 |
 |
I'm resending this reply to Larry and Michel because I got a message that it hadn't gone through. That's what happens to 'newbies' I guess! NIH has two types of programs: intramural and extramural. They are funded separately in the NIH budgets for each institute (NINDS, NIEHS, etc.) Intramural funds go to projects such as Polymeropoulos et al and their work in identifying and cloning the genetic mutation found in the Contursi kindred last summer. Extramural funds go to everyone else: universities, independent research institutes, etc. I believe that Udall funding would most likely be allocated to both sides, though not necessarily in equal measure. To add a bit more to the NIH picture, the problem is that current funding levels allow only funding of only 1 in 4 grants from senior investigators (i.e., with good track records) which are judged as having sufficient scientific merit to pursue. Grants submitted from more junior people, who used to have a separate track (known as R29s), are only funded in about 1 in 10 cases where sufficient scientific merit exists. In other words, once the various study sections exercise the peer review process, the allocation of actual money falls far short of what is needed. In addition, NIH directors have some ability to set their own agendas with regard to focus areas. THAT is where the directives of the Udall Act and the funding we all want comes in! Carole