Trends in program project grant funding at the National Cancer Institute.
In summary, analysis of the P01 program indicates that differences exist in scores and funding requirements between purely basic and translational P01s; P01 funding has been stable and the P01 policies consistent; growth in average costs for P01s has lagged compared to R01s; P01 grantees have a higher success rate than R01 grantees; priority score compression reduces the P01 payline without reducing the number of grants funded; exception funding in P01s expands the number of grants awarded and helps to meet the scientific program needs of the NCI; almost all R01 and P01 applications in the first quartile are funded; comparably ranked R01s and P01s are funded at equivalent percentages of recommended funding levels; the percentage of approved funds awarded declines as scores for R01s and P01s become less favorable. Because the resources available are finite, the NCI carefully considers the competing demands for RPG funds. On balance, however, the P01 program is still in good health. In combination with the other methods we use to make RPG awards, the P01 program is a vital component of our research grant program. Faced with budget realities, however, some difficult decisions have to be made. The NCI is open to suggestions on how to distribute research funds to best promote cancer research throughout the country. The NCI is particularly interested in hearing researchers' perceptions of problems so that, whenever it is appropriate, we can modify our course. There are important questions to consider for the future. Should there be greater or lesser use of RFAs in allocating resources for P01 grants? What algorithm optimally distributes resources among R01s, P01s, and other funding instruments in the RPGs? Should exceptions be used more or less heavily in the P01 funding process? Should other grant programs outside the RPG budget, such as the P50 SPORE program, be used to relieve pressures on the P01 budget? Should the number of projects within P01s be limited? How can peer review groups be given opportunities to provide priority scores that better reflect distinguishable differences in highly meritorious P01s? Should P01 scores be normalized? How could the R01 percentile concept be applied to P01s? How can the results from standing study sections be synchronized with results from ad hoc review groups? What changes in peer review procedures would promote equitable score distributions and budget recommendations across years? How can the NCI provide stability for established P01s without impinging on the ability of new P01s to enter the system?(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
Broder
S
S
National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
Cushing
M
M
D005380:Financing, Government / Q000379:methods / Q000639:trends*; D009316:National Institutes of Health (U.S.); D009369:Neoplasms / Q000191:economics*; D012109:Research Support as Topic / Q000379:methods / Q000639:trends*; D014481:United States