MA'AM ACUTE FOCUS FOR EVERYONE THE LAST WEEK WHEN THE STORY NPR AIRING ABOUT FUNDING TALKING TO LABS STRUGGLING AND CLOSING AND THE DAMAGE OF DOING THE SCIENCE. THOUGH HA HARD DECISION WE REASONED IT WAS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT FOR US TO KEEP EXCELLENT PRODUCTIVE LABS OPEN AND TO THEREFORE MAKE THESE ADJUSTMENTS IN SHORT TERM TO BUDGET AND ALSO OTHER ADJUSTMENTS IN LONGER TERM TO OUR FUNNING STRUCTURE. -- FUNDING STRUCTURE. SO WHAT DID THIS GET US? JUST TO PUT INTO PERSPECTIVE, WE WERE PREDICTING SUCCESS RATE FOR 2014 WITHOUT REDUCTION I JUST MENTIONED TO YOU. TO STAY FLAT AT 20%. WHICH WAS UNSUSTAINABLE IN OUR VIEW. WITH THESE REPREDICTED UP TO 22%, THAT MAY NOT SEEM LIKE MUCH IN FACT IT'S NOT NEARLY ENOUGH AN WHERE WE WANT TO BE BUT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT TRANSLATE INTO 100 MORE RPGs THAN AGE TO FUND IN 2013 SO THINK ABOUT UP TO 100 MORE LABS TO STAY OPEN AND KEEP DOING RESEARCH, NEW INVESTIGATORS WHO ARE ABLE TO LAUNCH THEIR CAREERS, THIS WAS SUBSTANTIAL IN OUR VIEW. THE NEWS IS ACTUALLY EVEN SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN THAT BECAUSE FROM ADDITIONAL BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS AND SOME OTHER TRANSFERS THAT TOOK PLACE, WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET UPWARDS OF 24% AS SUCCESS RATE. THE TRICK WILL BE SUSTAINING THAT OF COURSE, WE DON'T WANT TO VOTE ONE YEAR AND CRASH THE FOLLOWING YEARS. AS REROLE THE MONEY BACK IN FROM LARGE INITIATIVES MANAGING MANAGING THAT CAREFULLY TO KEEP A SUSTAINED FOUR, FIVE YEAR SUCCESS RATE RENEWED PASS A CYCLE. SO MOVING FORWARD HOW WILL WE KEEP THIS GOING IN ADDITION TO WHAT I TOLD ABOUT SUN SETTING THE LARGE INITIATIVES, THERE ARE 22 INSTITUTES AND MISSION DIFFERENT REASON, OURS IS INVESTIGATOR INITIATED RESEARCH, BECAUSE OF THAT WE REDUCE USE OF FOA TARGETED SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC AREAS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE WON'T HAVE ANY, IF THERE'S COMPELLING REASON TO PUT ONE OUT. WE'LL STILL DO IT BUT WE WILL BE REDUCING USE OF TOP DOWN TARGETED FOA AT SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC AREAS. AS I SAID, THERE MAYBE INSTANCES WHERE IT DOES APPEAR WORTH INVESTMENT IN SPECIFIC SCIENTIFIC AREA TO CATALYZE RAPID DEVELOPMENT, STRUGGLING TO EMERGE. IN THOSE RARE INSTANCES WE FEEL IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, SOMETHING STORY TALKED ABOUT AS WELL, BUILDING SUN SET CLAUSES IN TO THESE THINGS. FIVE YEARS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AFTER THAT IF THE FIELD WAS NOT ABLE TO SUSTAIN ITSELF, IT APPARENTLY WASN'T MEANT TO BE AT THAT POINT AND IT WAS TOO EARLY. ANOTHER CRITICAL RESEARCH AREA FOR US PROMOTE DIVERSITY IN OUR PORTFOLIO. BROAD LIENAL SENSES. RESEARCH AREAS, BACKGROUNDS, WHAT THEIR FOCUS ON, TEATS, INSTITUTIONS WE FUND, AND REGIONS WHICH WE FUND SCIENCE. DIVERSITY ALLUDED TO BEFORE IS CRITICAL FOR MAINTAINING A STRONG SCIENTIFIC ENTERPRISE AND CRITICAL FOR MAIN FEIGNING A STRONG SCIENTIFIC PORTFOLIO. ONE CORE PRINCIPLE IS WE HAVE NO IDEA WHERE THE NEXT BIG DISCOVERY COMES FROM SO HAVING A DIVERSE PORTFOLIO IN THESE WAYS INCREASE IT IS CHANCE THAT THE TAXPAYERS ARE GOING TO GET IMPORTANT SCIENCE, WHETHER FUNDAMENTAL OR BREAK THROUGH, FOR DOLLARS F. GOING ALONG WITH THAT WE ARE FOCUS ON ENSURING THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING YOU WOULD HAVE IN PORTFOLIO SUPPORTS TAXPAYERS BEST INTEREST. GETTING THE MOST SCIENCE AND BEST SCIENCE FOR THE MONEY. WE ARE FUNDAMENTALLY OUR JOB IS TO INVEST IN TAXPAYER MONEY. INVEST TAX PAYER DOLLAR. IF YOU THINK LIKE INVESTOR, IF YOU WERE INVESTING IN BLUE CHIP STOCKS YOU UNLIKELY GET BIGGEST YIELD SO GO BOOK THIS WE NEED A DIVERSE AND DISTRIBUTED PORTFOLIO TO MAXIMIZE THE IMPACT OF TAXPAYER INVESTMENT. NOVEMBER SO THAT BRINGS ME TO SECOND ISSUE, I WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT, IT'S ONE YOU HAVE BEEN EXPLORING. WHICH IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE STABLE FLEXIBLE AND EFFICIENT FUNDING MECHANISMS. IT'S SOMETHING I HAVE BEEN THINK ACT FOR QUITE A LONG TIME A DECADE SINCE I FIRST BECAME A PI. WHAT I SPENDS MOST TIME DURING THE DAY AND NIGHT AS WELL THINKING ABOUT ARE VERY HARD PROBLEMS. WHICH MAKE THIS IS EXCITE BUG ALSO CHALLENGING. I PUTS UP A FEW HARD PROBLEMS AND I WANT TO GO THROUGH THEM ALL. YOU CAN LOOK AT THEM. I'M SURE THEY'LL RESONATE SOMEWHAT WITH YOU. BUT AS I THOUGHT ABOUT THESE DIFFERENT HARD PROBLEMS WHETHER THEY WERE PROBLEMS IN TRAINING DIVERSITY, REPRODUCIBILITY, EFFICIENCY, ET CETERA N AT THE CORE OF THEM, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, CONNECTED IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER TO ALL OF THEM WAS SOMEONE SINGLE HEART PROBLEM, HOW -- HARD PROBLEM, HOW WE [CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY ALABAMA PUBLIC TELEVISION] MENTAL SCIENTIFIC VERGE. AS YOU KNOW, THE PREDOMINANT FUNDING MECHANISM WE USE AT THE NIH IS A PROJECT BASED FUNDING MECHANISM. THAT IS, INVESTIGATORS ARE ASKED TO PROPOSE, BREAK RESEARCH INTO PROJECTS, AND PROPOSE EXACTLY OVER THE NEXT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS THEY'RE GOING TO DO. THOSE I ALREADY ALLUDED TO PHO MINUTES AGO. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS WITH THIS, I WON'T ENUMERATE THEM ALL, AT LEAST NCI MY VIEW THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS WITH THIS. YOU CAN ARGUE ARGUE WITH IT. BUT LET ME SAY THE FIRST IS TRYING TO SAY IN ADVANCE NECESSARY THESE ARE EXPERIMENTS OVER THE NEXT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS, HERE ARE CONTROLS, HERE ARE THE EXPECTED OUTCOMES, THE TERRIFYING PHRASE POPPING UP MORE IN GRANT APPLICATIONS IS NOT HOW SCIENCE WORKS. THE BIGGEST BREAK THROUGHS THE MOST INTERESTING SCIENCE IS THINGS THAT YOU DIDN'T EXPECT. CONTROLS YOU DIDN'T DECIDE THE FOLLOW. FORCING PEOPLE TO SAY WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, THERE IS A CONSERVATISM, BROUGHT INTO THE SYSTEM, IN SOME WAYS IT'S A CHARADE, PEOPLE TEND TO PUT FORWARD RESEARCH THAT MAYBE THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE. SO THAT IS ONE REALM OF PROBLEM. ANOTHER REALM OF PROBLEM WITH THIS IS BECAUSE WE LET INVESTIGATORS BREAK RESEARCH INTO AS MANY PROJECTS CREATIVE ENOUGH TO DEFINE AND ALLOW THEM TO GET AS MUCH MONEY AS THEY CAN GET, IT HAS CREATED IN A OUR PORTFOLIO A DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING THAT IS IN OUR VIEW NOT NECESSARILY OPTIMAL. WE HAVE DATA TO SUPPORT THAT. SO THERE'S TWO PROBLEMS. BASED ON A LOT OF THINKING ABOUT THIS, WE DECIDED TO EXPERIMENT WITH ALTERNATIVE FUNDING MODELS TO SEE IF WE CAN FIND FUNDING MODELS MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE AND CREATE NEW OPPORTUNITIES AND EFFICIENCIES IN THE SYSTEM. THE MODEL WE'RE EXPLORING NOW IS FUNDING, CALLING RESEARCH PROGRAMS INSTEAD OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS. THIS SHOULD ECHO WHAT WE HEARD ABOUT, ABOUT THE MODEL OF THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. THE WAY IT CONSTRUCTED ITSELF. SO WHAT WITH WE DEFINE A PROGRAM AS IS THE COLLECTION OF PROJECTS IN AN INDIVIDUAL PI LAB RELATED THE MISSION OF NIGMS. AND THE IDEA I'LL E ELABORATE IN A MINUTE IS TO FUND THROUGH ONE GRANT THE PROGRAM RESEARCH IN THAT LAB. RATHER THAN FUNDING THE COLLECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS IN -- BY THEMSELVES. SO WHAT WE THINK THE ADVANTAGE IS OF FUNDING PROGRAMS AROUND PROJECTS WOULD BE SEVERAL FOLD. FIRST WE THINK THAT THIS MECHANISM WE'RE GOING TO EXPLORE HAS POTENTIAL TO INCREASE THE STABILITY OF FUNDING FOR INVESTIGATORS AND BY INCREASING THE STABILITY OF FUNDING FOR INVESTIGATORS, WE THINK IT WILL INCREASE THEIR WILLINGNESS TO TAKE ON AMBITIOUS SCIENTIFIC PROBLEMS AN APPROACH THOSE PROBLEMS CREATIVELY. THERE'S A LOT OF FEELING THAT BY FUNDING PROJECTS AND HAVING INVESTIGATORS CONTINUALLY ON THE VERGE OF LOSING GRANTS OR LOSING GRANTS CREATE AS CONSERVATISM IN THE SYSTEM, BOTH ON THE PART OF INVESTIGATORS AND WHAT THEY PROPOSE, AND ON THE PART OF THE STUDY SECTIONS THAT REVIEW THOSE APPLICATIONS. SECONDLY, WE HOPE TO INCREASE THE FLEXIBILITY FOR INVESTIGATORS TO FOLLOW NEW RESEARCH DIRECTIONS AS OPPORTUNITIES ARISE. IF YOUR GRANT IS TIDE TO THREE SPECIFIC AIMS YOU PUT DOWN IN ADVANCE, YOU ARE SOME EXTENT LOCKED INTO THAT. IF YOU DO A CONTROL THAT SAYS THE SENSE STRAND OF RNA WORKS AS WELL AS THE ANTI-SENSE STRAND OF RNA, IF YOU FOLLOW THAT DIRECTION THAT'S NOT DEVIATING FROM SPECIFIC AIMS YOU'RE TAKING A RISK WHEN IT'S TIME TO COME IN TO STUDY SECTION AGAIN YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN TROUBLE. EXAMPLE I GAVE IS DISCOVERY OF RNAi, LUCKY PEOPLE WHO DID THAT FOLLOW THEIR NOSE BUT ONE WONDERS HOW MANY DISCOVERIES BREAK THROUGHS HAVE BEEN LOST BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE LOCK IN IN ADVANCE. SO WE HOPE O TO FREE THEM UP TO DO SCIENCE THE WAY SCIENCE WORKS AN FOLLOW THEIR NOSES. AGAIN WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO IMPROVE THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING, AMONG INVESTIGATORS TO INCREASE OVERALL SCIENTIFIC PRODUCTIVITY AND A CHANCE OF IMPORTANT BREAK THROUGHS ARRAIGNS. REDUCE TIME SPENT BY INVESTIGATORS WRITING GRANT APPLICATIONS SO THEY CAN DO SCIENCE. ONE THING THAT CAME OUT IN THAT NPR STORY WAS TALKING INVESTIGATOR WHO HAD WRITTEN EIGHT GRANTS IN ONE YEAR. THAT'S NOT AN ANOMALY, I HEAR THIS EVERY DAY. I HEARD SOMEBODY 15 RO-1 APPLICATIONS IN A YEAR THAT'S NOT EFFICIENT USE OF GREAT SCIENTISTS TIME. EVERYONE RATHER THEY SPENT THEIR TIME FOCUSING ON SCIENCE. FINALLY, RELATED TO THAT, WE LIKE TO REDUCE TIME SPENT ON REVIEWING GRANT APPLICATIONS. SO FROM THIS WAS BONN AN IDEA WHICH WE'RE CALLING MAXIMIZING INVESTIGATORS RESEARCH AWARDS OR MIRA, THIS PROGRAM WHICH WE'RE GOING TO SEEK FORMAL CONCEPT CLEARANCE OF OUR COUNCIL ON NEXT WEEK, WE HAVE HAD A THIRD ROUND OF DISCUSSIONS NOW WE'RE GOING TO ASK THEM IF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD. THIS WE FUND BY R-35 MECHANISM WHICH I KNOW YOU EAR TALKING ABOUT, THE IDEA THIS WOULD BE A ONE GRANT ONE NIGMS GRANT PER RESEARCH PROGRAM. METASTASIS FOR PI SO THEY GET A GRANT TO SUPPORT RESEARCH PROGRAM, COLLECTION OF WORK RELATED TO NIGMS MISSION, GNAW WOULD BE SOLE NIGMS RESEARCH FUNDING THEY COULD HAVE FOR THEIR LAB. IN KEEPING WITH THAT, THESE GRANTS WOULD BE BIGGER, AND LONGER THAN OUR CURRENT AVERAGE. THE CURRENT AVERAGE RO H 1 IS 4.2 YEARS, WE'RE TALKING FIVE YEARS THOUGH THERE'S STILL SOME DEBATE ABOUT SHOULD IT BE FIVE OR SIX. THE CURRENT RO-1 AVERAGE SO IT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO TALL ACTUALLY FUND SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF THE RESEARCH PROGRAM. THERE WOULD BE A RANGE OF DIRECT COSTS, NOT EVERY INVESTIGATOR NEEDS THE SAME AMOUNT TO DO HIS OR HER RESEARCH. SO BASED ON STUDY SECTION COUNCIL AND PROGRAMS, ASSESSMENT, THE BUDGET FOR THE LAB WOULD BE SET AND WE'RE SAYING A RANGE BETWEEN SAY 150 AT LOW END TO MAXIMUM OF 750 WHICH IS NIGMS TRIGGER POINT FOR CURRENTLY ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY OF GRANTS. THE APPLICATION WOULD NOT BE TIED TO SPECIFIC AIMS. AS I SAID WE WANT TO FREE INVESTIGATORS UP TO FOLLOW THEIR NOSES GO WHERE GOOD UNDERSTAND THE ARISE, THE REVIEW, THIS ECHO WHAT IS WE HEARD IN THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM, WOULD BE BASED ON TRACK RECORD AND THE OVERALL RESEARCH IDEAS. THERE WOULD STILL BE RESEARCH IDEAS PROPOSED BUT IT WOULD BE A HIGHER MORE HOLISTIC PROPOSAL AND INVESTIGATORS WOULDN'T BE TIED TO THEM. THEY CHOSE TO GO OFF IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION BECAUSE OF AN OPPORTUNITY THAT'S BETWEEN THEM AND STUDY SECTION IN FIVE YEARS. AN IMPORTANT ISSUE THAT IS BROUGHT UP TALKING ONE GRANT PER PI MODEL, THAT MAKES SUDDEN DEATH IF YOU WILL A SERIOUS ISSUE. IF YOU LOST -- YOU PUTS IT IN, THE AD HOC WHO CAME ON STUDY SECTION HAPPENED NOT TO LIKE IT, YOU GOT A 45 SOME LABS CLOSED. SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE RECOGNIZE VERY EARLY ON. WHAT WE PROPOSE IS TO CHANGE MAYBE COUNTER INTUITIVELY FROM CURRENT DIGITAL SYSTEM WHICH IS U GRANT FUNDED OR NOT TON ANALOG SYSTEM WHICH EACH COMPETITIVE CYCLE REVIEW THE BUDGET COULD BE MODULATED SO IF FOR INSTANCE AN INVESTIGATOR WAS GETTING $450,000 A YEAR, THE REVIEWERS FELT THAT HIS PRODUCTIVITY WASN'T MAYBE QUITE UP TO THAT LEVEL OR THE PROPOSED RESEARCH WAS SOUNDING MAYBE A LITTLE STALE MAYBE, INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT IS IT FOR YOU, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO MODULATE THAT BUDGET DOWN TO A NEW LEVEL, MAYBE $250,000. SO THEY COULD CONTINUE AND IF THEY DID SOMETHING GOOD THERE'S OPTION TO GO BACK UP SO MODULATE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT CONCEPT CONSIDERED IN WAYS OUTSIDE OF THIS MODEL. THAT THE DIGITAL STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE MAYBE COULD BE EXPLOSIVE, ALTERNATIVES COULD BE EXPLORED. WE WANT EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS IN THIS SYSTEM AT THE BEING. THERE'S DEBATE IS THAT GOOD OR NOT. WE FEEL THAT THIS HAS AS MANY BENEFITS FOR EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATOR AS FOR LATER STAGE INVESTIGATOR. GETTING THEM TO DO SCIENCE IN THIS MANNER EARLY MAY ALSO HAVE ADDITIONAL BENEFIT. HOWEVER, WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO BE COMPARING THE TRACK RECORD OF EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATOR SENIOR INVESTIGATOR SIDE BY SIDE. SO AN EXPLICIT PART OF THIS PROPOSAL IS TO HAVE SEPARATE PANELS FOR ESIs AND TO HAVE MODIFIED REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS FOR THOSE PEOPLE. SO COMPARING APPINGS TO APPLES AND -- APPLES TO APPLES AN ORANGES TO ORANGES IN SOME WAYS IT'S CURRENTLY DONE. SO SOMETIMES IT'S USEFUL TO DEFINE SOMETHING BY WHAT IT'S NOT. I WANT TO TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO HA HERE FOR A MOMENT. IT IS NOT TARGETED SPECIFICALLY HIGH RISK HIGH POTENTIAL REWARD RESEARCH. THE IDEA IS THAT IF THIS WORKS IT WILL BE TRANSFORMATIVE TO HOW NIGMS FUNDS SCIENCE AND COULD BE USED TO FUND THE BROAD ARRAY OF SCIENCE WE ALREADY FUND. WHICH HOPEFULLY WILL INCLUDE THINGS THAT ARE HIGH RISK HIGH REWARD AND HOPEFULLY BY FREEING PEOPLE UP AND GIVING MORE STABILITY WE WILL GET MORE AMBITIOUS WORK BUT IT'S NOT JUST TARGETED. LIKEWISE THIS IS NOT TARGETED SPECIFICALLY PERCEIVE HIDELY ELITE GROUP OF INVESTIGATORS. IF THIS WORKS, WE WOULD HOPE TO TRANSFORM HOW WE [CAPTIONING MADE POSSIBLE BY ALABAMA PUBLIC TELEVISION] MENTAL RESEARCH WE FUNDS, ABOUT USE IT TO FUND BASIC RESEARCH PORTFOLIO. THIS IS NOT A SCHEME FOR RICH GET RICHER, THAT'S SOMETHING PEOPLE WORRY ABOUT. IT IS IN FACT SOME WAY IT IS OPPOSITE, WEEWEE HOPE HAVING PEOPLE WITH ONE GRANT PER LAB WE CAN ACTUALLY IMPROVE THE DISTRIBUTION OF FUNDING FOR THE BENEFIT OF BOTH SCIENCE AND THE TAXPAYERS. THE OTHER THING THAT'S NOT FINALIZED, WE HAVE TO HAVE ASK COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD, WE ISSUE REQUEST FOR INFORMATION RECENTLY, I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT