- Email: [email protected]
What difference would a national institute of biomedical imaging and bioengineering make? Part 2
Congressional Update: Report from the Academy of Radiology Research
What Difference Would a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Make? Part 21 C. Douglas Maynard, MD, President, Academy of Radiology Research Edward C. Nagy, Executive Director, Academy of Radiology R e s e a r c h
In a recent report from the Academy of Radiology Research (1), we discussed the critical role of the institutes at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in creating research opportunities and directing resources toward specific topics and areas of research. Through the use of Requests for Applications and Program Announcements, the institutes can both chart the course of research in particular fields and apply substantial funds to the support of those fields. This capability to focus ideas and resources is among the primary reasons that a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering 'is needed to advance the fields of medical imaging and bioengineering. At the same time, support for current research will not, by itself, ensure the future of radiology and imaging research. Training future investigators is equally important if imaging research is to be a productive field. Unfortunately, however, the NIH is not organized to train imaging researchers effectively for the future, just as it is not organized to optimize current imaging research. The most important obstacle to effective training of imaging researchers is the structure of the NIH itself. Because the primary missions of the current institutes relate to specific disease processes or organ systems, research training in disciplines such as imaging that have a broad reach and cut across institute boundaries is not generally a high priority. More
Acad Radiol 2000; 7:779-781
1From the Academyof Radiology Research,1029 VermontAve NW, Suite 505, Washington, DC 20005-3517.Receivedand acceptedJuly 12. Address correspondence to E.C.N.
©AUR, 2000
specifically, NIH training grants in imaging are focused primarily on cancer. The most common institutional training grants in imaging are the National Research Award Institutional Research Training Grants, known as T32 grants. These grants provide postdoctoral, and some predoctoral, research training at U.S. and Canadian research institutions. The vast majority of T32 applications involving imaging are reviewed by a study section at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). As a result, applicants from radiology sometimes perceive a need to tailor their T32 applications to emphasize cancer imaging in order to improve their chances of favorable consideration. Indeed, there appears to be a widely held perception in the radiology community that applications for T32 support from institutes other than NCI have little or no chance of success. The fundamental requirements for T32 awards also tend to work against applications from radiology. To receive a T32 grant, an institution must already have a core of NIH-funded researchers. At least in part because of the historical absence of a focus on imaging research at the NIH, this severely limits the number of radiology departments that can qualify in their own right for T32 grants. Consequently, the few T32 grants that are awarded to radiology departments are concentrated in only a small number of institutions. In addition, it is not uncommon for T32 grants to be renewed annually multiple times, often for more than 20 years, with the result that new radiology applications are competing primarily against established grants for funds from institutes whose primary missions are in fields other than imaging. The total impact of these perceived barriers to successful applications for NIH training grants in radiology is unclear. Some observers have argued that the problem is not a lack of opportunity or availability of training awards but rather is the
779
Numbers of Training Grants Active in Each NIH Institute and Major Center
Institute or Center National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National
Cancer Institute Eye Institute Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Human Genome Research Institute Institute on Aging Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Institute of Child Health and Human Development Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Institute on Drug Abuse Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Institute of General Medical Sciences Institute of Mental Health Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Institute of Nursing Research Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Center for Research Resources
Current Active T32 Grants
Active T32 Imaging Grants
145 26 148 8 66 29 118 54 124 26 34 118 27 37 275 156 44 12 1 17
9 1 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 4 0 0 0 0
Soume.--Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects database (3).
