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

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

The past half-century has witnessed a dramatic increase in the scale and complexity of scientific research. The growing scale of science has been accompanied by a shift toward collaborative research, referred to as "team science." Scientific research is increasingly conducted by small teams and larger groups rather than individual investigators, but the challenges of collaboration can slow these teams' progress in achieving their scientific goals. How does a team-based approach work, and how can universities and research institutions support teams? Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science synthesizes and integrates the available research to provide guidance on assembling the science team; leadership, education and professional development for science teams and groups. It also examines institutional and organizational structures and policies to support science teams and identifies areas where further research is needed to help science teams and groups achieve their scientific and translational goals. This report offers major public policy recommendations for science research agencies and policymakers, as well as recommendations for individual scientists, disciplinary associations, and research universities. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science will be of interest to university research administrators, team science leaders, science faculty, and graduate and postdoctoral students.

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