IN A SECOND. YOU CAN GO TO OUR FEEDBACK LOOP BLOG AND READ BOTH MORE DETAIL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL AS WELL AS QUITE NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT PEOPLE POST DIRECTLY TO BLOG INSTEAD OF RFI, VERY USEFUL COMMENTS, VERY ILLUMINATING ON WHAT PEOPLE FELT WERE STRENGTH AND WEAKNESSES AS WELL AS MISPERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE PROGRAM. WE ISSUED AN RFI, BRIEFLY SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS SO TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE THE INSTITUTE USING DIFFERENT METHODOLOGY WENT THROUGH ALL THE RESPONSES AND CATEGORIZED THEM, AS POSITIVE, NEGATIVE OR EITHER AND IN THIS CASE OFF TOPIC CATEGORY. QUITE A FEW PEER REVIEW SYSTEM IN GENERAL WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT. WE TOOK THOSE SERIOUSLY BUT NOT DIRECTLY RELATED. WHAT YOU CAN SEE IS OVERWHELMINGLY THE RESPONSE WE GOT WAS POSITIVE TO THIS. 80% PLUS RESPONDENTS WERE POSITIVE, TO STRONGLY POSITIVE. BUT BOTH POSITIVE AND THE NEGATIVE RESPONSES DID CONTAIN VERY USEFUL INFORMATION ABOUT PITFALLS AN OPTIMIZING THE PROGRAM. I WOULD SAY SUMMARIZE, CATEGORIZE AND COUNTED, VARIOUS RESPONSES TOP TWO SUMMARIZED AS FOLLOWS, CLOSE TO EACH OTHER. THE FIRST IS -- THE BEST LABS WILL GET MORE MONEY SO THE RICH GETTING RICHER WAS SIGNIFICANT WORRY, AND A CLOSE SECOND WAS THE INTEREST WILL NOT GET ENOUGH MONEY IN THE SYSTEM. FEW DON'T MEAN TO MAKE LIGHT BECAUSE THESE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS. BUT YOU MIGHT SAY THE FACT WE GET BOTH CRITICISM SUGGESTS WE HAVE HIT THE SWEET SPOT BETWEEN TWO BUT I WANT TO STRESS THIS IS NOT A SCHEME IN WHICH WE WANT TO SEE THE BEST LAB GET MORE MONEY. AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAMSTRING LABS AND GIVE THEM NOT ENOUGH MONEY SO WE TAKE SERIOUSLY AND WANT TO DEFINE MIDDLE GROUND TO OPTIMIZE INVESTMENT OF TAX PAYERS MINUTE AND GET THE MOST SCIENTIFIC BANG FOR THE BUCK FROM THAT MONEY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. IT'S NOON, I HAVE MORE ON REPRODUCIBILITY I SHOULDN'T TAKE VERY LONG F. AND I'M HAPPY TAKE QUESTIONS AFTER THAT. ANOTHER IMPORTANT AREA WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON IS THE GENERAL AREA OF SCIENTIFIC REPRODUCIBILITY. I KNOW YOU HAVE SEEN THIS AND NINDS OVER THERE IS A LEADER IN FOCUSING OUR ATTENTION TON THIS PROBLEM AN COMING ONE CONCRETE AND IMPORTANT SOLUTIONS. MANY OF YOU HAVE SEEN RESPONSE TO THE MEDIA INTEREST IN SCIENTIFIC REPRODUCIBILITY THAT FRANCIS COLLINS AND LARRY TABAK PUT OUT IN NATURE. LAID OUT THE OVERALL APPROACH NIH WILL BE TAKING TO ADDRESSING THAT PROMPT A VERY IMPORTANT POINT TRUE NOT JUST REPRODUCIBILITY BUT ALL THOSE HARD PROBLEMS I SHOWED YOU BEFORE, EFFORTS BY NIH ALONE ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO EFFECT CHANGE IN THIS UNHEALTHY ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECOSYSTEM NEEDS TO WORK TOGETHER TO IMPROVE THE SITUATION. THAT'S TRUE FOR ALL THE HARD PREBUYS SHOWED BEFORE. IN ADDITION TO THESE NIH WIDE INITIATIVES THAT LARRY HAS BEEN LEADING WE WERE ASKED EACH INSTITUTE, WAS ASKED TO COME UP WITH IDEAS OR WAYS IT COULD UNIQUELY OR CAN IN COLLABORATION WITH OTHER INSTITUTES AND CENTERS CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PROBLEM IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE OVERALL NIH RESPONSE IS GOING TO BE. IN THINKING ABOUT THIS ONE KEY ISSUE APROSE, THIS GENERAL IDEAS OF DATA REPRODUCIBILITY WAS CONFOUNDING THROUGH DIFFERENT THINGS. IT WAS RELATED BUT DIFFERENT. IT WAS CONFOUNDING THE REPRODUCIBILITY OF THE DATA THEMSELVES. THAT IS, IF SHY AND I TRIED TO DO THIS SAME EXPERIMENT, SHY DID AN EXPERIMENT AND I TRY TO REPRODUCE USING WHATEVER HE'S PUBLISHED, DO I GET THE SAME DATA. PROOR NOT. SO THAT'S ONE PROBLEM. THE OTHER IS STRENGTH OR GENERALIZABILITY OF CONCLUSION, OUR SHY CONCLUSIONS STRONG ONES THAT ARE FROM THE DATA, JUSTIFIED BY DATA OR DID HE MAYBE STEP A FEW FEET AWAY IN ORDER TO GET HIS PAPER TO A JOURNAL WITH ONLY ONE WORD IN TESTITIS L. SO THERE IS A -- THOSE -- TITLE. SO THOSE ARE RELATED BUT WE NEED TO THINK HOLISTICALLY ABOUT THESE PROBLEMS. BOTH OF THESE AREAS HAVE ISSUED RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING THAT AFFECT THEM. FIRST SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE. I ALLUDED TO ONE, SCIENTIFIC REWARD SYSTEM GETTING PAPER AT CERTAIN GENERAL. TECHNICAL ISSUES SHORTCOMINGS IN SYSTEM, EQUIPMENT, ET CETERA, IN HOW WE REPORT, HOW WE REPORT WITH WE DID, WAS DETAIL GIVEN, ET CETERA. THIRD IS TRAINING AND EDUCATION BUT THINKING ABOUT THIS, AND GIVEN NIGMS CENTRAL POSITION TRAINING AT NIH WE THOUGHT IT AN IMPORTANT AREA TO HELP LEAD? PART OF THE REASON IS BECAUSE THIS AGAIN IS FOUNDATIONAL TO OTHER PROBLEMS. IF TRAINING EDUCATION OF NEXT GENERATION OF SCIENTISTS ARE NOT AS STRONG IN THESE AREAS RELATED TO REPRODUCIBILITY OF DATA AND STRENGTH OF CONCLUSIONS THEN THERE ARE PROBLEMS HERE THAT LEADS THREE PROBLEMS THERE. IF WE FIX AND IMPROVE EDUCATION WE MIGHT HAVE IMPACT ON THESE THINGS AS WELL. SO A GROUP LED BY MIKE ROGERS DIVISION OF PHARMACOLOGY WHICH INCLUDED HELP OF SHY, SILVERBERG, THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT WE MIGHT DO IN THIS AREA TO IMPROVE TRAINING AND EDUCATION IN WAYS THAT WOULD HELP THE GENERAL ISSUES OF REPRODUCIBILITY AND CONCLUSION AFTER DISCUSSION AN THOUGHT WHAT WE HAVE DONE AND WE ISSUED THIS FOA IS TO ISSUE AN FOA FOR SUPPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF WHAT WE CALL EXPORTABLE TRAINING MODULES. SO THESE ARE DIVISION -- THESE WILL BE TRAINING MODULES THAT CAN BE USED FREELY BY ANY INSTITUTION OR OTHER GROUP ACROSS THE COUNTRY, THEY CAN TAKE VARIETY OF FORMS, ONLINE, TUTORIALS, THEY CAN BE CASE STUDIES WITH ACCOMPANYING VIDEOS, THEY CAN BE SOME SORT OF WEB INTERFACE SIMULATION OF REALITY, ET CETERA. WE HOPE TO GET CREATIVE SOLUTIONS. BUT TO TARGET DIFFERENT AREAS RELATED TO REPRODUCIBILITY AND GENERALIZABILITY OF CONCLUSIONS. WHAT WAS GRATIFYING WHEN WE PUT THIS OUT THE 12 INSTITUTES SIGNED TON ON TO IT INCLUDING NINDS SO THANK YOU TO SHY AND STORY FOR THEIR LEADERSHIP THERE, WHICH IS FUNDS WERE FULLY UTILIZED TO FIRST UP TO 25 MODULES SO THINK OF 25 TRAINING MODULES IN AREAS SPANNING THE PROPER USE OF STATISTICS, ALL THE WAY TO THE SOCIOLOGY OF SCIENCE, I THINK THIS COULD HAVE A CONSIDERABLE IMPACT IF THEY BECAME USED AND ADOPTED BY UNIVERSITIES AND SCHOOLS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. SO THAT'S ONE THING WE HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON. THE OTHER IS METHODOLOGICAL. WHEN WE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT PROBLEMS MIGHT LIE OUT THERE, JIM DEFERIDGE, TALENTED PROGRAM DIRECTOR POINTED OUT ISSUES IN CELLTURE STULL DIS, -- CELLTURE STUDIES MAY CONTRIBUTE IN TECHNICAL WAYS TO OVERALL ISSUE OF REPRODUCIBLE. I WON'T GO THROUGH THE DATA. THE FIRST THING JIM AND COLLEAGUE DID WAS A DEEP DIVE TO THE LITERATURE TO SEE JUST HOW BIG A PROBLEM MIGHT LIE OUT THERE IN TERMS OF STUDY IN CELL AND TISSUE CULTURE. I CAN SHOW YOU IF YOU WANT, IT WILL MAKE YOUR HAIR STAND ON END. CONCLUSION FROM DEEP DIVE IS THERE ARE REAL PROBLEMS OUT THERE. AND THEY FALL INTO THESE GENERAL AREAS. THE FIRST IS CELL LINE CONTAMINATION MISIDENTIFICATION. EVERY FIVE OR SIX YEARS THIS COMES UP IN MEDIA. CERTAIN CELL TYPE FOR INSTANCE HEAD AND NECK CANCER CELL TYPE. WHICH PEOPLE HAVE BEEN DOING STUDIES ON FOR A LONG TIME TO FIND NEW THERAPIES FOR HEAD AND NECK CANCER SUDDENLY TURNS OUT NOT HEAD AND NECK CANCER AT ALL BUT HELO CELLS. IT GETS WORSE BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN MORE THAN A FEW CASES IN WHICH THE SPECIES OF THE CELL IS NOT WHAT IT THOUGHT TO BE SO HUMAN CELL LINES ARE THOUGHT TO BE MOUSE. IF YOU START THINKING THROUGH THIS, IT BECOMES QUITE DISTURBING FOR WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN. IN FACT THERE ARE CASES DOCUMENTED IN THE LITERATURE WHERE CLINICAL TRIALS WERE STARTED BASED ON STUDIES AND CELLS THAT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE THE KIND OF CELLS THEY WERE THOUGHT TO BE. SO THIS IS A BIG PROBLEM. BIGGER THAN I ANTICIPATED WHEN WE STARTED. ANOTHER ISSUE THAT EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE CELL TYPE YOU THINK YOU DO, IS MY CELL TYPE, THE MY HELO CELL IS SAME AS SHY BECAUSE CELLS IN CULTURE INHERENTLY GENETICALLY UNSTABLE, THEIR CHROMOSOMES ARE REARRANGED. PICK UP MUTATIONS, THEY CAN HAVE EPIGENETIC CHANGES AND THOSE CAN HAVE EFFECTS ON PHENOTYPE. POTENTIALLY PROFOUND EFFECTS ON RESULTING PHENOTYPE. THEN THERE'S INFECTIONS MICROPLASMA, VIRUSES, FUNGI FOR INSTANCE, WHICH CAN GO UNDETECT AND HAVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS ON OUTCOMES OF EXPERIMENTS IN THE PHENOTYPES. TWO STUDIES PUBLISHED ONE MINING THE RNA SEEK DATABASE, NCBI. AND THEY BOTH HAD ABOUT THE SAME THING, AROUND 10% OF THE STUDIES DEPOSITED CELL CULTURE STUDIES ARE CONTAMINATED WITH MICROPLASMA. SOFT THAT'S A SOBERING STATISTIC. FINALLY IF THESE ARE FINE IT'S CLEAR FROM A READ OF THE LITERATURE AND DISCUSSION WITH PIs THAT THE GROWTH CONDITIONS HAVE PROFOUND IMPACT ON PHENOTYPE AND RESULTS. THE SERUM LOT CAN CHANGE EVERYTHING. SEW THINKING FUNDAMENTAL BIOLOGY AND TRANSLATE ADVANCES THERE'S A PROBLEM HERE AND IT'S INCUMBENT UPON US TO ADDRESS IT. SO AFTER OUR INITIAL DISCUSSIONS AN DISCUSSIONS WITH FRANCIS HE ASKED THAT ERIC GREEN, DIRECTOR OF NHGRI AND I PUT TOGETHER AN NIH WIDE WORKING GROUP TO DISCUSS AND LOOK INTO THIS ISSUE AND COME UP WITH CONCRETE RECOMMENDATIONS OF HOW NIH COULD IMPROVE AND ADDRESS THE SITUATION. IT'S MADE UP OF STAFF FROM NIGMS AND ANOTHER -- A NUMBER OF OTHER INSTITUTES INCLUDES DAVID OWENS WHO SHEER, FROM NINDS AND WE HAVE BEEN MEETING REGULARLY DOING DEEP DIVES TALKING TO A NUMBER OF OUTSIDE SOURCES. WE'RE CLOSE TO PROPOSING SOME INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS. POSSIBLE AREAS OF ACTION WILL INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT AND DISSEMINATION OF CONSENSUS STANDARDS HOW WE AUTHENTICATE CELLS. HOW WE HANDLE THEM, HOW TO CONTROL THEM AND HOW THE RESULTS AND THE METHODS THAT ARE REPORTED, AGAIN GOING SHY'S WORK. YES ALSO TALKING ABOUT TARGETED INVESTMENTS AND TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPROVING TECHNOLOGY. THOSE TWO AREAS WOULD BE DEVELOPMENT OF MORE EFFICIENT AND COST EFFECTIVE TOOLS FOR CHARACTERIZING CELL LINES IN REAGENTS. SO INVESTIGATORS ARE MORE LIKELY TO ROUTINELY CHECK THEIR CELLS TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE WHAT THEY THINK THEY ARE AND HAVEN'T BEEN CONTAMINATED IF IT'S FAST CHEAP AN E CITY DO. IF THAT IS SOMETHING NIH CAN PUT TARGETED INVESTMENT AND GET BETTER TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPED IT COULD HAVE A HUGE IMPACT. LIKEWISE BACK TO ISSUE OF GROWTH MEDIA, SERUM ET CETERA, IF WE COULD DEVELOP DEFINE CONTROLLABLE AND AFFORDABLE, THAT'S REALLY THE KEY, MEDIA, WHICH WOULDN'T HAVE VARIABILITIES AND WOULD ALLOW INVESTIGATORS MORE ABILITY TO CHANGE CONDITION IN A CONTROLLED WAY YOU COULD ALSO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SO THOSE ARE THE AREAS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT INVESTING AND WE CERTAINLY WOULD BE HAPPY FOR FEEDBACK. I AM DONE AND HAPPY TO TAKE COMMENTS. [APPLAUSE] >> SO FIRST THAT WAS FANTASTIC TALK. I HAVE A QUESTION OF THE FIRST PART. IT'S A QUESTION FOR YOU BUT ALSO FOR OUR COUNCIL. SO YOU SAW OVER THE YEARS FRACTION OF BUDGETS SPENT ON INVESTIGATOR INITIATED RESEARCH, WENT FROM 100% TO 80% AND NOW TRYING TO GET IT BACK UP. SO THE QUESTION FOR INSTITUTE LIKE OURS WHICH HAS INTRINSIC TO ITS MISSION DISEASE RELEVANCE AS WELL, SHOULD WE LEARN THE SAME LESSON. THIS IS A BIG QUESTION I'M RAISING WE WON'T ANSWER IN THE NEXT 20 MINUTE BUS TO WHAT EXTENT SHOULD NINDS BE CONCERNED ABOUT AMOUNT OF MONEY SPENT IN INITIATIVE DRIVEN WAY? A LOT OF OUR INITIATIVES ARE CONGRESSLY MANDATED LIKE WE'RE TOLD TO START UDOLL CENTERS FOR PARKINSON'S DISEASE BUT QUESTION TO WHAT EXTENT IS THAT LESSON RELEVANT TO US. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT, JOHN. >> THERE ARE 27 INSTITUTES AND CENTERS FOR A REASON. THEY HAVE DIFFERENT MISSIONS, THEY'RE TRYING TO DO CERTAINTY THINGS. WE ARE FOUNDATIONAL. AS I SAID. THE CONTRAST I SOMETIMES MAKE IS TONY FAUCI CAN SAY WITHOUT FEAR OF CONTRADICTION THAT IF WHAT HE HAD A UNIVERSAL FLU VACCINE OR EBOLA VACCINE IT WOULD BE A GREAT IMPORTANT THING FOR HUMANITY. THE WAY YOU GET THOSE IS TO SOME EXTENT MANAGED. SO FROM HIS POINT OF VIEW, EBOLA VACCINE IS NOT LIKELY TO ARRIVE WITH INVESTIGATOR ISSUE. IT MIGHT THERE NEEDS TO BE MANAGEMENT THERE. THAT'S THE BALANCE. >> I WANT TO COMMENT ON WHAT YOU BROUGHT UP. I THINK THE NINDS HAS DONE A GREAT JOB AS FAR AS I CAN TELL KEEPING THE PERCENTAGE OF INDIVIDUAL RESEARCH GRANTS HIGH LIKE WHAT YOU ARE PROBOYS IMPORTANT. OTHER INSTITUTES YOU SHOULD SPEAK TO ABOUT. THIS NOT MISROOM THAT COULD BENEFIT FROM HEARING THAT MORE. >> STORY IS THE BEST PERSON AS OCTOBER 3RD SHE WILL HAVE A TRUE BULLY PULPIT TO SPEAK. >> SO THE FUNDING PROGRAMS I THINK IS A GOOD PILOT PROGRAM TO TRY. THAT'S -- >> I -- THAT WAS GREAT. I HAVE TWO PROBABLY SOFTBALL QUESTIONS I KNOW YOU THOUGHT ABOUT THIS A LOT. FIRST PREVENTING THE RICH GETTING RICHER, HAVE YOU THOUGHT ABOUT YOU HATE TO BRING UP THE TOPIC OF LIMITING SOME OTHER ASPECT OF APPLICATIONS LIKE RO-#s OR SOMETHING BUT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS I LIKE THIS MULTI-YEAR, OBVIOUSLY LIKE IN HHMI CONCEPT, HHMI IS REVIEWED ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS, IS THAT WHAT YOU THINK OR INTERIM AFTER THREE AND THEN ADDED ON IS THERE HMMI DOWN SIX YEAR OR SOMETHING IN? >> LAST QUESTION FIRST. FIVER YEARS IS REVIEW CYCLE. THERE'S DEBATE ROCK EARLOCKK AT THE RFI INTERNALLY WHETHER IT SHOULD BE SIX SOME EVEN SAID 10. MAJORITY FEEL FIVE YEARS IS THE SWEET SPOT. THAT THAT IS ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY DO LONG TERM WORK BUT ALLOWS REVIEW PROCESS TO HAPPEN. HHMI CYCLE. IN TERMS OF RARE, THAT'S SPECIFICALLY BUILT IN HERE AGAIN, THAT IF SOMEONE GETS ADVERSE ROUND OF REVIEW, WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY RAMP DOWN TO ZERO IF YOU'RE END OF HHMI RAMP DOWN TO ZERO. WE CAN RAMP DOWN TO LOWER LEVEL. WE ALSO HAVE TOPPINGS SAY IT'S LOOKING LIKE THIS IS THE END BUD WE'LL GIVE EWE YEAR OR TWO, SO BOTH ARE POSSIBLE. YOUR FIRST QUESTION AGAIN A SPECIFIC PART OF THIS PROGRAM IS IF YOU GET A MIRA THAT. IS YOUR NIMGMS RESEARCH FUNDING, YOU CANNOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE. WE HAVE NOT LIMITED WHETHER YOU CAN APPLY TO NINDS S. WE INTERNALLY HAVE THE 750K RULE F YOU HAVE 750,000 IN TOTAL DIRECT COST THERE'S ADDITIONAL SCRUTINY OF NEW GRANT BY COUNCIL AND PROGRAM. AND THAT WOULD STILL BE THERE. YOUR BUDGET WOULD BE AFFECTED BY HOW MUCH ADDITION AL FUNDING YOU HAVE BE SERVICE AND WHETHER THERE WAS OVERLAP. YOU COULDN'T HAVE A MIRA OR OTHER PERSON BASE AID WARD SO YOU COULDN'T GET NCI OUTSTANDING INVESTIGATOR ON TOP OF A MIRA. THAT'S TOO MANY INVESTIGATORS IF YOU GET $650,000 FROM NCI, YOU'RE DOING GREAT. AND WE CAN USE OUR MONEY EFFECTIVELY AS WELL AS. >> THEIR INVESTIGATOR R MANUFACTURE 35 ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS SO IT'S NOT CLINICAL, DOES AT NO TIME COUNT TEACHING OR ADMINISTRATIVE SO IF YOU ARE AT UNDERGRADUATE INSTITUTION YOU HAVE TO TEACH 70%, WE'RE NOT SAYING SORRY YOU'RE OUT OF LUCK BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO 50%. WE SAY AT LEAST HALF RESEARCH TIME HAS TO BE ON (INAUDIBLE). IF YOU'RE A CLINICIAN, AND YOU ARE IN THE CLINIC, SAME THING. (OFF MIC) DO YOU THEN REAPPLY? >> GREAT QUESTION. >> WE HAVE NOT FULLY -- THE SIMPLE MODEL IS YOU JUST GOT FIVE YEARS AT THE NEW LEVEL YOU CAN GO BACK UP WHEN YOU GET YOUR RENEWAL. THERE ARE HYBRID MODELS, IN WHICH YOU RAMP DOWN TWO OR THREE YEARS AND YOU CAN HAVE A REREVIEW AND SEE HOW IT GOES. YOU CAN NUANCE IT. Q. