In 2006 the National Institutes of Health (NIH) established the Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) Program, recognizing the need for a new impetus to encourage clinical and translational research. At the time it was very difficult to translate basic and clinical research into clinical and community practice; making it difficult for individual patients and communities to receive its benefits. Since its creation the CTSA Program has expanded, with 61 sites spread across the nation's academic health centers and other institutions, hoping to provide catalysts and test beds for policies and practices that can benefit clinical and translation research organizations throughout the country. The NIH contracted with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2012 to conduct a study to assess and provide recommendations on appropriateness of the CTSA Program's mission and strategic goals and whether changes were needed. The study was also address the implementation of the program by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) while exploring the CTSA's contributions in the acceleration of the development of new therapeutics. A 13-member committee was established to head this task; the committee had collective expertise in community outreach and engagement, public health and health policy, bioethics, education and training, pharmaceutical research and development, program evaluation, clinical and biomedical research, and child health research. The CTSA Program at NIH: Opportunities for Advancing Clinical and Translational Research is the result of investigations into previous program evaluations and assessments, open-session meetings and conference class, and the review of scientific literature. Overall, the committee believes that the CTSA Program is significant to the advancement of clinical and translational research through its contributions. The Program would benefit from a variety of revisions, however, to make it more efficient and effective.

This report is the twelfth assessment of the National Institutes of Health National Research Service Awards program. The research training needs of the country in basic biomedical, clinical, and behavioral and social sciences are considered. Also included are the training needs of oral health, nursing, and health services research. The report has been broadly constructed to take into account the rapidly evolving national and international health care needs. The past and present are analyzed, and predictions with regard to future needs are presented.

Each year thousands of biomedical and behavioral researchers submit grant applications to the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) for support of their research or research training activities. The majority of these applications are submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). By describing the inner workings of the NIH extramural programs and providing practical information about grant programs and processes, this authoritative work is designed to help investigators gain a more favorable edge in obtaining support for their research proposals. It offers practical insights into a broad spectrum of the basic and clinical research interests of the 21 NIH research granting components, and identifies the various mechanisms of support. Descriptions, guidance, and advice are also provided on specific areas such as how to prepare a grant application; the peer review system, the procedures leading to award decisions, the responsibilities of the NIH staff in managing the review and referral of applications, and managing grant programs. Other extramural policies and procedures are covered such as the appeals system, animal welfare, the privacy act, and research involving human subjects. Legislation, funding, and the NIH budget are also discussed. Written by two former senior-level managers at the National Institutes of Health and current consultants to several USPHS agencies, ^IA Guide to NIH Grant Programs^R is a valuable reference source for members of the biomedical and behavioral research community.

A rising median age at which PhD's receive their first research grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is among the factors forcing academic biomedical researchers to spend longer periods of time before they can set their own research directions and establish there independence. The fear that promising prospective scientists will choose other career paths has raised concerns about the future of biomedical research in the United States. At the request of NIH, the National Academies conducted a study on ways to address these issues. The report recommends that NIH make fostering independence of biomedical researchers an agencywide goal, and that it take steps to provide postdocs and early-career investigators with more financial support for their own research, improve postdoc mentoring and establish programs for new investigators and staff scientists among other mechanisms.