small number of applications submitted by radiology departments. In fact, informal analyses of the process indicate that radiology applications are at least as likely to be successful as those from other fields. The number of radiologic applications is simply smaller. In addition, it is important to recognize that , the NCI, under the leadership of the Biomedical Imaging Program, is working to expand opportunities for research training in cancer imaging (2). Given these circumstances, some would argue that creative applicants who team with funded researchers from departments other than radiology, who focus their applications on cancer imaging, and who consider the entire range of training awards available at the NIH can be successful in securing support under the present system. Nevertheless, it is clear that research training in imaging has not flourished under the current structure, particularly in comparison to other fields. The Table contains the number of institutional training grants currently active in each institute and major center at the NIH. It also indicates the number of those T32 awards that are considered by the NIH to be related to imaging. These data were compiled from the Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP) database (3), which is available on the NIH Internet site. Some of the specific statistics are at variance with current information provided by the NCI, but we have used the CRISP numbers to allow the inclusion of statistics from all the institutes. The Table illustrates two important points. First, NIH institutional training grants are an important component of
780
the research programs in most disciplines. Second, training grants in imaging account for a small part of the total grant portfolio. Moreover, even these statistics for imaging are overstated. The numbers in the Table were generated by inserting "imaging" as a search term in CRISP and therefore include all grants that the institutes identify as imaging awards. This would include grants to departments other than radiology and for training that involves imaging but may be focused primarily, or in large part, on other fields. According to other NIH statistics, only 11 T32 grants were awarded to radiology departments for training in diagnostic radiology in fiscal year 1999. These 11 were concentrated in six institutions. Whatever the causes of the low level of NIH-supported training in imaging, this is a problem that could have a profound effect on the future of diagnostic radiology. The current system is not adequate to ensure a strong base of qualified investigators. A National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering would contribute to solving this problem in several ways. First, an institute would have the capability of awarding grants for training that focus on imaging science rather than on the application of imaging to particular diseases or organ systems. A program of grants could be developed by imaging experts to train the investigators who will advance the various fields that make up imaging science. Second, creation of an institute dedicated to imaging research would do much to eliminate the existing perception that training grant applications in imaging have little chance of
successful consideration. Whether this perception is fully justified or not, it has had the effect of discouraging radiology applicants and thus reducing the involvement of radiology departments in NIH-supported training. Third, an institute would possess sufficient status to foster collaborative training programs with other institutes where appropriate. The future of imaging, and all medicine for that matter, is likely to be increasingly multidisciplinary, but the existing institutes often have little incentive to fund training programs that are not solely focused on the disease or organ system missions of those institutes. With the support of an institute, imaging scientists could establish true partnerships with other institutes rather than remain completely dependent on those institutes for support. In the final analysis, a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering is needed to provide the same training opportunities for radiologists and imaging scientists
that are available in other disciplines. This field has been remarkably productive even in the current system, but more rapid and far-reaching advances are possible. By training future investigators more effectively, a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering would contribute to the creation of a continuing and growing scientific culture in imaging that will make those advances possible. :~EFERENCE
1. Maynard CD, Nagy EC. What difference would a national institute of biomedical imaging and btoengineermg make? Acad Radiol 2000; 7:586-588. 2. Hoffman JM, Staab EV, Begg L, Croft BY, Menkens AE, Sullivan DC. Training the next generation of imaging scientists and clinicians. Acad Radio12000; 7:678-680. 3. Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects [database online]. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health, 2000. Accessed: July 5-12, 2000.
781
What Difference Would a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Make? Part 21 C. Douglas Maynard, MD, President, Academy of Radiology Research Edward C. Nagy, Executive Director, Academy of Radiology R e s e a r c h
In a recent report from the Academy of Radiology Research (1), we discussed the critical role of the institutes at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in creating research opportunities and directing resources toward specific topics and areas of research. Through the use of Requests for Applications and Program Announcements, the institutes can both chart the course of research in particular fields and apply substantial funds to the support of those fields. This capability to focus ideas and resources is among the primary reasons that a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering 'is needed to advance the fields of medical imaging and bioengineering. At the same time, support for current research will not, by itself, ensure the future of radiology and imaging research. Training future investigators is equally important if imaging research is to be a productive field. Unfortunately, however, the NIH is not organized to train imaging researchers effectively for the future, just as it is not organized to optimize current imaging research. The most important obstacle to effective training of imaging researchers is the structure of the NIH itself. Because the primary missions of the current institutes relate to specific disease processes or organ systems, research training in disciplines such as imaging that have a broad reach and cut across institute boundaries is not generally a high priority. More
Acad Radiol 2000; 7:779-781
1From the Academyof Radiology Research,1029 VermontAve NW, Suite 505, Washington, DC 20005-3517.Receivedand acceptedJuly 12. Address correspondence to E.C.N.