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION. SOME OF THOSE IDEAS ARE A GREAT BREATH OF FRESH AIR AND ARE VERY EXCITING I THINK WILL BE FANTASTIC CHANGES TO THE SYSTEM. I'M A BIG BELIEVER IN INVESTIGATOR INITIATED PROGRAMS MORE THAN THE TOP DOWN THING AND I REALIZE THAT'S SOME INSTITUTIONS MUST HAVE THEM BUT ONE THING I LIKE AND I WANT TO COMMENT ON IS WHEN THERE ARE TOP DOWN PROGRAMMATIC THINGS THAT GET PUT IN PLACE, THEY DO HAVE A CLOCK THAT STARTS TICKING THIS SUN DOWN ISSUE BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE TOO MANY CASE WHERE IS THERE ARE THESE LARGE THINGS THAT GET STARTED, BIG PO-1s U GRANTS AND THEY GO ON IN PERPETUITY AND NOBODY PULL IT IS BLUING PLUG AFTER IT'S DETERMINED THERE WERE THINGS THAT STARTED BECAUSE THEY WERE THE FASHION AT THE TIME AND TURNED OUT NOT SO GREAT OR WEREN'T SCIENTIFICALLY SUCCESSFUL SO FOR INSTITUTIONS THAT MUCH OR MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE A HIRE PERCENTAGE OF THOSE THINGS, THAT KIND OF A LOGIC IS BUILT INTO IT AS WELL. >> I WOULD SAY NINDS WENT THROUGH A VERY DIFFICULT PERIOD WHERE OUR PAY LINE WAS THE 9TH PERCENTILE, WE REVIEWED MANY LEGACY GRANTS AND SHUT SHUT THEM DOWN AND PAY LINE WENT UP TO 14 AND WOULD BE BETTER IF NOT SEQUESTERED, INCLUDING A TEN YEAR MAX ON PO-1s, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. >> I WANT TO DITTO WHAT DAVID SAID ABOUT YOUR TALK. IT WAS TERRIFIC, INVIGORATING EXCITING NEW DIRECTION. I WANT TO ASK WHETHER THERE IS A DOWN SIDE. I DON'T SEE A DOWN SIDE, THIS SEEMS TERRIFIC. DO YOU SEE A DOWN SIDE TO THIS RESTRUCTURING FOR GRANTS? THAT HAS BEEN MY BIGGEST WORRY MANY GOOD IDEAS HAVE YOU CAN INTENDED CONSEQUENCEs. THE SYSTEM REACTS, BEHAVIORAL ECONOMICS THE WILL REACT AND ARE THERE PRESSURE POINTS WE HAVEN'T THOUGHT OF. WE HAVE I HOPE WE THOUGHT BUT IF ANYONE THINKS OF THING, DAVID, HOW MUCH DEMONSTRATION PERIOD DO YOU GIVE? P THAT'S GOOD, WHAT SCALE DO YOU DO IT AND DO YOU CHANGE EVERYTHING OR GRADUALLY CHANGE >> ALL GREAT QUESTIONS AND WHAT IS -- WHAT ARE THE METRICS OF SUCCESS. THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE WE HAVE BEEN WRESTLING WITH. BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PILOT THE REVIEW PROCESS EVERYBODY AGREES IF WE THROW INTO THE REGULAR RO-1 STUDY SECTION IT WILL FAIL. BECAUSE THEY RIGHT NOW HAVING BEEN ON STUDY SECTION EVEN NEW INVESTIGATOR VERSUS SENIOR TRYING TO GET RO-1 IT'S HARD TO SWITCH. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE NEW PANEL, NEW REVIEW SYSTEM, ET CETERA. WHICH MEANS WE HAVE TO HAVE A LIMITED NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS. THAT IS CONSTRAINT ONE, CONSTRAINT 2 TO REAP THE BENEFITS WE WANT THE PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY HAVE VERY LARGE NIGMS BUDGETS TO COME TO THE SYSTEM AND SAY I'M WILLING TO TRADE SOME OF MY FUNDING FOR STABILITY, FLEXIBILITY AND EXTRA YEAR. SOME SAY NO WAY. A LOT ARE SAYING I WOULD DEFINITELY DO IT. SO THE RUBBER WILL HIT THE ROAD. WHAT WE'RE TALK IN PILOT PHASE IS LETTING ESI APPLY THROUGH ONE PANEL ONE REVIEW CRITERIA AND LETTING NIGMS GRANTEES OVER A CERTAIN DOLLAR AMOUNT OF DIRECT COSTS, APPLY. THIS EARLY PEEP SAIL YOU JUST LETTING THE RICH GET RICHER. I CAN'T STRESS ENOUGH WE HAVE NEED TO CONSTRAIN INITIALLY AND GET PEOPLE IN AND EXPAND THEM. FIVE YEARS WE LOOK AT AND HOPING WE CAN REFINE WAYS TO ROLL OTHERS IN GEEK LONG, LOOKS SUCCESSFUL. ONE BIGGEST COMMENT FLOWER RFI WAS WE ALL WANT IN. WHY CAN'T WE APPLY RIGHT NOW. SO THAT'S THE POSITIVE. >> THAT WAS A GREAT TALK AND AGREE WITH IDEAS AN DIRECTIONS YOU'RE HEADING. OBVIOUSLY THE MAKE IT WORK RELIES ON PEER REVIEW TO ADJUST ACCORDINGLY. HOW DOES THAT HAPPEN? AND DO YOU IMAGINE THIS IN CONTEXT OF CSR OR IS THIS INTRAMURAL? IF IF THIS PROCEEDS THE WAY WE ENVISION, IT WOULD, THE TRANSFORM HOW TO FUND SCIENCE HAS TO GO TO C AREV. SO AT THAT POINT WE HAVE -- HAVE DISCUSSION CREATING THE PANEL AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO DO THIS. TRYING TO VIE THE RO-1s AND THESE IN THE SAME STUDY SECTIONS IS A NON-STARTER. SO ONLY THING I SAY IS RICHARD NOKAMURA IS ENTHUSIASTIC AND EXCITED ABOUT THIS, A GREAT COLLABORATOR. >> SO HIGHEST SUCCESS RATE IS BETTER. I THINK EVERYBODY PUTS IN GRANTS FEELS LIKE THERE IS A POINT WHERE THE SYSTEM JUST SIMPLY LOSES RESOLUTION. >> ABSOLUTELY. Q.And: ISLE WONDERING SO -- AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE WANT SUCCESS RATE HIGHER BUT THAT LOSS OVEREATS HUGHES SOMETHING TO BE AVOIDED AT ALL COSTS. HAS ANYTHING YOU HAVE DONE GIVEN YOU A SENSE OF LOSING RESOLUTION AN BEING ABLE TO DISCRIMINATE AMONG GLANCE GRANTS? >> THAT'S A QUESTION I CAN EXPAND ON A LONG TIME WE HAVE DATA ON THIS NOW A NICE STUDY AT NHLBI WHICH SHOWED WHEN THEY LOOKED AT FUNDED GRANTING AND THE PRODUCTIVITY OR IMPACT OF THE FUNCTION OF SCORE, IT'S NOISE. SO I THINK THE REVIEW PROCESS IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT BUT NOT TO SAY A FIFTH PERCENTILE IS BETTER THAN A 15. WE'RE FOOLING OURSELVES. THAT'S AGAIN PART OF GOING TO ONE GRANTS PER PERSON SYSTEM IS ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THAT. STUDY SECTIONS SAY THIS IS GOOD, THIS IS NOT GOOD BUT THIS IS BETTER, ESPECIALLY TALKING DIFFERENT AREAS OF SCIENCE. HOW CAN I SAY THAT A GRANT IN PROTEIN SYNTHESIS WHERE I WORK, 5TH PERCENTILE IS BETTER THAN A GRANT IN NEURAL DEVELOPMENT, THEY GOT A 10TH PERCENTILE. DIFFERENT THINGS. THAT IS PART OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT YOU MAKE IN THIS. >> I APPLAUD THE EFFORT TO THINK ABOUT THIS PROGRAM. AND REMINDS ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT OF THE FLEXIBILITY THAT OCCURS IN OUR (INAUDIBLE) AWARDS IN THE FALL, TWO YEARS MORE FLEXIBILITY. MY ONLY CONCERN IS HOW THAT N WILL WORK FOR ESIs YOU THINK ABOUT HOW WE TRAIN SCIENTISTS TO THINK ABOUT HYPOTHESIS TESTING, THIS IS REALLY A DIFFERENT GRANT TO WRITE. I WORRY HOW ESI WILL BE ABLE TO REALLY PUT IN A GRANT COMPETITIVE IN THIS AREA. >> I URGE THE BLOG POST HYPOTHESIS ABOUT SCIENCE, I URGE YOU TO READ BECAUSE THERE'S SERIOUS ISSUES THERE FOR US TO THINK ABOUT. HOW WE'RE TRAINING NOT JUST GRADUATES AN POST-DOCS THINKING THE IDEA OF HYPOTHESIS TESTING BUT MIDDLE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, THAT'S WHERE IT FEEDS IN. YOU'RE RIGHT. THERE IS PROJECT DRIVEN EMPHASIS NOW. THAT COULD CHANGE. THE WAY TO FIND OUT IS TESTS AND IF WE LET YOUNG INVESTIGATORS WITH GREAT IDEAS HAVE FIVE YEARS TO EXPLORE GREAT IDEAS RATHER THAN NARROWLY FOCUSED, IS IT BETTER WORSE OR THE SAME. THE RESPONSE WE GOT FROM THE -- THIS IS VERY INTERESTING, THE SENIOR INVESTIGATORS WERE SPLIT ON WAS IT GOOD FOR -- DEFINITELY YES, SOME WERE SKEPTICAL. THE ESIs WERE OVERWHELMINGLY POSITIVE. ALMOST TO THE ESI THEY SAID THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. >> COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS. MY COMMENTS RELATE TO THE NEW GRANT MECHANISM AND I WOULD SAY ONE OF THE MOST COMMON THINGS I HEAR ACTUALLY FROM EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS IS I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO SCIENCE,N'T I DON'T WANT YOU BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO WRITE A GRANT EVERY MONTH F. THAT POINT YOU CAN SEE. I ALSO THINK IN ADDITION TO ENHANCING INNOVATION, FOR THINGS MORE SPECIFIC TO NINDS LIKE TRANSLATIONAL MISSION IN VERY LONG TERM DISEASES, HAVING A LONGER TERM FUNDING MECHANISM IS CRITICAL TO ADVANCING THAT, IN CASE TO THAT WONFUL LIST YOU HAD THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER WAYS THAT THIS COULD REALLY ENHANCE THE SCIENCE THAT WE DO. MY QUESTION RELATES TO THE SECOND TOPIC, REPRODUCIBILITY WHICH SAYS ALL OF US THAT WORK IN ANIMAL MODEL AND DISEASE AS WELL AS CELLTURE, HOW DO WE GET -- THERE'S CERTAINLY THINGS WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE REPRODUCIBILITY. BUT ULTIMATELY PART OF WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS DIFFERENTIATE NATURAL VARIABILITY OF BIOLOGY FROM ISSUES REPRODUCIBILITY. WE CAN -- WE DO IT ALL THE TIME IN ANIMAL, OUR PARTICULAR ANIMAL MODEL DISEASE WHERE WE DO THINGS IDENTICALLY WITH THE ANIMALS AND THINGS WORK OUT DIFFERENTLY IN THE SAME PERSON'S HANDS ON DAY-TO-DAY BASIS. THERE'S SO MUCH NON-REPRODUCIBILITY ASSOCIATED WITH BIOLOGY, HOW DO WE BEST DIFFERENTIATE THAT INHERENT PROCESS, YOU SEE ANY PATIENTS HAVE THAT SAME VARIABILITY. VERSUS SOMETHING WE CAN ACTUALLY CHANGE AND CORRECT. AND MODIFY IN THE LAB. >> WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IS WHY YOUR PATIENT VERSUS DIFFERENT PHENOTYPES WITH THE SAME SNP OR DISEASE. THE SAME WITH BIOLOGY F ENACT FACT WE USE THOSE THINGS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY MORE DEEPLY. WHEN YOU THINK THE SAME EXPERIMENT THIS MOUSE AND THIS MOUSE'S SISTER DO YOU GET A DIFFERENT RESULT. IN ORDER TO DO THAT WE NEED O ADDRESS WE TALK ABOUT. THEY EXTEND TO ANIMALS TOO. IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT CELL -- IF YOU'RE NOT CONFIDENT WHAT CELL TYPE YOU'RE WORKING IN, IF YOU DON'T KNOW 100% SURE, IT'S THIS. YOUR CONCLUSION THAT YOU GOT THE SAME RESULT IN TWO OF THE EXACT SAME CELL TYPES IS DUBIOUS. THEN GENETIC DRIFT, WE MAY CONSIDER INVESTING IN IS SHORT TERM STUDY TO FINE OUT THE ANSWER HOW MUCH PHENOTYPIC DIFFERENCE IS CAUSED BY TWO WHAT WE THINK SAME CELLS HAVING DRIFTED GENETICALLY FROM EACH OTHER. THAT'S BANES BASTE LINE MIGHT BE USEFUL FOR EVERYONE. -- BASELINE MIGHT BE USEFUL FOR EVERYBODY. >> ISSUE EXPERIMENTING WITH THE PROGRAM WITH ESI. I THINK WHEN WE RECRUIT FACULTY MEMBERS TO DEPARTMENTS OR PROGRAMS THEY'RE NEW INVESTIGATORS WE BASICALLY ARE DOING IT BASED ON THEIR CHALK TALK AND THINKING PROGRAM, NOT PROJECT. SOY THINK THAT'S BASICALLY SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE DOING WHICH MAKE SENSE TO ME. >> WHEN YOU FUND NEW INVESTIGATOR EVEN CURRENT SYSTEM IT'S A RISK. FROM WHAT I SEE THIS PERSON IS SMART AND WE'LL GIVE MONEY. LET'S ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AND DO IT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> JUST A QUICK ONE. >> GO AHEAD. (OFF MIC) >> THAT REALLY HURT OUR RELATIONSHIP STORY. I LAKE ALAN'S FLEXIBILITY FUNDING THING, ONE SPECIFIC THING WE HAVE IN THIS PROPOSAL IS THAT EACH ROUNDS WE HAVE A FUNDS AN INVESTIGATORS CAN APPLY FOR UP TO $150,000 FOR EQUIPMENT. THE CURRENT SYSTEM YOU PUT INTO YOUR GRANT SO IT'S A PROBLEM. IF YOUR FTLC IS TEN YEAR OLD YOU HAVE A WAY TO APPLY. CURRENTLY IT'S HARD TO DO. THERE WAS A STRONG POSITIVE REACTION TO THAT. THE OTHER THING WE TALK ABOUT, VALUE YOUR INPUT BACK AND FORTH, WHETHER WE SHOULD ALLOW APPLICATIONS FOR SUPPLEMENTS SHORT TERM SUPPLEMENTS FOR COLLABORATION. SO YOU HAVE A NEW COLLABORATION TO GET OFF THE GROUND, CAN YOU GET A LITTLE BIT OF A >> THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. PAUSE PLUS [APPLAUSE] >> SO AN HOUR? >> BE BACK BY 1:30 SHARP. WE'LL START AT 1:30. >> I DON'T KNOW IF AMITA IS ON THE PHONE BUT I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT THE LONG RANGE PLANNING EFFORT FROM ALL THE DIFFERENT INSTITUTES HAVE BEEN HOMOGONIESED FROM ONE DOCK FROM THE THE NIH AND THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE WORKING GROUP AND AMITA SEGAL IS ON THAT WORKING GROUP TO LOOK AT THE INTRAMURAL PROGRAM. THERE WAS ONE GROSS OVERSIGHT WHEN WE DID THE INTRODUCTIONS AND THE GOODBYES THIS MORNING, THE REASON FOR THAT OVERSIGHT IS THAT JOHN PORTER WHO HAS BEEN OUR UNBELIEVABLE CAN YOU GET RID OF THAT ECHO? >> IT MAYBE SOMEONE WHO HAS THEIR PHONE IS NOT ON MUTE. >> EVERYONE ON THE PHONE MUTE. JOHN PORTER WHO HAS BEEN OUR ABSOLUTELY SPECTACULAR PROGRAM DIRECTOR FOR MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY BASIC MUSCLE BIOLOGY, I THOUGHT HE WASN'T LEAVING UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL I LEARNED FROM JOHN HE WON'T BE ABLE TO COME SO SHORT NOTICE JOHN'S COLLEAGUES IN GENETICS CRUST ALREADY TALK ABOUT JOHN'S IMMENSE CONTRIBUTIONS TO HIS FIELD. >> IT IS WITH GREAT SADNESS THAT THE NEUROGENETIC CLUSTER HAS TO REPORT THAT JOHN IS GOING TO RETIRE IN JANUARY. AND WE ARE -- >> MAKE EVERYBODY ELSE DO THAT. SO WE ARE IN COMPLETE DENIAL TOTALLY IN DENIAL. THAT HE'S LEAVING US IN FACT I HAVE AN OFFICE NEXT TO HIM AND I DON'T KNOW WHILE GOING TO DO BECAUSE I GET ALL MY GOSSIP FROM JOHN. YOU WOULDN'T THINK BAD IF THAT'S TRUE. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT JOHN, AS YOU KNOW HIS WORK AT THE NINDS IS NOTHING SHORT OF REMARKABLE. A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIS CAREER. HE WAS PROFESSOR NEUROLOGY CASE WESTERN UNIVERSITY. HE WAS THERE FOR 20 PLUS YEARS, LOOKING AT EXTRAOCULAR MUSCULAR BIOLOGY AND HEALTH AND DISEASE INCLUDING MECHANISMS IN NEURAL MUSCULAR DISORDERS. HE CAME TO THE NINDS IN 2004, FROM THAT POINT ON WHAT WORDS TO DESCRIBE JOHN? SPECTACULAR, BRILLIANT, HIS WORK IS TRANSFORMATIVE, HE'S PASSIONATE, REMARKABLE, DEDICATED,D ON AN ON. HOW WOULD I NOT DESCRIBE JOHN? LOW KEY, MELLOW. SO WHILE HE WAS AT NINDS HE MANAGED PORTFOLIO GRANTS THAT INCLUDED DISEASES AFFECTING THE MOTOR NEURON INCLUDING SPINAL MUSCULAR ASTRO FEW, THE AXON INDILUTED INHERIT AND PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHIES THE NEURAL MUSCULAR JUNCTION, SKELETAL MUSCLE AS Y'ALL KNOW THE MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY BECKER, A BUNCH OF OTHERS I CAN'T PRONOUNCE. HE'S EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FOR MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY COORDINATING COMMITTEE AND A BUNCH OF ADVISORY BOARDS INCLUDING TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH AND EUROPE ASSESSMENT AND TREATMENT NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASE TREAT MD, MRC FOR NEUROMUSCULAR DISEASES, THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, THE INTEGRATION PANEL, THE MDA COMMITTEE, HE'S BEEN ON THEIR ADVISORY BOARD, AND ON AND ON AND ON, FAMILIES OF SMA. ONE THING THAT I THINK JOHN HAS DONE AND CHANGED I THINK THE WAY WE THINK, HE'S BEEN REALLY TRANSFORMATIVE TO DEVELOP PARTNERSHIPS BETWEEN ACADEMICS, NIH AND THE PATIENT ADVOCACY GROUPS. I MEAN, I HAVE -- I MYSELF HAVE JUST LEARNED TREMENDOUS FROM JOHN ON THAT. HE -- I JUST -- I'M IN DENIAL. HE'S ACCEPTED A POSITION AS CEO AT PARENT MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY AND GLENN WAS INTRODUCED THIS MORNING AND HE WILL REPLACE JOHN. IT'S VERY SAD TO SEE HIM GO. [APPLAUSE] >> JOHN IS REALLY A FORCE OF NATURE, I'M SURE HE WILL CONTINUE TO BE AT PPMD. