|
Session Title: Approaches to Biomedical Research and Development Portfolio Analysis: Examples From the National Institutes of Health
|
|
Panel Session 233 to be held in Malibu on Thursday, Nov 3, 8:00 AM to 9:30 AM
|
|
Sponsored by the Research, Technology, and Development Evaluation TIG
|
| Chair(s): |
| James Corrigan, National Institutes of Health, corrigan@mail.nih.gov
|
| Abstract:
Analyses of complex portfolios of funded biomedical research are essential to program planning, progress monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment. Such analyses can be based on existing data, newly developed data, or some combination of the two. In the absence of a single comprehensive method or data source, analyses commonly combine multiple methods and data sources to supply converging evidence on the nature and impact of funding agency R&D portfolios. Examples of portfolio analysis methods addressing the following questions will be presented:
- What role has our sponsored research played in recognized basic and clinical scientific advances?
- What major scientific advances might have been lost if our portfolio was reduced by various amounts?
- What new technologies (e.g., drugs, biomarkers) are linked to our funded portfolio?
- How might we expand our portfolio analyses with new data to more completely represent the universe of funded research in our subject area(s)?
|
|
Identifying the Role of Funded Research in Pivotal Cancer Research Advances
|
| Brian Zuckerman, Science and Technology Policy Institute, bzuckerm@ida.org
|
| James Corrigan, National Institutes of Health, corrigan@mail.nih.gov
|
| Seth Jonas, Science and Technology Policy Institute, sjonas@ida.org
|
| Lawrence Solomon, National Institutes of Health, solomonl@mail.nih.gov
|
|
Approaches to assessing longer-term outcomes of cancer research can include identifying the relative roles of various funders and funding mechanisms in those advances considered by experts to be pivotal. The meaning of "pivotal" in biomedical research includes both scientific importance, as measured by discoveries that form the basis for new lines of research, and clinical relevance. Analyses were conducted focusing on approaches to cancer research. The six special articles in the "Clinical Cancer Advances" series of the Journal of Clinical Oncology ("JCO", issues published in 2005-2010) were analyzed to determine sources of support for the "Major advances" (advances with potential to lead to decreases in mortality) and "Notable research" accomplished in the previous year. In the second activity, a 2006 Nature special article identifying 24 milestones in cancer research in order to "highlight the most influential discoveries in the field of cancer over the past century" was analyzed.
|
|
|
Estimating the Impact of Hypothetical Portfolio Reductions on Production of Major Discoveries Funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
|
| Kevin Wright, National Institutes of Health, wrightk@mail.nih.gov
|
| Brandie Taylor, National Institutes of Health, taylorbr@mail.nih.gov
|
| Jamie Mihoko Doyle, Science and Technology Policy Institute, jdoyle@ida.org
|
| Brian Zuckerman, Science and Technology Policy Institute, bzuckerm@ida.org
|
|
There is a reasonable probability that Federal science funding in the United States is entering a period of budgetary stringency. While declining real science funding is certain to decrease the rate of scientific output, one question is whether there will be an impact on highly important and transformative scientific discoveries. One mechanism for estimating the potential impact of reduced real funding is to use scenario analysis that engages in the counterfactual of what might have happened were successful grant applications not funded -and to identify the subsequent discoveries that may not have come to fruition had fewer awards been available. To conduct this counterfactual analysis, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of the largest Institutes at the NIH, sponsored an assessment of the relationship between the reviewed scores of funded awards and major discoveries. Results from this analysis are presented along with accompanying assumptions and limitations.
| |
|
Using Multiple Methods and Data Sources to Analyze Complex Cancer Research Portfolios
|
| Joshua Schnell, Thomson Reuters, joshua.schnell@thomsonreuters.com
|
| Elizabeth Hsu, National Institutes of Health, hsuel@mail.nih.gov
|
| James Corrigan, National Institutes of Health, corrigan@mail.nih.gov
|
| Sandeep Patel, Thomson Reuters, sandeep.patel@thomsonreuters.com
|
| Lauren Taffe, Thomson Reuters, lauren.taffe@thomsonreuters.com
|
|
The National Cancer Institute's (NCI) Office of Science Planning and Assessment (OSPA) is a central resource for evaluation and assessment support to NCI programs. OSPA has explored multiple approaches to assessing NCI-sponsored projects and related outcomes. Methodology and findings will be reported from multiple projects assessing different research portfolios and subsequent outputs and impacts on the research enterprise and the development of health interventions. Studies presented will include: 1. an analysis of NCI's support of drug development using data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Orange Book, US Patent and Trademark Office patent data and NIH project data; 2. an evaluation of NCI's support for the development of breast cancer related biomarkers, and 3. an analysis that combines data from the International Cancer Research Portfolio (ICRP) and the Web of Science, providing insight into the challenges of evaluating a complex portfolio sponsored by different funders.
| |