©AUR, 2000
specifically, NIH training grants in imaging are focused primarily on cancer. The most common institutional training grants in imaging are the National Research Award Institutional Research Training Grants, known as T32 grants. These grants provide postdoctoral, and some predoctoral, research training at U.S. and Canadian research institutions. The vast majority of T32 applications involving imaging are reviewed by a study section at the National Cancer Institute (NCI). As a result, applicants from radiology sometimes perceive a need to tailor their T32 applications to emphasize cancer imaging in order to improve their chances of favorable consideration. Indeed, there appears to be a widely held perception in the radiology community that applications for T32 support from institutes other than NCI have little or no chance of success. The fundamental requirements for T32 awards also tend to work against applications from radiology. To receive a T32 grant, an institution must already have a core of NIH-funded researchers. At least in part because of the historical absence of a focus on imaging research at the NIH, this severely limits the number of radiology departments that can qualify in their own right for T32 grants. Consequently, the few T32 grants that are awarded to radiology departments are concentrated in only a small number of institutions. In addition, it is not uncommon for T32 grants to be renewed annually multiple times, often for more than 20 years, with the result that new radiology applications are competing primarily against established grants for funds from institutes whose primary missions are in fields other than imaging. The total impact of these perceived barriers to successful applications for NIH training grants in radiology is unclear. Some observers have argued that the problem is not a lack of opportunity or availability of training awards but rather is the
779
Numbers of Training Grants Active in Each NIH Institute and Major Center
Institute or Center National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National National
Cancer Institute Eye Institute Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Human Genome Research Institute Institute on Aging Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases Institute of Child Health and Human Development Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Institute on Drug Abuse Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Institute of General Medical Sciences Institute of Mental Health Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke Institute of Nursing Research Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine Center for Research Resources
Current Active T32 Grants
Active T32 Imaging Grants
145 26 148 8 66 29 118 54 124 26 34 118 27 37 275 156 44 12 1 17
9 1 3 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 5 4 0 0 0 0
Soume.--Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects database (3).
small number of applications submitted by radiology departments. In fact, informal analyses of the process indicate that radiology applications are at least as likely to be successful as those from other fields. The number of radiologic applications is simply smaller. In addition, it is important to recognize that , the NCI, under the leadership of the Biomedical Imaging Program, is working to expand opportunities for research training in cancer imaging (2). Given these circumstances, some would argue that creative applicants who team with funded researchers from departments other than radiology, who focus their applications on cancer imaging, and who consider the entire range of training awards available at the NIH can be successful in securing support under the present system. Nevertheless, it is clear that research training in imaging has not flourished under the current structure, particularly in comparison to other fields. The Table contains the number of institutional training grants currently active in each institute and major center at the NIH. It also indicates the number of those T32 awards that are considered by the NIH to be related to imaging. These data were compiled from the Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects (CRISP) database (3), which is available on the NIH Internet site. Some of the specific statistics are at variance with current information provided by the NCI, but we have used the CRISP numbers to allow the inclusion of statistics from all the institutes. The Table illustrates two important points. First, NIH institutional training grants are an important component of
780
the research programs in most disciplines. Second, training grants in imaging account for a small part of the total grant portfolio. Moreover, even these statistics for imaging are overstated. The numbers in the Table were generated by inserting "imaging" as a search term in CRISP and therefore include all grants that the institutes identify as imaging awards. This would include grants to departments other than radiology and for training that involves imaging but may be focused primarily, or in large part, on other fields. According to other NIH statistics, only 11 T32 grants were awarded to radiology departments for training in diagnostic radiology in fiscal year 1999. These 11 were concentrated in six institutions. Whatever the causes of the low level of NIH-supported training in imaging, this is a problem that could have a profound effect on the future of diagnostic radiology. The current system is not adequate to ensure a strong base of qualified investigators. A National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering would contribute to solving this problem in several ways. First, an institute would have the capability of awarding grants for training that focus on imaging science rather than on the application of imaging to particular diseases or organ systems. A program of grants could be developed by imaging experts to train the investigators who will advance the various fields that make up imaging science. Second, creation of an institute dedicated to imaging research would do much to eliminate the existing perception that training grant applications in imaging have little chance of
successful consideration. Whether this perception is fully justified or not, it has had the effect of discouraging radiology applicants and thus reducing the involvement of radiology departments in NIH-supported training. Third, an institute would possess sufficient status to foster collaborative training programs with other institutes where appropriate. The future of imaging, and all medicine for that matter, is likely to be increasingly multidisciplinary, but the existing institutes often have little incentive to fund training programs that are not solely focused on the disease or organ system missions of those institutes. With the support of an institute, imaging scientists could establish true partnerships with other institutes rather than remain completely dependent on those institutes for support. In the final analysis, a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering is needed to provide the same training opportunities for radiologists and imaging scientists
that are available in other disciplines. This field has been remarkably productive even in the current system, but more rapid and far-reaching advances are possible. By training future investigators more effectively, a National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering would contribute to the creation of a continuing and growing scientific culture in imaging that will make those advances possible. :~EFERENCE
1. Maynard CD, Nagy EC. What difference would a national institute of biomedical imaging and btoengineermg make? Acad Radiol 2000; 7:586-588. 2. Hoffman JM, Staab EV, Begg L, Croft BY, Menkens AE, Sullivan DC. Training the next generation of imaging scientists and clinicians. Acad Radio12000; 7:678-680. 3. Computer Retrieval of Information on Scientific Projects [database online]. Bethesda, Md: National Institutes of Health, 2000. Accessed: July 5-12, 2000.
781