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS OBVIOUSLY RELATED TO WHAT JOHN LORSCH TALKED ABOUT IN PART OF HITS TALK, THE R-35 MECHANISM. FROM THE PROGRAM AS OPPOSED TO FUNDING THE PROJECT. SO I WILL TALK BACKGROUND OVERLAPPING WITH WHAT JOHN SAID IN HIS TALK. WHY NIH DEVELOP THE NEW AWARD MECHANISM, WE HAVE ENOUGH DIFFERENT COMPLICATED AWARD CODES AN MECHANISMS, WHY YET ANOTHER. >> THE REAL OBVIOUS FACT ANALYSIS BY FEDERAL DEMONSTRATION PROJECT AND FEDERALLY FUNDED PI SPEND 42% OF THEIR TIME ON STUFF THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DOING RESEARCH. ON WHAT THEY CALL PRE-AND POST AWARD ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, PRE-IS OBVIOUSLY THINGS LIKE WRITING GRANTS, GETTING YOUR INSTITUTIONAL BUY IN, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, POST AWARDS RANGES FROM PROGRESS REPORTS TO THE OTHER THINGS YOU HAVE TO DO WHEN YOU HAVE GRANTS. THIS NUMBER STAY STEADY FROM FIRST TIME ANALYSIS WHICH IS 2005 THROUGH 20 126789 MOST NIH GRANTS SUPPORT INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS NOT RESEARCH PROGRAMS AND I'M DEFINING A PROGRAM AS COLLECTION OF RELATED PROJECTS, BUT YOU CAN DEFINE IT ALSO AS ALL PROJECTS THAT COMPRISE PARTICULAR PI LAB. IS THE AVERAGE RO1, THIS IS TOTAL COST IS ABOUT THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY BUT IN DIRECT COST IT'S MAYBE 260, $270,000. SO NOT ENOUGH TO SUPPORT LABORATORIES WE DO SUPPORT. AS JOHN POINTED OUT THE AVERAGE GRANT DURATION IS FOUR YEARS. THE ONE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT JOHN LORSCH WAS TALKING ABOUT AND NINDS IS WE ALSO AWARD A LOT OF R-21s, RO-3s SO ACTUALLY IT TURNS OUT AT HUNDRED DOLLARS OUR AVERAGE RO-1 IS CLOSE TO FIVE YEARS IN LENGTH DIFFERENT FROM NIGMS SO JOHN PROPOSED EXTENDING HIS GRANTS FROM FOUR TO FIVE BUT OURS WERE ALREADY ALMOST AT FIVE. FINALLY I JUST STUCK THIS FACT N. NIH PEER REVIEW, THERE ARE CRITERION SCORES DIFFERENT ASPECT OF THE APPLICATION. THE ONE SHOWN ANALYTICALLY THAT PARLAYED WITH THE FINAL SCORE AND APPLICATION GETS, IS THE SUBCRITERIA SCORE FOR APPROACH, SO THE PI TRACK RECORD IS NOT FACTORED IN NEARLY AS MUCH AS SPECIFICS OF THE PROJECT THEY PROPOSE, THE METHOD DOGLEGCAL DETAIL AND THINGS LIKE THAT BEING PROPOSED SO THIS IS SOME OF THE BACKGROUND, CONDENSING THIS A BIT. THE RESULT IS THAT IT TURNS OUT THAT IF YOU LOOK CAREFULLY ABOUT 44% OF NINDS PIs NEED MULTIPLE GRANTS TO SUPPORT THEIR RESERGE. FUNDING LEVELS FORGIVEN LABORATORY ARE QUITE UNSTABLE OBVIOUSLY. THIS IS A VERY ANXIETY PROVOKING SITUATION. AND RELATED TO THAT, IS IF YOU'RE ONLY GETTING THESE RELATIVELY SHORT GRANTS, R-21s OR RO1s YOU NEEDS TO PUBLIC QUICKLY WHICH DISCOURAGES IN MANY CASES MORE RIGOROUS RESEARCH, PEOPLE IN A HURRY LESS LIKELY TO DO RIG RIGOROUS RESEARCH, LONGER TIME LINE RESEARCH OR GROUND BREAKING RESEARCH RESEARCH. NCI PILOTED THE OUTSTANDING INVESTIGATOR AWARD. THEY DID THIS IN THE PAST AND THEY HAVE JUST AFTER TWEAKING IT RENEWED FORTY THE SECOND TIME. SO BEFORE THE R-35 AWARD I WILL TELL YOU ABOUT EXISTED THEY HAD THIS OIA AWARD AND THE R-35 AWARD TO SOME EXTENT IS BASED ON WHAT THEY LEARNED SO FIRST THE GOAL OF THE OIA WAS TO PROVIDE LONG TERM SUPPORT EXPERIENCED INVESTIGATORS, OUTSTANDING RECORDS, PRODUCTIVITY AND PROPOSING EXCEPTIONAL RESEARCH. AND SECONDLY, IT -- AS I IMPLIED THE LAST SLIDE IT'S INTENDED TO ALLOW INVESTIGATORS TO TAKE GREATER RISKS, BE MORE ADVENTUROUS OR TAKE TIME TO DEVELOP NEW TECHNIQUES SO THIS OVERLAPS WITH SOME OF THESE NEEDS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED. THE SPECIFICS OF THE NCI AWARD WHICH DIFFER FROM WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY NIH AS A WHOLE, IS THAT IT'S A 7 YEAR AWARD, THE LIMIT IS 600,000 DIRECT COSTS PER YEAR. THIS IS IMPORTANT. THE INSTITUTION NOMINATES THE PI, YOU DON'T SELF-SELECT FOR THIS NCI AWARD AND THE AWARD REPLACES ALL EXISTING NCI FUNDING. YOU CAN GET FUNDING FROM OTHER INSTITUTES BUT NOT FROM NCI. ONE OF THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE R-35 AS NOW BEING PROPOSED, IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT I SHOWED, PROVIDES SUSTAINED FLEXIBLE SUPPORT TO INVESTIGATORS WITH OUTSTANDING RECORDS. PROPOSED TO CONDUCT EXCEPTION A RESEARCH. THE OTHER PRINCIPLE IS JUST ANALOGOUS TO WHAT I SHOWED INVESTIGATORS HAVE MORE FREEDOM TO PERFORM RESEARCH THAT BREAKS NEW GROUND OR EXTENDS DISCOVERIES IN NEW DIRECTIONS. SO THOSE ARE THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE R-35 LIKE MANY THINGS AT NIH THE WAY THIS IS FORMULATED IS NO ONE HAS WRITTEN A SINGLE FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENT THAT DIFFERENT INSTITUTES SIGN ON TO OR NOT. INSTEAD THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY GUIDELINES IN EVERY INSTITUTE IS BEING TOLD THAT THEY WITH IMPLEMENT THIS DIFFERENTLY AS LONG AS WHAT THEY DO IS CONSISTENT WITH THIS. ALSO CONSISTENT WITH LONGER AWARDS. THIS IS WHAT I JUST SAID THE NH-R 35 FOLLOW IT IS INDIVIDUALS BUT INSTITUTES CAN ALTER IT. LET ME TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE SPECIFIC PARAMETERS BEING RECOMMENDED FOR THE R-35. SINCE WE DO HAVE FLEXIBILITY HERE IF WE DECIDE IF OUR INSTITUTE BASED ON YOUR ADVICE, DECIDES TO USE THIS AWARD MECHANISM, WE CAN TWEAK IN VARIOUS WAYS. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHEN I FINISH HERE. THE THINKING IS THE PI HAS HAD ATHLETE AT LEAST ONE CYCLE OF NIH GRANTS SUPPORT USUALLY AN RO-1 OR AN RO-1 EQUIVALENT. THAT RESULTED IN SUCCESS IN PRODUCTIVITY, HIGH IMPACT FINDINGS. SINCE THIS REQUIREMENT FOR TRANS-NIH AWARD THAT IMPLIES THAT IT'S PROBABLY NOT APPROPRIATE FOR NEW INVESTIGATORS THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT JOHN SAID BUT THINKING HERE IS NEW INVESTIGATORS FUNCTION GOT SIGNIFICANT BUMP IN TERMS OF SCORE ON THEIR FIRST RO-1 WE FUND NEW INVESTIGATORS OFTEN TEN POINTS BEYOND OUR PAY LINE. SECOND THEY GET STARTUP MONEY WHICH CONCEIVABLY LASTS A FEW YEARS SO THE IDEA THAT THERE ARE ALREADY GIVEN AN EDGE AND PEOPLE ARGUE BEFORE DEPARTMENT GIVES SOMEBODY TENURED YOU WANT TO SEE THEM RENEW A FIVE YEAR GRANT AS OPPOSED TO THEM GETTING EIGHT YEAR GRANT THAT CARRY THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS. THOSE ARE THINGS WE CAN DEBATE OR NOT BUT THIS IS THE THINKING. SECONDLY APPLICATIONS WITH MULTIPLE PI LESS NOT PERMITTED FOR THIS R-35 MECHANISM SO THIS IS CRUX OF WHAT'S PROPOSED. NOT CARVED IN STONE BUT THE IDEA TO BE CALLED R-35, IT SHOULD ADHERE TO MOST CRITERIA. THE FUND RANGE IS UP TO 750,000 DIRECT COSTS PER YEAR, THE SAME WHAT JOHN PROPOSED IN HIS SLIDES T FUNDING DURATION HERE IS UP TO EIGHT YEARS. THIS IS DONE IN TERMS OF FIRST FIVE YEAR AWARD AND THERE'S A CHECK POINT AFTER FIVE YEARS THROUGH A PROCESS TO BE DETERMINED WHERE ONE DECIDES WHETHER PI IS GETTING THINGS DONE, IT WOULD BE OKAY TO CHANGE DIRECTIONS, INTENDED TO BE FLEXIBLE. BUT IF AFTER THIS INITIAL EVALUATION THEY BE GIVEN ADDITIONAL THREE YEARS. THE REQUIRED EFFORT AS JOHN SAID WOULD BE AT LEAST 50%, ONE DEADLINE PER YEAR AND RENEWALS ARE PERMITTED. SO YOU CAN HAVE ONE GRANT FOR EIGHT YEARS AND RENEW IT. TYPE 2 RENEWAL. SAME YOU CAN RENEW IN RO-16789 THESE ARE CORE FEATURES TO KEEP IN MIND. SECONDLY, -- THIRDLY, THE APPLICATION WOULD LOOK SOMETHING LIKE THIS AS JOHN SAID IT WOULD HAVE NO SPECIFIC AIMS, THERE WOULD BE A BIOSKETCH AND NARRATIVE HIGHLIGHTING THE PI'S PAST CONTRIBUTIONS AND THEIR IMPACT IMPORTANTLY, THAT THEY WOULD BE A SUMMARY OF THE OVERALL PLAN RESEARCH PROGRAM OPPOSED TO INDIVIDUAL HIGHLY DEFINED PROJECT AND ALSO HOW IT BUILDS THE INVESTIGATORS PREVIOUS RESEARCH DESCRIPTION OF TOOLS AND STRATEGIES USED BUT NO METHODOLOGICAL DETAILS, DESCRIPTIONS OF THE RESEARCH TEAM MEMBERS IN COLLABORATORS AND WHY THEY ARE REQUIRED. SO THIS IS WHAT MOST OF WHAT WOULD BE IN THE APPLICATION. I'M GOING QUICKLY TO LEAVE AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE FOR DISCUSSION. PEER REVIEW AND COUNCIL REVIEW TO BE HONEST HAVE NOT BEEN WORKED OUT IN DETAIL. FOR ONE THING ONE QUESTION IS, IF NINDS DECIDES TO SIGN ON TO THESE WOULD WE REVIEW THESE THROUGH OUR OWN SCIENTIFIC REVIEW BRANCH THE WAY WE REVIEW PROGRAM PROJECTS OR MULTI-SITE CLINICAL TRIALS OR WOULD WE ALLOW CV TO REVIEW THEM? THIS IS A VERY DIFFICULT QUESTION. WE'D LIKE A STUDY SECTION TO REVIEW THE GRANT THAT HAS MAXIMUM EXPERTISE AND WILL BE HARD TO CONVENE ONE OR TWO NINDS STUDY SECTIONS THAT COVER ALL NEUROSCIENCE AN NEUROLOGY, ON THE OTHER HAND AS JOHN IMPLIED, THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY DIFFERENT, IT'S MAYBE DIFFICULT TO GET CSR REVIEWERS OUT OF THE USUAL MIND SET. IN ANY CASE WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO IS ASSESS MERIT AND IMPACT OF THE PREVIOUS ACCOMPLISHMENTS, IN OTHER WORDS LOOK AT THE PERSON'S TRACK RECORD. TO GET A SENSE THAT'S THE ESSENCE. FOCUS ON SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT RATHER THAN SPECIFIC DETAILS ASSESS WHETHER THE PROPOSED RESEARCH AREA IS LONG TERM RELEVANCE. IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS WORTH SOMEBODY STUDYING FOR EIGHT YEAR OR JUST A TRANSITORY PHENOMENON THAT ONCE SOLVES IN THREE OR FOUR YEARS WILL NO LONGER BE IMPORTANT. FINALLY TO ASSESS POTENTIAL INVESTIGATORS PRODUCTIVITY IMPACT TO CONTINUE HIGH LEVEL WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY RELATED TO THE PERSON'S TRACK RECORD. COUNCIL REVIEW, THIS YOU WILL SEE THIS IS OVERLAPPING WITH WHAT I JUST SAID BUT COUNCIL IS SUPPOSED TO BE SOMEWHAT HIGHER LEVEL OF REVIEW THAN THE TECHNICAL MERIT REVIEW OF THE STUDY SECTION. COUNCIL WOULD CONSIDER PI TRACK RECORD SCIENTIFIC EXCELLENCE LOOK AT THINGS LIKE ORIGINALITY PRODUCTIVITY AND LEADERSHIP IN THE FIELD. DETERMINE IF THE INVESTIGATORS AT CUTTING EDGE OF FIELD LONG TERM IMPORTANCE AND -- THIS IS ONE THAT JOHN DIDN'T TALK ABOUT, CONSIDER THE PIs LEVEL OF SERVICE TO SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY AND THE NIH PEER REVIEW PROCESS. I DON'T KNOW IF BEN HARRISON PHONE. BUT BEN HAS URGED US, WE HAVE MENTIONED THE POSSIBILITY OF THIS AWARD IN A PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETING AND BEN URGED US TO TAKE CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE FIELD BEING A GOOD CITIZEN SERVING NIH STUDY SECTIONS INTO ACCOUNT. SO THIS IS COUNCIL REVIEW, I'M JUST CUTTING TO THE CHASE HERE, I WANT TO SHOW YOU SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT. WE HAVE NOW IN THIS TALK I WAS DEBATING BETWEEN PROPOSING A STRAW MAN OF WHAT WE MIGHT DO OR EVEN A COUPLE OF VERSIONS OF THAT. OR RATHER JUST ASKING YOU THE QUESTIONS WITHOUT BIASING YOU IN EVERY FORM IN ANY FORM. BUT I WILL SAY TO SOME EXTENT WE HAVE HAD SOME INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS WHICH ARE MAKING US SOMEWHAT ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT PARTICIPATING IN THE R-35 MECHANISM, THIS IS A CONCEPT CLEARANCE PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH HERE. SO THIS IS THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION. SHOULD NINDS USE THE R-35. WHO SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE? NIGMS IS ACEMENTING TO FOCUS ON A SUBSET OF INVESTIGATORS, YOU CAN IMAGINE WE LOOKED AT -- WE DID ANAL SITS, CHRISTINE TOLLBERG DID NAIL SO I WAS NINDS INVESTIGATORS WHO HAVE LESS THAN 750,000. SOMETHING LIKE 99% INVESTIGATORS MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE FOR APPLYING FOR ONE OF THESE WHICH IS SOBBERRING. SO THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD WE EXCLUDE NEW INVESTIGATOR, SHOULD WE FOCUS THE WAY NIGMS IS GO DOING ON PEOPLE WHO HAVE A CONGLOMERATION OF GRANTS WHO COULD BUNDLE, CONSOLIDATE THEM. NEXT, THIS IS THE ONE THAT WORRIES ME THE MOST THOUGH I PERSONALLY AM FAN OF THIS IDEA, HOW SHOULD WE MANAGE THE BUDGETARY IMPACT OF THE R-35? SHOULD WE LIMIT THE NUMBER OF AWARDS, SHOULD WE DO SOME PILOTING WHERE WE LIMIT NUMBER OF AWARDS DOLLARS SPENT PER COUNCIL ROUND, SHOULD WE SAY THAT IN THE BEGINNING WEAL SPEND NO MORE THAN $5 MILLION PER COUNCIL ROUND THIS TYPE OF AWARD AND SEE HOW IT GOES. SHOULD AN R-35 RECIPIENT BE REQUIRED TO RELINQUISH EXISTING OVERLAPPING AWARDS AND LOOKING FORWARD CAN THAT RECIPIENT THEN APPLY FOR ADDITIONAL AWARDS? WE'RE THINKING INTERNALLY THAT YES, AN R-35 RECIPIENT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO RELINQUISH ANY OTHER NINDS GRANTS THAT ARE ESSENTIALLY WITHIN THE RUBRIC OF R-35 PROPOSED, THIS IS THE SAME AS NIGMS AND YES THEY CAN APPLY FOR ADDITIONAL GRANT AWARDS WITH WHATEVER EFFORT THEY HAVE LEFT. WHICH MIGHT BE -- WHICH WILL BE LESS THAN 50% OF THEIR EFFORT. NEXT JOHN TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT. IT'S A LITTLE BIT RISKY, AN INVESTIGATOR WILL HAVE ALL HER OR HIS EGGS IN ONE BASKET. IF THEY FAIL IN THE RENEWAL, JOHN INTRODUCED THIS IDEA OF A SLIDING SCALE OF HOW MUCH TO GET DEPENDING HOW THE REVIEW GOES. BUT WE ACTUALLY HADN'T DISCUSSED THAT IDEA AMONG OURSELVES, IT'S AN INTERESTING IDEA BUT SHOULD THERE BE A SLUSH FUND OF BRIDGE MONEY TO GET THE PERSON -- GIVE THE PERSON BREATHING ROOM IF THE FIRST RENEWAL FAILS. I THINK THERE'S ONE OR TWO -- ONE LAST QUESTION. WHICH IS WHAT ABOUT UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES. ONE FACET FOR EXAMPLE COMMENTED ON THE NIGMS REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THEIR PLANS TO USE THIS AWARD, FASEB WAS ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT THE R-35 MECHANISM BUT THE BIG CONCERN IS IT CONCENTRATES MORE MONEY AN FEWER HANDS. BUT AS JOHN SAID, THERE ARE MANY INVESTIGATORS WORRY ABOUT THE OPPOSITE. WHAT ABOUT DIVERSITY AND THE R-35? IS THIS GOING TO BE PREFERENTIALLY BE GIVEN TO MEN? WILL THERE -- ARE THERE OTHER DIVERSE GROUPS WHO WON'T COMPETE AS WELL FOR THIS AWARD? AND IF THERE ARE THESE POTENTIAL UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES ARE THERE WAYS TO MITIGATE THEM. SO I'M INTENTIONALLY KEEPING THIS BRIEF. I WILL SIT DOWN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT ANY OR ALL ASPECTS OF THESE, BUT I WOULD LIKE IN THE DISCUSSION TO TRY TO GET THROUGH ALL THESE POINTS EVEN IF WE DON'T NECESSARILY DO IT IN ORDER. SO THE BASIC QUESTION IS, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE CONCEPT OF THIS NEW MECHANISM? IF IMPLEMENTED COULD HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON THE WAY WE DO BUSINESS. >> BOB, MY SENSE FROM JOHN'S DISCUSSION WAS THAT THE NIGMS COUNCIL DISCUSSED IT SEVERAL TIMES AND THEY WERE THEN COMING BACK BASED ON THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH SPECIFIC CONCEPT. SO THIS IS NOT CONCEPT CLEARANCE FOR NINDS, IT'S A DISCUSSION WHETHER OR NOT -- IT IS WHAT YOU MEAN WE SHOULD HAVE A DISCUSSION WHETHER OR NOT THE INSTITUTE GOES AHEAD AND DEVELOPS A CONCEPT BETWEEN -- >> I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO SAY IT. I THINK OF IT AS CONCEPT CLEARANCE IN THE EARLIEST FORM. IS THIS AN IDEA THAT YOU THINK HAS ENOUGH MERIT THAT WE SHOULD GO AHEAD WITH FLESHING OUT AND SHOWING IT TO YOU AGAIN. OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU THINK IS COUNTER PRODUCTIVE IN TERMS OF BIOMEDICAL EXERCISE. >> YES. >> I CONDITION CUR. IT IS REALLY WORTH DISCUSSING AND THERE'S A LOT OF POSITIVES TO IT. THE MORE REDISCUSS THE MORE WE CAN FLESH OUT NEGATIVES. >> I AGREE ALSO. THIS IS SOMETHING REALLY GOOD FOR SCIENCE A LOT OF PROS FOR THE INVESTIGATOR, THIS IS GOING TO ENABLE MORE CREATIVITY. THE THING JOHN LORSCH ARTICULATED I AGREE WITH. THIS IS GOOD SCIENTIFICALLY. >> I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE R-35 LIKE WITH NIGMS. A COUPLE OF THINGS THEY HAD MADE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE. THE ORRILL STAGE INVESTIGATOR MADE IT NOT TOP HEAVY AS WELL AS STRONG ACCORDANCE FOR DIVERSIFICATION IN MANY WAYS OF THEIR PORTFOLIO. >> I LIKE THE IDEA IN GENERAL. WE SHOULD DEVELOP IT. I'M ANXIOUS TO SEE WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK, THE ONE CLASS OF INVESTIGATORS WHO PROBABLY ARE NOT APPROPRIATE (INAUDIBLE) TO THAT FIRST GRANT. BECAUSE I AGREE WITH SOME OF THE CRITERIA THAT YOU HAD, THEN OFTENTIMES THEY HAVE OTHER THINGS AND CERTAINLY IN THE FIRST RENEWAL EVERYBODY SHOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THAT. THAT IS WONDERING WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK ABOUT THAT. >> SO WE'RE NOW GETTING TO THE SPECIFIC BUT STORY SUGGESTED WE MAYBE SHOULD TAKE A STRAW MAN POLE ABOUT WHETHER IN GENERAL SOME FORM SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. >> I LIKE THE IDEA A LOT, I THINK IN THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR ESPECIALLY AS JOHN ALLUDED TO DIFFERENCE INSTITUTES, DIFFERENT MISSIONS I WORRY ABOUT A SWING TOWARDS IF YOU'RE IN DISEASE ORIENTED RESEARCH YOU HAVE LOTS OF OTHER AVENUES AND THIS SHOULD BE RESERVED FOR THOSE JUST DOING FUNDAMENTAL DISCOVERY, I JUST THINK WE SHOULD -- I KNOW THAT'S NOT THE INTENT, IT COULD BE PERCEIVED IN REVIEW, YOU HAVE LOTS OF OPTIONS IF YOU WORK IN THE DISEASE CATEGORY FOR FUNDING AND THIS SHOULD REALLY OPEN ENDED EXPLORATORY I MAYBE REFLECTING ANXIETY. MANY INVESTIGATOR WORSERY ABOUT THE REVERSE BIAS THAT IN STUDY SECTIONS EVEN THESE STUDY SECTIONS THERE'S A BIAS AGAINST PURE BASIC RESEARCH. >> THAT'S WHAT I POINT OUT, I CAN ENVISION AREAS VARIOUS TRANSLATIONAL ORIENTED RESEARCH THAT REQUIRE THIS KIND OF OPEN ENDED MECHANISM THAT COULD GO FOR 8, 10 YEARS. >> I WONDER INITIAL THING WITH NO BUDGETARY IMPLICATION IS A TRADE OFF, SOMEBODY WANTS TO JUMP ON TO THE SYSTEM, TURN IN TWO RO-1s YOU GIVE ME THESE, IT WOULDN'T COST ANYTHING. >> SOME FORM THAT THIS IS PROPOSED AND PROTOTYPICAL FORMS PROPOSE AD FEW YEARS AGO NIDDK PROPOSED A MECHANISM FOR CONSOLIDATION OF GRANTS, 20% OFF WHATEVER THE SUM WAS OF YOUR GRANT. >> I SPEAK IN FAVOR OF THIS AS WELL. I THINK THERE'S ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE FLESHED OUT. I THINK THE REVIEW OF THIS WILL BE TRICKY. I THINK OF YOUR NST REVIEW GROUP WHICH IS INTERNAL BUT REVIEWS ALL KINDS OF TRAINING GRANTS SO THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THIS INTERNAL TO THE RIGHT EXPERTISE AND GROUP TO REVIEW IT. >> SO I DO THINK THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT STEP FOR NINDS AND I'M IN FAVOR BUT I SEE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS THAT MAY EXACERBATE SOME OF THE CONCERNS WE DO HAVE RIGHT NOW. AS TO HOW THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN THOSE AT TOP AND WHO ARE UP AND COMING SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE GET IMPLEMENTATION RIGHT AND I DO HAVE SOME SPECIFIC CONCERN WHICH I WILL CONVEY ONCE WE DISCUSS. >> THIS IS A GREAT IDEA IN PRINCIPLE. IT I THINK WE NEED TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS. >> I ALSO THINK IT'S GOOD IDEA IN THAT IT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO FUND REALLY GOOD PEOPLE AND DECREASE THE BUDGET. THE DEVIL IS IN DETAIL AND OVERALL SAY BUT I ALSO WANT TO GO BACK TO THE POINT I THINK YOU DISCUSS THE BALANCE BETWEEN MORE BASIC ACADEMIC RESEARCH VERSUS DIRECTED TRANSLATIONAL AND CLINICAL RESEARCH AND THIS DOES SEEM LIKE A GOOD MECHANISM TO GET A LITTLE MORE BACK TO BASIC QUESTIONS BECAUSE YOU MIGHT NEED MORE LEEWAY AND NOT TALK ABOUT CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE OR PRE-SUPPOSING WHAT YOUR RESULTS MIGHT MEAN AND BEING MORE OPEN ENDED WHICH BASIC RESEARCH MAYBE FALL MORE INTO THAT CATEGORY. SO I WOULD SAY IT'S MORE BASIC. Q. THIS IS A GREAT MECHANISM, IT MIGHT BE A DIFFICULT MECHANISM FOR EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATOR TO UTILIZE BUT IT WILL BE ATTRACTIVE TO THEM IF THEY UNDERSTAND THAT YOU BEGIN -- IT -- DEVELOPING A RESEARCH PROGRAM OUT OF THE BAR I THINK CAN BE CHALLENGING BUT STARTING WITH THE PROJECT WHICH MAYBE SOMETHING THEY CAN ENVISION BETTER AS INITIAL PROJECT AND THEN UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WOULD THEN HAVE THIS AVAILABLE TO THEM IN THE FUTURE, AGAIN MIGHT BRING MORE PEOPLE INTO THE FIELD WHO DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF DOING NOTHING BUT WRITING GRANTS TO TRY TO -- >> I ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE FOR US TO BEGIN TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES. SO WE'RE TOUCHING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS AND NOT REALLY DISCUSSING THEM SO IF THERE IS A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DAYS PROVE, TO BE EXPLORE THIS AND BRING YOU BACK >> SO MOVED. >> SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR. >> NEW MEMBERS CAN'T VOTE. OLD MEMBERS CAN. >> AMITA, ARE YOU ON THE PHONE? >> I AM ON THE PHONE AND IN FAVOR. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS. I AM ON THE PHONE. >> YOU'LL BE NEXT IN LINE FOR THE QUESTION. ALL OPPOSED IN? ABSTENTIONS? AMITA WHY DON'T YOU ASK YOUR QUESTION. >> OKAY. ARE YOU STILL LOCOING ALL RIGHT. SO I'M SORRY, I MISSED THE FIRST PART -- HOLD ON. I HAVE TO TURN THIS VIDEOCAST OFF BECAUSE I I CAN HEAR MYSELF ECHOING ON IT. SO I MISSED THE FIRST PART OF YOUR TALK BUT AT THE NCI WHEN THEY HAVE AN R-35 YOU HAVE TO BE NOMINATED BY YOUR INSTITUTION. YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT, RIGHT? >> I'M SUGGESTING THAT COUNCIL DISCUSS THAT IN OUR INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS BUT THOUGHT PIs COULD SELF-NOMINATE WHICH IS MORE OF WHAT NIGMS IS THINKING. >> THAT SOUNDS BETTER. >> SO I WOULD SAY THAT NCI IS REQUIRING THAT THE INSTITUTION PAY 20% OF THE SALARY OF THE PERSON WHO GETS ONE OF THESE. SO THE QUESTION, IF WE WANTED TO IMPLEMENT THAT, IS THAT FAIR TO DO? IF THE INSTITUTION DOESN'T GET TO SELECT THE PEOPLE WHO APPLY. SO IN GENERAL IN THE PAST WHEN INSTITUTIONS SELECTED IT'S BEEN PAIL, FRAIL, MAIL TO QUOTE TOM INSEL. >> THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO MISS. >> THERE'S BEEN A TENDENCY TO NOT EXPLORE THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE ENTIRE RESEARCH COMMUNITY AT THE INSTITUTION. SO PROS IS YOU COULD ASK THE INSTITUTION TO HELP SUPPORT BUT YOU MIGHT END WITH A UNIDIMENSIONAL SET OF APPLICANTS. >> THAT DOES HAPPEN, RIGHT. >> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE QUESTION. LET ME ASK YOU SINCE WE WILL CRAFT THIS, WE WANT PRELIMINARY FEEDBACK. YOU CAN IMAGINE WHETHER NEW INVESTIGATORS OR EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS, IS THE IDEA SAY A PERSON HAD AN RO-1 WHICH SHE'S RUNNING HIS OR HER LAB FOR 20 YEARS T EXTREMELY PRODUCTIVE HIGH IMPACT RESEARCH. SHOULD WE INCLUDE PEOPLE WITH A SINGLE RO-1? THE ADVANTAGE BEING THAT THEY GOAD GET AN 8 AWARD INSTEAD OF 4 OR 5 YEAR AWARD. >> IF IT'S 8 YEARS. >> WHAT IS YOUR THINK ACT FIRST PASS OF THIS PROGRAM IS THERE SEGMENT OF THE POPULATION WE SHOULD BE FOCUS ON OR SHOULD IT BE OPEN TO ALL COMERS PERHAPS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF NEW INVESTIGATORS SUPPOSED TO BE EXCLUDED BY THE NIH MECHANISM. >> CAN I ASK ANOTHER QUESTION? >> YES. >> DID YOU STILL KEEP THE (INAUDIBLE)? >> THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION I DIDN'T PUT UP THERE, WE HAVE BEEN THINKING THE ANSWER MIGHT BE NO BUT THAT'S A DOWNSTREAM QUESTION THAT WE'LL DISCUSS. SO WHO IS NEXT? I THINK LARRY THEN KAREN THEN DAVID. THEN BETH. >> I WOULD LIKE CLARIFICATION. AS I WAS THINKING ABOUT THIS I WAS THINKING THIS WAS FIRST TIME INVESTIGATORS OUT FOR A MOMENT BUT THINKING THIS WAS REALLY AIMED BEING A REPLACEMENT FOR THE CURRENT RO-1, OPPOSED TO SOMETHING RUN IN PARALLEL. A REPLACEMENT OR PARALLEL. >> THE ANSWER IS MOST -- IT CAN GO EITHER WAY. >> IT IS A LITTLE CONFUSING. WHAT NIGMS IS DOING IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT OTHER INSTITUTES ARE THINKING OF DOING. FOR NIGMS IF I UNDERSTAND JOHN CORRECTLY, HE WANTS MOST OF THEIR INVESTIGATORS TO BE ON THIS KIND OF AWARD, WHILE OTHER INSTITUTES ARE THINKING MORE THIS IS FOR A SUBSET OF INVESTIGATORS, NCI CALLS THEM OUTSTANDING INVESTIGATORS, MORE THAN ELITE AWARD, SO IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY IN OUR CASE PERHAPS BE A REPLACEMENT FOR THE RO-1 BUT SOMETHING IN PARALLEL. >> BUT THERE HAVE TO BE -- THE NOTION IS 50% COMMITTED TIME YOU COULD, EVE MARTYR WHO IS STILL ON COUNCIL BECAUSE WE DIDN'T REALLY DISMISS HER, SHE COULD HAVE COME BACK. SHE SAID I HAVE THREE RO-1s, I FORGOT WHAT THE DISTRIBUTION IS BETWEEN NINDS AND NIMH, SHE HATES -- SHE LOVES HAVING THREE FOR THE MONEY BUT HATES HAVING TO DIVIDE RESEARCH AMONG THE THREE RO-1s, IT'S ALL ARTIFICIAL AND SHE GLADLY SHE SAID TRADE 3 RO-1s IN FOR ONE OF THESE AWARDS. >> IT'S NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF TRADING THEM IN, THE WHOLE PROCESS IS DIFFERENT. WHAT'S BEING ASSESSED HERE, WHAT'S PROPOSED IS THAT WE LOOK AT THE OVERALL RESEARCH GOALS T YOU LOOK AT INDIVIDUAL AND THEIR RESEARCH PROGRAM AS OPPOSED TO BEING A SET OF SPECIFIC AIMS. IT'S FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT, THE INVESTIGATOR YOU'RE INVESTING IN, OR THEIR PROJECT. >> ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. >> WE COULD HAVE A SIMILAR WHERE WE HAVE BOTH. IN THE CONTEXT OF SPECIFIC PROJECTS AND OTHERS IN TERMS OF INVESTIGATORS. I'M TRYING TO SORT HOW YOU THINK ABOUT IT. >> THE ANSWER IS I WANT TO SOME EXTENT THROW IT BACK TO COUNCIL BECAUSE WE WAN YOUR OPINIONS BEFORE WE -- >> I OF COURSE HAVE MY OWN BIAS ONE WAY LOOKING WOULD BE INVESTIGATOR HAVE A CHOICE, SHE OR HE CONTINUE TO WRITE RO1, R-21, PACKAGE TOGETHER. THERE ARE ADVANTAGES TO THAT. ANOTHER POSSIBILITY WOULD BE THEY WOULD GO THIS ROUTE. >> I WOULDN'T THINK YOU WOULD HAVE TO DECIDE UP FRONT THAT, WOULD BE DOWN THE ROAD BUT THE ESSENCE OF THIS IS JUST WHAT LARRY IS SEEING. TO FIX SOMETHING THAT IS BROKEN IN THE SYSTEM WHICH IS THE WAY PEER REVIEW IS JUDGING PEEPING, NOT WORKING THAT WELL,S THAT DIFFERENT WAY TO DO IT. IT'S BASED ON PAST PERFORMANCE, MUCH MORE THAN WHAT YOU WRITE DOWN IN TERMS OF BUFFERS YOU USE. IN THAT SENSE IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE IN MY OPINION FOR EARLY INVESTIGATORS BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU DISENFRANCHISE THEM, THEY HAVE OTHER MECHANISMS THAT HAVE TO BE EMPOWERED BUT JUST NOT READY FOR BEING JUDGED ON PAST PERFORMANCE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY. IS THE OTHER COMMENT I WOULD MAKE IS I WISH BEN WAS HERE, I TAKE EXCEPTION THE CONTRIBUTIONS TO TEACHING TAKING INTO ACCOUNT AS CRITERIA HERE, I THINK THAT'S FINE FOR UNIVERSITIES OR INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTES TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THEY CAN SUPPLEMENT PEOPLE SUPPORT AS THEY SEE FIT. BUT THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC JUDGMENT NOL NOT RELEVANT TO MY VIEW. >> I GUESS BEFORE WE GO INTO DEEP DISCUSSION WHO SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE, I WANT TO ASK INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT BECAUSE ONE THING I MENTION AT THE SLOW ROLL OUT FOR NGMS WAS BECAUSE THERE WOULDN'T BE REVIEWERS IN PLACE AND THERE WOULD BE INFRASTRUCTURE IF EVERYONE SWITCHED OVER TO THE NEW MECHANISM. SO WE COULD COME UP WITH A CONCLUSION EXCEPTION FOR THE EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS EVERYBODY ELSE SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE AND SWITCHES OVER, IT MIGHT BE A DIFFERENT REVIEWER. SO HOW IS THAT GOING -- I MEAN, ARE THERE CRITERION BOUNDARIES FOR THIS? COME WITH THE DECISION EVERYBODY SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE. >> I WOULD HESITATE TO JUMP INTO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING THINGS RIGHT OFF THE BAT. COMMON SENSE TO MOVE IN, ANALYZE, SEE HOW IT GOES AND READJUST. >> THAT IS A LOGICAL PATH SO MAYBE RATHER THAN SAYING WHO IS ELIGIBLE, PERHAPS BETTER TO PRIORITIZE WHAT CATEGORIES WE WANT TO INCLUDE AND DEPENDING ON YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE THEN YOU CAN IMPLEMENT THE DIFFERENT PRIORITIZATION AND GO DOWN THE LIST. >> WE SHOULD DO WHAT YOU JUST SAID. HOWEVER I BELIEVE THE THINKING AS JOHN SAID THIS AS WELL, SOME INSTITUTES MAY INITIALLY REVIEW THESE IN HOUSE WHERE WE HAVE FREEDOM TO PUT TOGETHER STUDY SECTIONS TO MAKE THESE DETERMINATIONS, ULTIMATELY, FIT CATCHES ON WILL HAVE TO GO TO CSR AND RICHARD NOKAMURA CAN GROUP THESE PARTICULAR STUDY SECTIONS OR COME UP WITH INFRASTRUCTURE TO ALLOW THINGS MOVE TO MOVE FORWARD. >> THIS IS BEN K I SAY SOMETHING AT SOME POINT? >> NO, YOU CAN'T TALK IN THIS DISCUSSION. YES YOU CAN, YOU'RE THREE PEOPLE FROM THE END OF THE LINE AND WEED LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. >> I WAS LISTENING. >> I NEVER SEEN YOU HAVE A MUTE PROBLEM. [LAUGHTER] >> KILLING ME. >> I THINK THE DISCUSSION EARLIER ABOUT ELIGIBILITY AS THIS WOULD START IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS TO GET OVERWHELMED JUST BE IN SMALL BITS, WITH THAT IN MIND I SUGGEST INITIAL ELIGIBILITY BE FOR FOR PEOPLE WITH OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FUNDING TO SEE THE APPETITE WHO MIGHT GO BE WILLING TO DO IT AND LIMIT A NUMBER THEY CAN COME IN. AND REQUIREMENT THEY CAN'T GET MORE THAN THEY ALREADY HAVE, IF ANYTHING LESS THAN THE SAME NOT MORE. THEN SEE HOW IT GOES AFTER THAT. THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE DOING AT NIGMS. YOUNG INVESTIGATORS I AGREE WITH BOB IT'S PROBABLY -- THIS MECHANISM IS MORE APPROPRIATE FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE GONE THROUGH RO-1 BUT MAIN THING WITH YOUNG INVESTIGATORS TO MAKE SURE THE INSTITUTE PROTECTS THEIR ADVANTAGE EARLY ON SO THEY ARE PUT ON SECURITY FOOTING AND HAVE ADVANTAGE SO WHATEVER HAPPENS 2002 MAINTAIN THIS SPECIAL PAY LINE FOR THEM. THAT MAY TURN OUT MORE BENEFICIAL TO YOUNG INVESTIGATORS IN TERMS OF PROBABILITY OF GETTING AWARD YOU CAN LOOK THROUGH ACT VARY WALL TABLES THE KEY THING IS TO GET SO THEY CAN START AND GET A FOOTING. >> I WOULD SAY ANOTHER WAY OF DEALING WITH THAT, IF YOU MOVE TOWARDS A SYSTEM YOU WANT AN APPLES TO AMOUNTS SYSTEM SO YOUNG INVESTIGATORS WILL BE JUDGED BY PERFORMANCE AS POST-DOC, NOT AGAINST AN ESTABLISHED PI. >> SO I WOULD JUST SAY THAT ONE OF THE WAYS TO APPROACH DECIDING WHO MIGHT INITIALLY APPLY MIGHT BE TO HAVE INSTITUTIONS DO IT, HAVE ACTUALLY THE CLUSTERS MAKE NOMINATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS. OR DISCUSS WITH THEM BECAUSE THEY WILL KNOW WHO MIGHT BE A GOOD CANDIDATE WHO RECOLLECTS HAS A HISTORY OF CURRENT OR HISTORY OF HAVING A NUMBER OF GRANTS THE SAME TIME AND IN AREAS THAT WOULD MAKE A COHESIVE PROGRAM SO I THINK IT WILL NEED TO STAY EITHER/OR. YOU DON'T HAVE TO, JUST ONE POTENTIAL MECHANISM BECAUSE THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WORK IN MULTIPLE AREAS. THAT MAY PUT PEOPLE THAT HAVE MULTIPLE RO-1s IN AREAS THAT ARE HARD TO ROLL IN TO A SINGLE PROGRAM MAY BE LESS COMPETITIVE FOR THIS, SO HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO STILL HAVE MULTIPLE RO-1s IS AN OPTION VERSUS THIS. I THINK WOULD MAKE SENSE. I WOULD DEBATE SERVICE SHOULDN'T BE CLINGEDDED. TEACHING AT YOUR INSTITUTION SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED BUT I THINK IT MAKE SENSE TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE THAT PROVIDE SERVICE TO THE NIH. THERE'S A LOT OF REASON TO DO THAT AND PEOPLE PARTICIPATE AND MANY CHOOSE NOT TO AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF AN INCENTIVE SYSTEM THAT MAKE PEOPLE WANT TO PARTICIPATE. >> TO SOME EXTENT WE DO THAT WITH (INAUDIBLE) AWARDS A LITTLE BIT. WE HAVEN'T BEEN PERFECT. SO NEXT WAS BETH THEN PAUL. >> I THINK YOU'RE TWO AWAY. >> I'M SORRY I THOUGHT YOU SAID BEN. >> SO TWO COMMENTS I HAD AND THEY HAVE SHIFTED IN RESPONSE TO THE EARLIER COMMENTS. WITH REGARDS TO THE WHO SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE I THINK DAVID RAISES AN INTERESTING QUESTION. I WOULD CAUTION YOU SHOULDN'T CAUGHT OFF A CERTAIN AMOUNT. THERE'S INVESTIGATORS THAT HAVE 2 TO $300,000 PORTFOLIOS THAT THEY HAVE HAD FOR 20 YEARS AND DOING AMAZING WORK AND THEY'RE COLLABORATING WITH OTHERS THAT HAVE THOSE SAME PORTFOLIOS, THIS PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY TO WORK TO BELIEVE MORE NIMBLY WITHOUT HAVING TO INDIVIDUALLY WRITE RO-1s, IN TERMS OF WORKING TOGETHER TO A PROGRAM. THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO WHAT I THINK BOB SAID BEN INITIALLY RAISED THAT AMY REECHOED, I THINK SERVICE TO THE NIH SHOULD BE A VERY BIG COMPONENT. >> I LOOK AND THIS AND I'M STRUCK WITH JOHN'S PRESENTATION AND WITH THIS, HOW THIS IS THE VENTURE CAPITAL COMMUNITY BUT I'M STRUCK BY ALSO WAYS SIMILAR AND WAYS DIFFERENTLY, I'M CURIOUS ABOUT REVIEW AT FIVE YEARS, FOR SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION AND WHETHER OR NOT REVIEW OVERHEAD IS SO GREAT THAT WOULD BIT DETRIMENTAL TO MOVE UP AND MAYBE -- BECAUSE IF IT WOULD, THAT'S A CHALLENGE. I ALSO THINK THAT BY NOT CREATING A MECHANISM FOR THE EARLY INVESTIGATORS, IN THE VENTURE CAPITAL COMMUNITY YOU'RE LOOKING DOES THE NEW THINKING AND INNOVATION BUT YOU HAVE ABILITY TO CUT OFF FUNDS FROM FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SOONER BECAUSE YOU CHECK IN MORE OFTEN SO IS THERE NO WAY TO DO THAT, TO HAVE -- >> JAVITS AWARDS ARE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW WHICH WE -- THE PROGRAM DIRECTOR LOOKS TO SEE THAT THE PERSON IS -- THEY MAYBE DOING LONG TIME FRAME RESEARCH SO WE DON'T COUNT PAPERS BUT WE LOOK TO SEE IF THE PERSON IS ESSENTIALLY -- WE LOOK AT ACTIVITY, IF THE PERSON IS ON TRACK. SO THAT'S INTERNALLY ADMINISTRATIVELY. WE COULD INVOLVE COUNCIL IN SUCH A REVIEW. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER PEER REVIEW. THAT IS OVERHEAD. >> I DON'T THINK PEOPLE ARE THINKING IN TERMS OF INDEPENDENT SECOND PEER REVIEW AFTER IN THIS CASE FIVE YEARS. IN TERMS OF NEW INVESTIGATORS WE'LL GET BACK IN A MINUTE. >> BEN AND WALTER. >> SO BEN YOU'RE ON. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HI, EVERYBODY, WELCOME TO THE NEW MEMBERS VERY SORRY I'M MISSING TODAY. I THINK THIS IS A FANTASTIC NEW MECHANISM SO I'M STRONGLY IN SUPPORT. PERSONALLY I PREFER TO SEE THIS BE FOR SUSTAINED EXCELLENCE AS WE ORIGINALLY DISCUSS SO THAT NEW INVESTIGATORS WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE. THEY SHOULD PROVE TRACK RECORD A LITTLE BIT FIRST SO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT. I LIKE THE IDEA OF ONE SUCCESSFUL RENEWAL OR MINIMUM NUMBER OF YEARS, FIVE YEARS AT LEAST OR SOMETHING, HAVING ESTABLISH A TRACK RECORD THAT'S JUST MY VIEW. I WANT TO CLARIFY -- BY THE WAY ON THE REVIEW PROCESS I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THIS, BUT I DO WANT TO SAY I THINK THIS IS THE CRITICAL DETAIL OF THIS WHOLE THING, THE CURRENT REVIEW PROCESS MECHANISM, THE COMPOSITION STUDY SECTION IN SOME CASE BROKEN, WE NEED SPECIAL MECHANISM TO MAKE SURE THE VERY BEST REVIEWERS ARE REVIEWING THESE GRANTS. OR THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO -- THIS IS ONE MONEY, LESS RESPONSIBLY OVER THESE GRANTS SO I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT BUT I THINK IT'S A CRITICAL DETAIL. I WANT TO RESPOND TO THE SERVICE THING BECAUSE NOT SURE WHERE THEY CAME ACROSS. I DEFINITELY DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO DO TEACHING AS IN CLASSROOM TEACHING, MY VIEW IS THAT THE -- WHEN NIH AWARDS A GRANT THE USE COME OF THAT GRANT IS NOT ONLY FUNDS ARE NOT ONLY USED TO EXTEND SCIENTIFIC FRONTIERS BUT USED TO TRAIN NEXT GENERATION. SO WHEY I'M SUGGESTING BE INCLUDED, AND I FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THIS, FOR PEOPLE WITH SUSTAINED EXCELLENCE TRACK RECORDS, ONE OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA BE NOT ONLY FOR SUSTAINED EXCELLENCE IN RESEARCH BUT SUSTAINED EXCELLENCE IN MENTORSHIP. IF YOU HAVE A LAB THAT BASICALLY IS NOT PRODUCING TRAINEES THAT GO ON TO BE SUCCESSFUL AT ALL FORKS TO A STRONG DEGREE, WHY SHOULDN'T THAT BE COUNTED AGAINST THEM? THAT IS PART OF PRODUCTIVITY, MAJOR PRODUCTIVITY OF THE GRANT IS THAT THE TRAINING OF YOUNG SCIENTISTS. I DO FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT THAT. AS FOR SERVICE I DON'T SEE WHY NO. CXFC SOMEBODY WHO NEVER PARTICIPATES IN SERVICE TO THE NIH, WHY SHOULDN'T THERE THAT BE USED WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY ELSE AS GOOD. AND ONE MIGHT EVEN ARGUE I'M SURE THIS WILL GO LIKE A LEAD BALANCE ONE MIGHT ARGUE SERVICE -- SERVING ON STUDY SECTION MIGHT BE ONBLY DIVISION OF THIS GRANT RUN CONCURRENT WITH THIS GRANT BUT THAT MAYBE TOO CONTROVERSIAL. LASTLY WE NEED TO DISCUSS, I'M SORRY IF THIS IS ALREADY DISCUSSED AND I MISSED IT, WHETHER HOW WE USE INVESTIGATORS -- HOWARD HUGHES INVESTIGATORS SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS MECHANISM. >> BEFORE YES -- WE GO TO NEXT PERSON IN THE QUEUE, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT BEN'S POINTS HERE. SO SERVICE. SERVICE TO NIH, MENTORSHIP, TO WHAT EXTENT DO YOU THINK THOSE CRITERIA, THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE REVIEW CRITERIA THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SCORE BUT AFTER THE SCORE IS OBTAINED THEIR CRITERIA THAT WE CAN APPLY BEFORE DECIDING TO BET THE AWARD. >> AGREE COMPLETELY THE GRANT IS MEANT TO DO MORE THAN NARROWLY SUPPORT THE RESEARCH, I AGREE, WE WOULD NEED TO BE QUITE CAREFUL HOW WE DEFINE SUCCESSFUL MENTOR SHIP, IT WOULD BE A REALLY BAD IDEA TO TAKE THE VIEW YOU NEED TO COUNT UP THE NUMBER OF TRAINEES THAT GO ON TO BECOME FACULTY MEMBERS, WE DON'T WANT TO PROMOTE THIS -- WHAT'S ALREADY GOING ON WHERE SOME MEMBERS SUGGEST THE ONLY SUCCESSFUL CAREER PATH AFTER YOU LEAVE THE LAB IS ON AND SIGN UP ANOTHER LAB. THERE'S GOOD THINGS YOU CAN DO AFTERWARDS SO AS LONG AS THAT'S NOT NARROWLY DEFINED -- >> YOU'RE REMINDING ME, CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES. >> I FORGOT TO SAY A CRITICAL THING ABOUT MENTORSHIP, I THINK ALL OF YOU MAYBE AWARE OF THIS PNAS PAPER CAME OUT BY JASON SHELTER SHOWING THE MORE THEY LEAD LAB THE LESS LIKELY TO TRAIN WOMEN POST DOCS. IF YOU HAVE A LAB THAT ONLY TRAINS MEN I DON'T SEE WHY THEY SHOULDN'T BE PART OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA, THIS MONEY, THIS IS LAW THAT YOU CANNOT TAKE FEDERAL FUNDS AND EXCLUDE TRAINING OF WOMEN SO THIS IS JUST THE TYPE OF MENTORSHIP, THAT'S HAPPENING. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT AND I DON'T MEAN AT ALL TO SAY THAT ONLY PEOPLE THAT GO ON TO (INAUDIBLE) SUCCESSFUL BUT TAKE A BROAD LOOK AT THAT. IF EVERYONE (INAUDIBLE) SCIENCE WE HAVE GOT A PROBLEM. >> I FEEL STRONGLY THAT EVALUATION SHOULD BE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF THIS SCIENCE DONE. IF WE WANT TO GIVE CREDIT TO INVESTIGATORS, WHO ARE GOOD TRAINERS TERRIFIC. WE CAN ADD THAT IN. PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE PENALIZED BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T HAD A STYLE OF SCIENCE, YOU HAVE ONE TWO THAT WORK ALONE, THERE ARE INVESTIGATOR WHOSE ARE FABULOUS WHO WORK WITH A VERY SMALL GROUP, VERY FOCUSED, AND MAY NOT BE TRAINING A LOT OF PEOPLE, WE SHOULD BE EVALUATING THE SCIENCE FIRST AND FOREMOST AND THE OTHER PEOPLE GET CREDIT BUT SHOULDN'T BE DINGED FOR THINGS THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DOING THAT OTHERS ARGUE ARE IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICE. >> OTHER DISCUSSION? >> I'LL CHIME IN AGAIN, I APPRECIATE THE POINTS RAISED. I PARTICULARLY AM SENSITIVE TO THE IDEAS OF NIH SERVICE BEING RELEVANT BUT I MADE THE INITIAL STATEMENT, SO I WILL TRY TO DEFEND IT. AND LARRY IS SUPPORTIVE, THERE ARE DIFFERENT STYLES TO DOING SCIENCE THERE MIGHT BE OTHER WAYS OF SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO DO TEACHING OTHER THAN RO-1 INSTITUTE WHICH IS A FOCUS ON THE ABILITY TO CONTRIBUTE TO SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY SO IT'S NOT THE TRAINING THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT, OF COURSE IT IS. AND THERE ARE CLEARLY OTHER MECHANISMS FOR SUPPORTING PEOPLE WHO WANT TO INVEST A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT IN TRAIN, IT GETS A LITTLE CONFUSING IN MY MIND TO TIE IN YOUR ENTIRE PERSONA INTO A SCIENTIFIC REVIEW. I DO THINK, I'M A LITTLE ENAMORED WITH THE IDEA OF HAVING -- I STRUGGLE WITH THIS MYSELF, HOW DO YOU ENCOURAGE/PROD PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN PEER RESPRAY SYCES BECAUSE PEER RERUE IS AN ESSENTIAL PARTS OF SCIENCE. >> WALTER. >> SO I HAVE A CONTROVERSIAL THOUGHT, BEN ARE YOU LISTEN SOMETHING >> SURE. >> I WONDER IF ONE CRITERIA FOR THIS AWARD WOULD BE FOR PEOPLE WHO WANT TO DO EXPERIMENTS. THEMSELVES DO EXPERIMENTS BECAUSE ONE -- IN MY MIND ONE BIG PROBLEM THAT'S OCCURRED OVER TIME IS PEOPLE WRITE GRANTS AND THEY DON'T DO EXPERIMENTS ANY MORE. AND I THINK THAT THAT HAS PROFOUND INFLUENCE ON THE SIGN COMING OUT AND SOMETHING THAT THE NIH UNFORTUNATELY PUT THE INCENTIVES IN PLACE TO HAVE THAT HAPPEN. I WONDER IF THERE'S THOUGHTS WITH REGARD THAT NOT EXCLUSIVE THING BUT ONE CRITERIA TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO PURSUE RESEARCH AND CONTINUE TO DO EXPERIMENTS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE TO WRITE GRANTS, THAT'S THE REASON FOR THIS AWARDS. (OFF MIC) >> I THINK MOST IMPORTANT THING IS STATION CLOSE TO WHAT'S HAPPENING IN YOUR LAB, NOT NECESSARILY AT RECORDING CURRENTS, WHATEVER MANY WE HAVE PEOPLE IN OUR LABS DOING THINGS THAT WE OURSELF VERSUS NEVER DONE SO WE RELY ON THEM, THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS YOU SPEND THE TIME MAYBE IN REGARD TO WHAT SOME OTHERS SAY, BEING A MENTOR IN THE SENSE OF STAYING CLOSE TO SCIENCE, ET CETERA. >> NOT IN YOUR OFFICE WRITING 15 GRANTS. >> THAT'S RIGHT. BUFF THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY BE (INAUDIBLE) HAVING SEEN ALL THE ATTRACTIONS SO I WOULD SAY THAT I APPRECIATE THE ESSENCE OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY, WHICH IS IT GIVES ONE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BASICALLY BE WITH PEOPLE IN YOUR LAB, STAY CLOSE TO THE SCIENCE, TO BE INVOLVED, BE AT THE BENCH FOR (INAUDIBLE) >> MY TWO COMMENTS COMES FROM THE PERSPECTIVE, WE HAVE TO HAVE A SYSTEM THAT ALLOWS FOR OUTLIER INNOVATIVE IDEA THAT COMES FROM UNSUSPECTING PLACE SO ALONG THOSE LINES I DO THINK THAT MENTORING IS TWO TOO DIFFICULT TO QUANTIFY IN TERMS OF TAKING THAT IN INTO ACCOUNT AND THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THOSE WHO ARE GOOD AT IT, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO SUPPORT THAT. BUT I RELUCTANTLY THINK, NIH SERVICE SHOULD COUNT. IF YOU WANT MONEY LONG RUN TOUGH HAVE SYSTEM SUPPORT. AND THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. IN TERMS OF ALLOWING PEOPLE TO SELF-NOMINATE, I THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE BECAUSE OTHER ASPECTS OF WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING ON A TRACK RECORD, THIS WILL ARE GO TO PEER REVIEW, DIFFERENT AND EXCITING PEER REVIEW, IT'S STILL PEER REVIEW, CSR IF IT SUCCEEDS SO THESE THINGS MIGHT ALLOW NEW R-35 TO SLIP BACK TO BEING OLD NET WORK IT'S ALWAYS BEEN SO ONE THING TO SAVE GUARD AGAINST YOU HAVE THE ALLOW FOR OPPORTUNITY EXPECTED PERSON AND SELF-NOMINATION IS A KEY FOR THAT. >> I DID WANT TO CLARIFY IF ANYBODY CAN HEAR ME, I WANT TO IDENTIFY SCIENCE QUALITY -- I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ON THAT. I WAS SIMPLY SUGGESTING UNDER SECONDARY CRITERIA, MEMBERSHIP TRACK RECORD BE INCLUDED. GOOD PART OF THE FUNDS IN THESE GRANTS USE TO TRAIN YOUNG SCIENTISTS SO WHY SHOULDN'T THAT BE PART OF THE CRITERIA BUT FIRST COMES SCIENTIFIC QUALITY WHEN YOU HAVE EXCESS GREAT GRANTS WHY SHOULDN'T THERE BE SECONDARY CRITERIA LIKE SERVICE, MENTORSHIP, ET CETERA. I WANT TO ARGUE WE HAVE DIVERSE PANEL, BECAUSE OF DIVERSITY ISSUES BOB RAISED. HAVING A DIVERSE SELECTION PANEL IS CRITICAL. >> AM MY. >> I LIKE TO AGREE WITH BEN AND POSSIBLY IT COULD BE AN AND OPPOSED TO AN OR. IF YOU LOOK AT MY PERSON IN THE PROGRAM POSSIBLY LOOK AT THEIR SCIENCE AS WELL AS WHAT THEY PROPOSE FOR MENTORSHIP AND HISTORY OF MENTORSHIP. SO I MEAN, DIFFERENT PROGRAMS ONE LAB MAY NOT DO MUCH MENTORSHIP BUT BRING ABSOLUTELY FABULOUS SCIENCE, WHEREAS ANOTHER LAB MAY BRING OUTSTANDING BUT NOT AS FABULOUS SCIENCE BUT HISTORY OF BRINGING WONDERFUL NEW INVESTIGATORS THE FIELD THAT I RECOLLECT EAR ALL VALUABLE. THIS IS A NEW MEG MECHANISM SO WE DON'T HAVE TO STICK TO THE RIGID THIS IS A TEACHING MENTORSHIP GRANT, THIS IS A FULLY SCIENCE GRANT AS WE ALWAYS HAVE IN THE PAST. THERE IS ROOM TO MACK IT FLEXIBLE AND ALL ENCOMPASSING. I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION, COME UP A COUPLE OF TIMES ABOUT WHETHER -- HOW YOU -- THIS MIGHT FOSTER COLLABORATION BUT I WORRY FROM'S NO MECHANISM FOR THIS TO BE MULTI-PI IF IT WAS COLLABORATION MORE DIFFICULT ESPECIALLY ACROSS INSTITUTIONS SO I THINK WHEN WE THINK ABOUT ELIGIBILITY AND HOW PEOPLE CAN APPLY WE JUST NEED TO KEEP IN MIND WE WANT TO KEEP SCIENCE A TEAM SPORT IF POSSIBLE BECAUSE THAT'S HOW BEST SCIENCE GETS DONE. >> CAN I COMMENT? >> YES. >> GO AHEAD BEN. >> AMITA. VOIR I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE THE VOICE. SO COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST I AGREE WITH LARRY THE SCIENCE SHOULD REALLY BE THE KEY THING HERE. AND THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS TO AWARD THOSE PEOPLE WHO DONE A LOT OF SERVICE. I ALSO HAVE MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT THE SERVICE TO THE NIH BEING A CRITERION BECAUSE SOME TELL ME THEY'RE NOT EVEN ASKED TO SERVE ON STUDY SECTION SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY SHOULD BE PENALIZED WITH RESPECT TO THIS AWARD. THE OTHER ONE, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT BEN SAID EARLIER, WHICH IS I DON'T -- DOES IT HAVE TO BE MULTIPLE GRANTS, IT HAS TO BE PIs OF MULTIPLE GRANTS, WHY NOT SOMEBODY WHO JUST HAD ONE FOR MANY YEARS. IN PARTICULAR GETTING RID OF THE JAVIS, I DON'T THINK THIS SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE MULTIPLE AWARDS. I SORT OF RESPONDED TO THAT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, THIS CERTAINLY COULD BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE PEOPLE WHO RUN THEIR LABS IN A SINGLE RO-1s THERE'S NO REASON WHY THAT COULDN'T HAPPEN. I THINK THAT JOHN LORSCH ULTIMATELY WAY PLANT TO DO THAT BUT HE DECIDED TO BEGIN WITH MULTIPLE AWARDS FOR STRATEGIC REASONS. >> I MISSED HIS TALK AND I MISSED THE FIRST PART OF YOURS. >> LARRY NEXT. >> I JUST HAD A QUESTION. AT LEAST INITIALLY IT'S ACCEPTING PEOPLE CONVERTING TO THE SYSTEM, SHE HAS HER THREE GRANTS, SHE ALREADY GOT THEM. WHAT ARE YOU DECIDING IF YOU REVIEW THAT SHE'S ALLOWED TO SWITCH TO THIS PROGRAM? >> THAT'S ACTUALLY AN IMPLEMENTATION QUESTION. ONE SCENARIO YOU ASK HER TO APPLY AND IF SHE DEBT GETS ITS SHE GIVE UP THE THREE GRANTS OR YOU CAN HAVE A MECHANISM WHEREBY IF YOU HAVE THREE GRANTS AND YOU CAN ARGUE IT'S A PROGRAM, YOU GET A MAGIC WANDS IN THE WEAK OF IMPLEMENTATION. WILL IS AN INTERESTING STORY A PERSON HAD EXTRAORDINARILY STRONG PROGRAM AND WON A BIG PRIZE SENT IN AN RO-1 OVER 500K, SO THAT WAS THE ENTIRE RESEARCH PROGRAM. AND GOT A TERRIBLE SCORE FROM STUDY SECTION TOLD IT WAS THREE RO-1s SO I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE NOTION, IF YOU HAVE A COHEREIN PROGRAM YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO ASK FOR THE MONEY TO SUPPORT THAT PROGRAM AND NOT BE FORCED TO SLICE AND DICE. NEXT PERSON WAS DAVID. >> COUPLE OF THINGS. IN TERMS OF ELIGIBILITY I AGREE WITH THE VIEW THAT THIS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE R MECHANISM GRANTS AND SOME DEGREE OF SUCCESS I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE NEW INVESTIGATORS. WITH REGARDS TO MENTORSHIP THAT'S AN INTERESTING ISSUE. I THINK THAT PEOPLE SHOULD BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR BEING GRATE MENTORS BUT QUANTIFYING AS AMY SAID IS QUITE DIFFICULT AND I WORRY IF THAT WERE A CRITERION THEN BIAS THE REVIEW IN FAVOR OF SENIOR INVESTIGATORS WHICH IS SOMETHING TO AVOID, THE LONGER YOU HAVE BEEN AROUND THE LONGER A MENTOR AND MORE EVIDENCE OF EXISTS. SO FOR EXAMPLE FIVE YEARS INTO FACULTY POSITION IS GOING TO HAVE RELATIVELY FEW TRAINEES THAT ARE IN POSITIONS THAT INDICATE HIGH DEGREE OF SUCCESS AS A MENTOR SO I WORRY THAT WE DON'T HAVE A WAY TO QUANTIFY THAT AND ITS BIAS AGAINST SENIOR FOLKS. I WILL REITERATE SOMETHING IN THE PAST IN TERMS OF NIH SERVICE. I THINK IT'S WHY NOT INCLUDE THAT, BUT I AGREE IF SOMEONE HAS A GRANT OF MECHANISM LIKE THIS OR R GRANT SERVICE SHOWER A REQUIREMENT IF CALLED UPON, THAT PERSON SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SERVE. STILL THINK WE SHOULD SRI STATE ISSUE. >> GOOD IDEA. >> THE LAST PERSON ON THE LINE IS DAVID. WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION, NOT YOUR LAST CHANCE TO WEIGH IN F ON THIS MENTORSHIP QUESTION T ONLY COMMENT TO MAKE IS THERE ARE SOME LABS CHARACTERIZE ABUSE IN TERMS MENTOR SHIP, WE ALL KNOW KNOW STORIES ABOUT THIS. WE ALL KNOW GRADUATE STUDENTS ARE GIVEN IDENTICAL PROJECTSEN WHOEVER FIND THE GENE FINDS THE GENE. I THINK IT'S ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THAT BE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION WHEN YOU EVALUATE WHETHER TO DO SOMETHING REALLY HELPFUL TO A LAB. I AM ALSO WARY OF ANYTHING THAT LOOKS LIKE A SIMPLE STANDARD METRIC, WE DON'T WANT TO COUNT UP HOW MANY STUDENTS GOING ON TO DO XY ANDZ AND MAJOR FACTOR, IN SOME WAY SHAPE OR FORM IS PART OOPHAGY AT ALL TIMES, IT SEEMS TO BE WITHIN OUR MAN GATE. THE OTHER THING, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO FIX THE THINGS THAT WE THINK ARE WRONG WITH THE PEER REVIEW SYSTEM RIGHT NOW WITH THIS MECHANISM AND I WOULD COMMENT WE CAN'T DO THAT, SO LET'S BE CAREFUL ABOUT TRYING TO DO THAT. >> A BIG THING THAT'S WRONG IS THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE NIH BUDGET TO FUND ALL THE SPECTACULAR SCIENCE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO NOW. SO A COMBINATION OF FIXING SEVERAL -- SPECIFIC SEVERAL THINGS, SEVERAL NEW MECHANISMS. >> I THINK WE'LL STOP THERE. AND CONTINUE NEXT TIME. THE LAST THING ON OPEN SESSION AGENDA THEN TWITCH TO CLOSED SESSION IS THE CONCEPT CLEARANCE SECTION SO AS -- >> NOT EVERY INSTITUTE DOES THIS BUT WE -- WHENEVER WE HAVE AN INITIATIVE OR OF SOME KIND THAT REQUIRES WE SPEND MONEY, WE GET FORMAL CONCEPT CLEARANCE FROM COUNCIL, CHOSE TON DO THAT IN THE INTEREST OF TRANSPARENCY. SO WE ONLY HAVE ONE THING ON THE AGENDA THIS TIME, WHICH IS RAJESH, HEAD OF OFFICE OF TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH WILL DESCRIBE. >> SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALAN DESCRIBED AS PART OF THIS CLEARANCE IS WE HAVE SATISFIED FUNDS, THERE ARE NO SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR THIS PARTICULAR MECHANISM. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I WAS INTERVIEWED BY SOMEONE AT NATURE REVIEWS DRUG DISCOVERY. I DON'T KNOW IF HE WOULD TALK TO ME IF I WEREN'T RETIRING. I HAD WORKED REALLY HARD TO THINK ANT ALL OF OUR TRANSLATIONAL PROGRAMS AND THE ONLY QUESTION HE ASKED ME IN THE BEING WERE ABOUT THE BASIC SCIENCE BLOG. SO I TALKED ABOUT THAT. AND SAID BUT THIS IS ONLY A PIECE OF WHAT WE DO IN THE INSTITUTE WE FUND RESEARCH ACROSS THE CONTINUUM. HE SAID WHAT DO YOU MEAN? LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT OUR TRANSLATIONAL PROGRAM. IT TOOK TIME FOR HIM TO GET THAT WE DIDN'T -- I DIDN'T WANT TO FUND BASIC SCIENCE, SO THERE'S A NOTION OF EITHER OR AND NOT AND. SO MORE EVEN BEFORE I CAME TO BE DIRECTOR WHICH IS 11 YEARS NOW SO 12 OR 13 YEARS AGO THE INSTITUTE EMBARKED ON AN EFFORT TO DO A BETTER JOB OF APPLYING WHAT WE HAD LEARNED FROM FUNDAMENTAL BASIC SCIENCE AND DISEASE SCIENCE BASIC SCIENCE TO REDUCING THE BURDEN OFTEN DISEASE WE STUCK OR TOES IN TO THAT SPACE BETWEEN FUNDAMENTAL AND DISEASE RELATED BASIC SCIENCE PHASE 3 CLINICAL TRIALS. AND PUT TOGETHER TRANSLATIONAL PROGRAMS, WE OVER THE COURSE OF TIME LEARNED ABOUT WHAT WE DID WELL AND WAY DID DO WELL. WE HAVE HAD TWO OR THREE PEOPLE RUN OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME, RAJESH IS THE CURRENT LEADER. WE WORKED VERY HARD TO BOOT STRAP OUR EFFORTS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE MONEY WE INVEST IN THIS HAS THE GREATEST POSSIBLE RETURN. YOU HAVE HEARD OVER THE LAST, THIS IS THE SIX COUNCIL RAJESH WILL HAVE PRESENTED, AT FIRES OF THOSE TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON OUR EFFORT TO MAKE OUR TRANSLATIONAL PROGRAMS AS RIGOROUS AN WORTHY AN INVESTMENT AS WE CAN. I WOULD SAY ONE THING THAT HAS HAPPENED OVER THAT TIME, PARTICULARLY DURING RAJESH OVERSIGHT IS RECRUITED STAFF WHO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND DRUG DISCOVER RESEARCH. SO WE WANT TO DO THE APPROPRIATE, WHATEVER THAT S AMOUNT OF FANTASTIC BASIC SCIENCE, TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE AN WONDERFUL CLINICAL TRIALS. THIS IS NOT EITHER O IT'S AN EFFORT TO ACTUALLY RAISE THE BAR FOR ALL KINDS OF SCIENCE THAT WE SUPPORT AND THAT WE HAVE TO SUPPORT TO MAKE DIFFERENCE. SORRY RAJESH. >> THANK YOU. IS THIS WORK SOMETHING OKAY. SO I'VE BEFORE BOB SHOOTS ME OUT BECAUSE I'M BETWEEN HIM AND YOU GUYS AND THE CLOSE SESSION, SO LET ME GET STARTED SO WHEY I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS THE TRANSLATIONAL R-21 WHICH I BRIEFLY TOUCHED UPON IN JANUARY. AS THE NEXT WAVE OF PROGRAMS THAT WE WOULD BE REVAMPING. SO AGAIN TRANSLATIONAL FUNDING MECHANISMS WE HAVE UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF OFFICE O TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH THE TRANSLATIONAL R-# 1 THERE USED TO BE THE UO-1 PROGRAM OR THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT PROGRAM NOW REPLACED BY THE CREATE PROGRAM, THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE. THIS SMALL BUSINESS PROGRAM WHICH IS RUN OUT OF THIS OFFICE BLUEPRINT THERAPEUTICS WHICH IS NOW PRIMARY VEHICLE TO DO SMALL MOLECULE DRUG DISCOVERY RESEARCH AT NINDS. WE HAVE A SMALL PROGRAM IN HIGH THROUGH PUT SCREENING THAT GETS A FEW INITIAL HITS. WE HAVE AN EFFORT AND COUNTER MEASURES THAT WE WON'T DISCUSS AT THIS POINT SO WHAT I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON IS FIRST TALK ABOUT THIS PROGRAM. WHAT IT WAS INTENDED TO DO AND PLANNING TO DO GOING FORWARD. IS SO THE PROGRAM HAS DIRECT COST OF $500,000 FOR OVER TWO YEAR PERIOD, INCREASED A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, PREVIOUSLY IT WAS A SMALLER AMOUNT AND THE IDEA WAS TO LEAD TO COOPERATIVE PROGRAMS SO PREPROGRAMS TO CREATE WHICH USED TO BE CALLED THE UO-1 PROGRAM THE IDEA WAS THIS WOULD BE THE FEED PROGRAM THAT AND ADVANCE PROJECTS TOWARDS CLINICAL TRIAL. PROGRAM IN PLACE TEN YEARS, 50 ACTIVE PROJECTS AT ANY GIVEN TIME SINCE A TWO YEAR PROGRAM WE TAKE 7, 8, 9 DURING EACH COUNCIL ROUND SO ABOUT 20 A YEAR, 20, 25, AND THE ANNUAL INVESTMENT IS $10 MILLION ACROSS THE NEW PLUS THE CONTINUING SECOND YEAR TYPE 2 INVESTMENTS AS WELL. THERE ARE NUMEROUS CHANGES IN SCOPE, I WON'T GO THROUGH WHAT THEY WERE ALONG THE WAY, WE REMOVED CERTAIN ASPECTS OF WHAT WAS IN SCOPE, ADDED OTHER THINGS OUT OF SCOPE, PREVIOUSLY, ET CETERA AND WE ALSO CHANGED THE BUDGET LIKE I MENTION BUD THE KEY I THINK WAS THAT WE FELT THE MORE COMPREHENSIVE REVAMP WAS REQUIRED TO ENSURE WE WERE GETTING A BETTER FEED INTO THE NEW PROGRAM THAT WERE JUST REDESIGNED AND REALLY LOOK AT NEW PROGRAMS TO ASK WHAT HE NEED TO ENSURE THERE'S A PIPELINE HERE THAT WILL CONTINUE TO BRING PROJECTS FORWARD. SO WE DID NOT RENEW -- WE'RE NOT RENEWING THE CURRENT R-21, IT WILL EXPIRE JANUARY 2015, THE LAST RECEIPT DATE IS NEXT MONO, LAST TIME PEOPLE CAN APPLY TO EXISTING TRANSLATIONAL R-21 PROGRAM AS OUT ON THE STREET. SO WHEN THINKING THE REVAMP THE MISSION THAT WE SET OUT TO IN THE BEING OF THIS YEAR IN JANUARY WAS THE NEW PROGRAM OR SUITE OF PROGRAMS THAT SEAMLESSLY TRANSITION PROJECTS FROM EARLY DISCOVERY, THE RO-1 R-21 SPACE AND OTHER DISEASE MECHANISMS THAT MIGHT BE EXPLORED INTO THE TRANSLATIONAL PROGRAMS THAT WE HAVE JUST RECENTLY PUT ON THE CRETE STREET OZ OF JULY, BLUEPRINT 2.0 AND CREATE SO WHAT IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. SO THERE'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT GROUP OF PEOPLE WHO WORK ON THIS, LED PRIMARILY BY -- I WANT TO POINT OUT EMIR LED THESE EFFORTS WHILE MANAGING PROJECTS AS WELL SUPPORTED BY BECKY AS WELL FROM THE OTR TEAM BUT MANY FROM BASIC SCIENCE REVIEW AND POLICY SHOPS HELPED FIGURE OUT WHAT HE W SHOULD DO IN THIS SPACE. WHAT THEY CAME ONE WAS REALLY LESSONS LEARN AND CHALLENGES THEY FELT REALLY NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED, WAS THAT THE NEW PROGRAM HAD TO BE DIFFERENTIATED FROM THE EXISTING RO-1 AND R-21 PROGRAMS, ONE CHAT LENG WAS THE TRANSLATIONAL R-21 SEEMS TO BE FUNDING SAME THINGS FUNDED IN THE R-21 STANDARD R-21, THAT WAS NOT NECESSARILY VERY HELPFUL IN FEEDING THE PIPELINE. WE NEEDED TO FEED THE CURRENT PROGRAMS AND USE MECHANISM APPROPRIATE IN THESE EARLIER STAGES. AND PROVIDE MORE TIME, AMY POINTED THIS OUT, THE STAFF RECOGNIZED WE WEREN'T PROVIDING ENOUGH TIME FOR THE ACTIVITIES THAT LEADS TO BONA FIDE PROJECTS IN WHICH WE COULD FUND MILLION P PER YEAR OR MORE. CHARACTERIZATION OF WHATEVER THERAPEUTIC AGENT MIGHT BE. DEVELOPMENT OF MEASURES THAT STRENGTHEN ANY CHASSI THAT MIGHT ALREADY BE AVAILABLE AND DEVELOPMENT OF PREDICTIVE OR TRANSLATABLE MODELS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE IN THE DISEASE UNDER OUR MISSION. AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP SOME MORE NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES THAT MIGHT POTENTIALLY BE TIED TO SO THE OVER ARCHING THEM AND WE'RE WALKING YOU THROUGH THE PROGRAMS WE THINK LIKELY TO ADDRESS EACH OF THESE INITIATIVES. WHAT ARE PEOPLE THINKING THEY NEED TO V. WE WANT A PRELIMINARY LEAD. (OFF MIC) >> SURE. >> YOU HAVE HAD HISTORY OF EXISTING PROGRAM. WHAT DO YOU THINK ARE HIGH POINTS FROM THAT? THERE ARE SOME GREAT THINGS THAT CAME FROM THAT? >> RIGHT. >> WANT TO CHANGE IT WE PROBABLY SHOULD DO BUT HAS IT WORKED IN >> THE QUESTION IS YOU HAVE TO DEFINE CLUE MEAN BY HAS IT WORKED. DID IT WORK FOR IF YOU WERE OF LEADING TWO UO-1s AND DRUG DISCOVERY THAT LED INTO CLINICAL TRIALS, IT HASN'T NECESSARILY DONE TO THE EXTENT WE WOULD HAVE HOPED. BUT IT FUND RED SEARCH THAT ALLOWED PIECES TO BE DONE, IT HASN'T BEEN PUT TOGETHER IN WAY PROJECTS ARE TRANSITIONING TO THE LATER STAGES. VERY GOOD EXAMPLE, WHAT ARE SUCCESSFUL IS WHAT JOHN PORTER WHOM YOU ALREADY HEARD TALK ABOUT LEADERSHIP HE HAS DONE A EXEMPLARY JOB WITH MUSCULAR DYSTROPHY AND GOOD SUCCESS RATE TAKING R-21s HE SHE PERKED INTO UO-1 SUBSEQUENTLY. IF WE LOOK AT ONES HE'S DONE THAT WITH, MANY THINGS HAVE THESE VERY THINGS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO NOT NOW PUT IN PLACE FOR THE NEW PROGRAMS SO NOT EVERY R WILL HAVE 21 MANAGED TO DO THAT, IN ITS HISTORY. >> A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT GOT FUNDED THROUGH THIS TOTR-21 COULD HAVE BEEN FUNDED PERFECTLY OOZILY THROUGH THE PARENT R-21 THAT NINDS PARTICIPATESES ON SO WE HAD TWO PATHWAYS FOR GETTING ONE KIND OF RESEARCH DONE SO WE WANT TO HAVE ALL THE STUFF THAT CAME IN HERE GO TO PARENT R-21 AND TAILORED PROGRAMS THAT WILL SUPPORT TRANSLATION. >> ONE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN R-21 AND PARENT IS THE BUDGET SO COULD THOSE STUDIES STILL HAVE BEEN DONE WITH THE PARENT R-21 BUDGET? >> RIGHT. SO WHAT WE HOPE IS THAT THERE STUDIES THEY WERE TRYING TO DO IN THE R-21 PREVIOUS BUDGETS BUT LOWER THAN CURRENTLY IS, THAT'S WHY WE INCREASE THE BUDGET. WE THINK THOSE ACTIVITIES RELATED TO DRUG DISCOVERY THAT MIGHT BE MORE EXPENSIVE WILL FIT INTO NEW PROGRAMS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO IF THEY ARE PLANNING TO DO THOSE ACTIVITIES THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO R-21 T. ACTIVITIES COMING TO TRANSLATIONAL R-21 COULD HAVE BEEN FUNDED BY THE PARENT R-21 THE BUDGET WOULD HAVE BEEN A NON-ISSUE IN THAT CASE. ENTRY CRITERIA FOR THE TWO PROGRAMS THAT EXIST, CREATE AT THE MOMENT. BIOACTIVE LEAD, ASSAY HELP ADOPTING THAT LEAD OR APPROPRIATELY DOES TARGET ENGAGEMENT OR PATH FORWARD THAT ADDRESSES THE CLINICAL STUDIES, THESE WERE THE THREE THINGS, EFFICACY. SO THESE WHAT WE FOCUS THE PROGRAMS ON TO DO THAT. I WANT TO MAKE ONE ADDITIONAL SORT OF PLUG FOR THE PIECE OF THIS WHICH IS JUST PEEP POLICE THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS MIGHT BE RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF EFFICACY AND SO PD MEASURES COULD BE PROXIMAL IN THE OCCUPANCY OR SIGNALING OR COULD BE MORE DISTAL IN TERMS OF BEHAVIORAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL EVENTS THAT GIVE YOU A SENSE THE THERAPEUTIC AGENT HAS ACTED WITH WHAT YOU INTENDED IT TO WORK ON SO MOLECULAR TARGET. BUT ALSO HAS TO BE CLOSELY CORRELATESSED, THAT YOU NEED TO THINK ABOUT IN CONTEXT OF HAVING EFFICACY READ OUT THAT IS RELEVANT. IF PATHWAY IS RELATED TO DISEASE THESE MEASURES CAN BE HELPFUL AS YOU MOVE TO CLINIC IN TERMS OF DOING TRIALS TO DO THINGS FASTER THAN END POINT THAT TAKES MUCH LONGER, EARLIER STAGE, OF COURSE YOU'RE STILL GOING HAVE TO MEASURE THE STANDARDS EFFICACY OF DISEASE IN LATE STAGE BUT IN THE INITIAL FIRST IN MAN OR PROOF OF CONCEPT TRIAL THESE ARE USEFUL SO WE PUT A FAIR AMOUNT OF EMPHASIS BUILDING IN. THIS IS INFORMED BY MANY CONVERSATIONS WE HAD OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, WITH PARTNERS WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO WORK WITH TO HAND OFF THESE THINGS TO SUBSEQUENT INVESTORS IN PRIVATE SECTOR WHO WILL TAKE THIS FURTHER INTO CLINIC AND BEYOND. SO WE PROPOSE THE SUITE OF PROGRAMS THE TEAM CAME UP WITH THIS AS THE NAME FOR THE PROGRAM A WITH THE ACRONYM IGNITE SO WE'LL LIGHT A FIRE SOMEWHERE. THERE'S GOING TO BE FOUR PROGRAMS, SUBPROGRAMS WITHIN THE IGNITE SUITE. SPENDS SLIDE EACH GIVE MORGUE DETAIL, THE FIRST ADDRESS IT IS FIRST PILLAR OF THE ASSAY, TWO PILLARS OF SAY AND AGENT. SECOND ADDRESS IT IS PHARMACODYNAMIC READ OUT OR EFFICACY STUDIES. THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP MORE MODELS ET CETERA SPECIALLY LARGE ANIMAL MODELS THAT ARE RELEVANT IN SOME DISEASES THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN EASY WAY OF FUNDING THROUGH THE PARENT R-21 MECHANISM THAT COMES HERE AND THEN THIS IDEA THAT ARE THERE TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY NOT ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD HELP TRANSLATION WITH LARGE ACROSS NEUROSCIENCE FOR EXAMPLE ARE THERE THINGS WE SHOULD DO WITH BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER IN A WAY THAT POTENTIALLY ENHANCE THERAPEUTICS INTO THE BRAIN DONE IN A MORE FOCUSED WAY. SO FEW THUMBNAIL POINTS FOR EACH OF THESE PILLARS OF FUNDING OPPORTUNITY ANNOUNCEMENTS, FIRST FOR ASSAY DEVELOPMENT TO SUPPORT THOSE NEW ASSAYS, USE R-21, ALREADY-33 SPLIT MECHANISM AND THE WAY THIS MECHANISM WORKS I HAVE DETAILS LATER SLIDE BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY ONE THAT HAS ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BUILT IN FOR (INAUDIBLE) IN THE MIDDLE SO IF THINGS AREN'T WORKING THE FIRST YEAR OR TWO WE CAN TRANSITION OUT OF THAT. AND DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE SPENDING MONEY. THAT'S WHAT R-21 INITIAL PHASE AN R-31 IS INTRICATE PHASE AND HERE ARE COST ASSOCIATED WITH BOTH PHASE, ONE FOR R-21, TWO FOR THE R-33. PHARMACODYNAMIC READ OUT, I SAID MOST ON THE SLIDE SO I WON'T REPEAT MYSELF. IT'S R-21 R-33 MECHANISM AND COSTS ARE MODULAR BUDGETS LIMITED TO 250 PER YEAR NOT TO EXCEED THE THREE YEARS. SFROM THIRDS NEUROSCIENCE TRANSLATIONAL TOOLS WE CAN BETTER SUITED TO RO-1 MECHANISM RATHER THAN R-21 R-33 AND SHOULD BE A THREE YEAR RO-1 BECAUSE OF THE ANIMAL MODEL ISSUES TO HAVE COSTS OF UP TO 500K OVER THE THREE YEARS. THIS DEPENDS NEW MODELS CAN BE DONE BUT ALSO LEAD TO NEW MARKERS OF TARGET ENGAGEMENT THAT PHONE -- POTENTIALLY LEAD TO EFFORT OF PHARMACODYNAMICS. THE LAST WOULD BE ADDRESSING BROADER DESIRE TO THINK ABOUT TECHNOLOGIES THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY THE TYPE THAT RAISE ALL BOATS. THIS WOULD ALSO BE AN RO-1, THREE YEAR RO-1 WE'RE PROPOSING. SO AT THE MOMENT, -- >> $500,000 PER YEAR OR $500,000 TOTAL -- >> TOTAL. >> SO IT'S LESS TAN THE R-21 R-# 3, 250 PER YEAR MECHANISM, TOTAL AMOUNT -- >> RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT. SO WHILE WE BELIEVE THE SUITE OF PROGRAMS WILL DO IS PROVIDE EARLY PACKAGE REQUIRED FOR LATER STAGE PROGRAMS THEY HAVE ALREADY LAUNCHED. WE DIFFERENTIATEED FROM THE PARENT R-21, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET THIS OVERLAP OF THE SAME THINGS IN BOTH BUCKETS. AND THAT WE THINK IT'S -- IT GIVES US THE TIME TO DO ESPECIALLY THE FIRST TWO PROGRAMS THE ADDITIONAL TIME TO GET THE HIGHER QUALITY DATA. R-21 R-33 MECHANISM ALLOWS MILESTONES AND WE CAN USE THOSE MILESTONES AS PARTS OF REVIEW AND THAT HE WILL BE AN ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW THAT WILL DRIVE DECISION WHETHER WE MEET THE 30 INVESTMENT OR NOT. THE WAY THESE ARE STRUCTURED IN CONTEXT OF TIMING WITH EXISTING PROGRAMS IS THERE'S OVERLAP AND THERE'S OVERLAP INTENTIONAL. ONE THING WE STRUGGLE WITH IS PEOPLE APPLY FOR PROGRAM A AND THEN WAIT MINE MONTHS BEFORE THEY CAN GET FUNDING TO PROGRAM B AND THEN ANOTHER 9, 12 MONTHS BEFORE FUNDENING PROGRAM C, WHEREAS HERE WITH THE OVERLAP WE HOPE IF THEY HIT APPROPRIATE MILESTONES IN THESE PROGRAMS, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ALLOW TO START APPLYING FOR THIS PROGRAM WHILE FINISHING UP PROGRAM A, WE STILL EXPECT THEM TO FINISH THOSE MILESTONES AND THEY WOULD BE CRITERIA TO USE BUT THEY CAN GET THAT STARTED AND GET THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO THAT'S THE EXPECTATION HERE HOW IN THIS STACK AGAINST EXISTING PROGRAMS. MY LAST SLIDE IS TIME LINE WE'RE HERE SEPTEMBER 11th, THE DATES ARE BLACK DON'T YOUR THOSE ARE INTERNAL PIECES WE EXPECT TO ANNOUNCE IN DECEMBER AND WE HOPE THAT OCTOBER IS THE NEXT RECEIPT DATE FOR EXISTING ONE WE HOPE THAT WITHOUT LOSING STEP PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO APPLY IN FEBRUARY FOR THE NEW SUITE OF PROGRAM, 16th OF FEBRUARY, THAT'S THE HOPE, WE'LL ONLY LAUNCH THE FIRST TWO PROGRAMS AT THIS POINT IN DECEMBER, WE FEEL WE HAVE SOME MORE WORK TO DO WITH THE SECOND TWO PROGRAMS, THE NUMBER THROUGH AND NUMBER 4, THE TWO RO-1s AND RELEASE LATER IN THE 2015 TO SO THAT'S THE PLAN THAT WE PROPOSED AND PUT ON THE TABLE SO OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. (OFF MIC) >> I LIKE THE STRUCTURE PARTICULAR THINK R-21 R-33 AND YOU CAN DEVELOP AN ANIMAL MODEL. I GUESS THE QUESTION CONCERN WOULD BE WHEN YOU MOVE TOWARD RO-1 IF YOU'RE PLANNING TO USE THE LARGE ANIMAL MODEL I'M NOT SURE THAT THE BUDGET WOULD BE SUFFICIENT. >> THIS IS A CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED IN THE WORKING GROUP AS WELL, AND WHETHER THE BUDGETS WILL ACCOMMODATE THE LARGE ANIMAL MODEL. DO YOU WANT TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE TO TRY TO ADDRESS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE WORKING GROUP IN THAT CONTEXT? >> HI. YEAH WE DEFINITELY TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AND IT'S GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON WHAT PROBLEM -- PROPOSAL THAT IS. WE HOPE TO KEEP COSTS AT LEAST AT REVELS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE AND MAKE DECISIONS AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS OF LEARNING WHAT PROJECTS ARE COMING IN. JUST SO THAT WE ARE CONSIST EBB IN TERMS OF WHAT WE SPENT SO FAR N TERM OF WHAT WE SPENDS OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. >> ME AND STUDIES WILL BE UNDER THE BUDGET BUT -- THAT MAYBE RARE BUT THERE MAYBE EXAMPLE, MY ONLY CONCERN WAS LIMITING IT ABSOLUTELY TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT. AND NOT HAVING THE OPTION OF (INAUDIBLE). >> THOSE PROGRAMS HAVE BEEN BEEN WRITTEN FOR THAT BECAUSE WE CAN TAKE THAT INPUT FROM HERE TO ADDRESS THAT. WHO IS NEXT? >> ANN ROBERT IS HERE AS WELL. >> JUST A CLARIFICATION ON OPTION ONE, I LIKE THE RECONFIGURATION, REAL ENCOURAGING. WHERE IS THE FRAME WORK WITH MEDICINAL CHEMISTRY. THE WAY YOU DESCRIBE IS TOOL COMPOUND AND I HAVE SEEN WHERE THEY BANG AWAY, BANG AWAY AT THE INTERESTING COMPOUND AND THEY HAVE NO IDEA THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK SO IS THAT WHERE YOU ANTICIPATE, I WAS WORRIED THEY ONLY FOCUS ON ASSAYS BECAUSE THAT IS REALLY NOT MUCH FUTURE. >> THIS IS THE PROGRAM THAT WILL DRIVE THE MED CHEM HERE BLUEPRINT 2.0 SO TO DEVELOP THE ASSAY HERE, USE THAT TO TAKE ANY TWO COMPOUNDS THAT COME IN BUT THEY CHARACTERIZE IT SO THEY DON'T NEED WHAT TO FIX BEFORE THEY START THE CAMPAIGN. THAT'S WITH THE BLUEPRINT PROGRAM WE HAVE SET UP. DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? >> SO RELATED TO THAT, ALSO WITHIN THE REVIEW IS THERE A -- I GUESS A PROCESS FOR EVALUATING WHETHER THIS IS AN INTERESTING COMPOUND FROM AN ASSAY POINT OF VIEW BUT ONE YOU ACTUALLY PUT INTO A HUMAN BEING BECAUSE THERE'S ELEMENTS OF THAT AS WELL, ELEGANT ASSAYS WHICH IS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT. >> I THINK AS FAR AS THE QUESTION WE'LL HAVE TO ASK REVIEWERS THAT AGAIN, WHEN WE LOOK AT COMPOUNDS THEY'RE MICROMOLAR OR ISSUES THEY HAVE IN TERMS OF SOLUBILITY IN TERMS OF BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER PENETRATION BUT THEY HAVE A COOL READ OUT AND ASSAY AND THAT'S WHAT THEY COME IN WITH SO WE OUTLINE THIS IS GOING TO HAVE TO INITIALLY SORT OF PROBLEMS BEFORE THIS IS VIABLE TO GO FORWARD. THAT GETS -- THAT TENDS TO GET DONE THROUGH MILESTONES IN THIS PROGRAM AND WE WILL GET WEEDED OUT IF ANY PROBLEMS DON'T GET INVOLVED BEFORE WE GET LATE IND OR WELL BEFORE REACH ANYTHING PRE-CLINICAL SCALE UPS. >> I LIKE THIS NEW FORMAT YOU'RE SEPARATING THE AGENT FROM THE IN SRI STROW ASSAY AND ANIMAL MODEL SO THAT YOU CAN REPLACE AGENT IF THAT FAILS AN EWE EAR NOT PUTTING THE OTHER STEPS FURTHER BEHIND. A SPECIFIC QUESTION ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF BIOMARKERS, DO YOU FOR SEE THAT FALLING UNDER ASSAY DEVELOPMENT? ONE THING THAT YOU ALSO NEED BEYOND THIS BIOMARKER YOU WANT TO START EARLY AND BE TRANSLATIONAL INTO CLINICAL STUDIES AND WHERE DO YOU SEE THAT FIT IN? >> ONE THING BIOMARKER, THERE ARE SPECIFIC BY THE WAY BIOMARKER PROGRAMS IN DISEASE SPECIFIC BIOMARKER PROGRAMS ALREADY EXIST WITHIN THE PORTFOLIO. MORE BROADLY THERAPY DEVELOPMENT BIOMARKERS WE HOPE SOME COME THROUGH THE LAST IN THE PLATFORM TECHNOLOGIES IN TERMS OF THINKING WHAT THAT MIGHT LEAD TO THAT MIGHT BE APPLICABLE IN MULTIPLE SETTINGS. WE CAN DEVELOP THAT. EXPAND GROUP THOUGHT ABOUT BIOMARKER SPACE? >> BIOMARKERS MAY FALL INTO PLATFORM TECHNOLOGIES AS WELL WHICH REALLY ENABLING BROADER DRUG DISCOVERY DEVELOPMENT. >> YOU NEED INITIAL ASSAY DEVELOPMENT AND IT MOVES TO POW DEPENDING ON -- I MEAN IF YOU WANT TO SEAMLESS TRANSITION OF FOLLOWING THE SAME BIOMARKER EARLY ON TO CLINICAL TRIALS. >> WE HAVE LOTS OF IDEAS ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER AS PART OF PLATFORM TECHNOLOGY, HARVESTING TISSUE, VARIOUS MECHANISMINGS TO DO VARIOUS THINGS, THAT ADDRESS BIOMARKERS THAT FALL WITHIN THE PLATFORM TECHNOLOGIES. >> REAL QUICK. BUT REALLY IMPORTANTLY, I THINK LARRY'S COMMENT IS PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE WE CAN'T BE -- LARGE ANIMAL MODELS ARE VERY, VERY IMPORTANT AND WE THINK ABOUT SOME OF THE PITFALLS OF MOVING FROM TISSUE CULTURE BASED STUDIES TO MOUSE STUDIES AND STRAIGHT TO HUMANS AN FAILURES. THERE SHOULD BE SOME NIMBLE MECHANISM TO TALK WITH PROGRAM STAFF ABOUT WHAT'S AN APPROPRIATE BUDGET FOR AN APPROPRIATE DISEASE AND REALLY STRONGLY CONSIDER LARGE ANIMAL MODELS. >> SO NICE JOB I APPLAUD YOUR INCLUSION AND EMPHASIS ON PHARMACODYNAMICS WHICH HAS BEEN SORELY LACKING FROM A LOT OF PROGRAMS. MY QUESTION RELATES TO YOUR IDEAS ABOUT THIS MODULARITY OR FUNGIBILITY OF THIS, YOU MIGHT IMAGINE A SINGLE INVESTIGATOR THAT'S DEVELOPING, I DON'T KNOW, LOWERING AGENT. >> WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? >> MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN A PHARMACODYNAMIC MARKER TO MEASURE HUNTINGTON, THAT PARTICULAR AGENT AS KAREN SAID MIGHT FALL BY THE WAYSIDE BUT IT'S GOOD FOR THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY TO LEVERAGE WHAT THEY DEVELOP. CONVERSELY SOMEBODY ELSE MIGHT JUMP IN LATER STAGE BECAUSE THEY HAVE EXPERTISE IN THAT PART OF THIS PIPELINE. DIFFERENT PEOPLE JUMPENING AND OUT. >> RIGHT ONE THING WE FELT IMPORTANT AS YOU WELL KNOW IS NO ONE LAB OR GROUP EXPERTISE TO DO THE PIECES SO IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT EFFORT TOWARDS A PARTICULAR DISEASE, DIFFERENT GROUPS ASPECTS OUR HOPE PROGRAM MATICALLY WE SEE THAT AND BUILD BRIDGES ACROSS TO SAY LOOK YOU HAVE THE ASSAY, THEY HAVE THE AGENT, THESE GUYS GOT THE BIOMARKER AND MARRIAGE HERE WOULD HELP YOU MOVE FORWARDS A PROJECT OF MUTUAL INTEREST TO EVERYONE AND WE BRING IN THE APPROPRIATE PARTNERS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN F. THAT WOULD MAKE THE APPLICATION STRONGER WHEN THEY COME IN FOR THE STRONGER FUNDING PROGRAMS THAT WOULD BE THE HOPE I THINK. >> I ALSO AGREE WITH BYRON ABOUT THE ANIMAL MODEL BUT I'M ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE PLATFORM TECHNOLOGY. 500 OVER THREE YEARS FOR PLATFORM TECHNOLOGY TO GO ACROSS DIFFERENT DISEASE STATES MAY BE TOO LOW. I WOULD RECOMMEND MORE LIKE TO 250 PER YEAR LIKE IN THE R-2 # FOR THE EARLIER. >> OKAY. WE CAN TAKE THAT BUDGET, THAT COMMENT FOR THE LAST TWO AND THINK MORE ABOUT IT WHEN WE TAKE BACK TO THE GROUP. >> I HAD ONE QUESTION, MOSTLY MY IGNORANCE BUT IS THERE A STANDARD PLATFORM WHICH A NEW AGENT IS VETTED IN PHARMA OR MAYBE BIOINFORMATICALLY, THERE MUST BE SOPHISTICATED TOOLS TO TAKE A PROPOSED AGENT AND MAKE SURE IT'S NOT A LOSER TO BEGIN WITH, DOES EVERYBODY -- IS THERE A STANDARD CRITERIA WHICH THESE THINGS ARE JUDGED? OR IS THAT BUILT IN SOMEHOW? >> THERE ARE SOME BASELINE CRITERIA I THINK ABOUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER IN TERMS OF MOLECULAR WEIGHT OR THOSE THINGS BUT IF YOU'RE THINKING MORE BROADLY, NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN, WHAT ARE YOU THINK SOMETHING >> I'M TALKING A CHEMICAL MOLECULE THAT'S A LOSER. >> I DON'T WANT -- THERE ARE ENOUGH THAT ARE IN THE MARKETPLACE THAT HAVEN'T MET IF RULE OF FIVE. SO IT DEPENDS ON DISEASE, ROUTE OF ADMINISTRATION, DEPENDS MA YOU'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE IN THE CLINIC AND ALL HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THINKING UP FRONT. >> TIME TO BRING THIS TO A CLOSE. WE'RE ASKING FOR CONCEPT CLEARANCE TO MOVE WITH THIS SUITE OF ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT RAJESH DESCRIBED. IS THERE A MOTION? >> MOTION. >> SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR OF THIS GOING FORWARD AND BEING FLESHED OUT? HANDS UP HIGH. >> PUT SOMETHING ON TOP OF YOUR HANDS. STRIKE THAT FROM THE RECORD. ALL OPPOSED. AMITA, ON THE PHONE, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THIS >> I'M OKAY WITH IT. >> ANY ABSTENTIONS? BEN. ARE YOU STILL THERE? >> HE JUST TUNED IN FOR THE R-35 THING. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE ENDS OF CONCEPT CLEARANCE. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK WHILE WE TRANSITION INTO CLOSED SESSION. WE'RE SORT OF COMING DOWN THE HOME STRETCH HERE AND DINNER IS NOT TOO FAR AWAY SO GET UP, GO E DON'T GO TOO FAR. >> COFFEE AND MAYBE SOME FRUIT IF IT'S STILL LEFT IN THE ROOM. >> AND THERE'S MACHINES, VENDING MACHINES.