SEP 6 1977

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH
BETHESDA, MARYLAND 20014

September 1, 1977

 

Dr. Joshua Lederberg

Department of Genetics

Stanford University School of Medicine
Stanford, California 94305

Dear Dr. Lederberg:

Thank you for your letter of August 10, which informs us that you plan to
submit an application for the February 1, 1978 deadline. There is, of
course, and as you recognize, some risk to you in this later submission,
since review would only be completed some seven months prior to the lapse

of the current project period. In the case of an adverse review, this could
result in some loss of continuity of funding, since there would not be
enough time to compete for alternate sources of funds. Nevertheless, I do
agree that the advantage of submitting a superior application may well
outweigh that risk.

I also agree that you may qualify for a Genetics Research Center. To this
end, I am enclosing a separate covering letter which we are now sending to
center grant applicants, along with some draft versions of instructions on
the preparation of center grant applications. I am also enclosing the
“General Guidelines for NIGMS Center Grants" and "NIGMS Genetic Centers:
Intention, Prerequisites, and Guidelines". Note particularly that we con-
sider it extremely important that we review a draft application well in
advance of formal submission to the Division of Research Grants.

I would like to make an additional point since I was struck by the phrase

in your letter that your group "might be able to qualify for recognition

as a Genetics Research Center" (underlining is mine). Although I realize
that the designation of NIGMS Genetics Center has, in the minds of some,
been felt to be a mark of special recognition for excellence, we ourselves
have never really felt that way about them. Rather, we think of them as an
appropriate response to a special set of circumstances which include a marked
amount of collaboration among the center participants, and one or a few
scientific foci and common themes. Furthermore, we would wish to see both
clinical and "model-systems oriented" research represented and some evidence
of potential for cross-fertilization. Finally, the separate projects must
be of a quality that would make them competitive with research projects
reviewed individually by study sections.

Any group of investigators that can meet these criteria is eligible to

apply for a center. Note that some of the better U.S. genetics groups have
never applied for a center. Other applicants have failed as centers, even
though the specific individuals applying were, in the opinions of the reviewers,
2

outstanding. The circumstances, however, were such that individual awards
made more sense than one large Genetics Center award. In summary, a center
grant is not a "prestige" award; it is merely a mechanism of funding a group
of people which makes good sense to our reviewers, and to our Institute.

Le me discuss some other aspects of your letter:

The Primary Responsibilities of the Principal Investigator for Program
Leadership: Let me start with a quote from one of the documents I sent you:

"Since several departments, both basic and clinical, generally
will be involved, there must be a center director of sufficient
stature to be a recognized and effective leader, supported by
an appropriate administrative structure, appointed and given
the responsibility and appropriate authority to administer the
program. The administrative structure needs to be clearly
delineated. The director may operate with advice of a scien-
tific advisory committee but responsibility of the program by

a committee is not desirable."

Le me enlarge on that statement: The funding of such centers implies
flexibility in shifting ideas, experiments, and funds as some projects
decrease in relative significance in relation to others (possibly this
can even include new and presently unanticipated projects within the
scope and mission of the Center, and the funds available.) Leadership
in implementing such use of funds for maximum effectiveness is expected
of the Center Director. He may rely on the advice of a committee, but
the final responsibility for performance is his.

In other words, I feel that the Center Director is not fulfilling his
function if he acts solely as a disbursing agent for predetermined sets

of funds. I therefore agree to the comment in your letter that funds
allocated for specific projects are "understood to be points of departure,
rather than firm commitments of resource allocation throughout the life

of the grant." However, let me also emphasize that this sort of flexibility
is one of degree: One person's flexibility may be another's flaccidity.
Although rebudgeting between projects, and initiation or termination of

some efforts is implicit in the center grant mechanism, it is also important
that very marked changes of direction or effort between reviews be done with
the understanding and consent of Institute staff. This, of course, implies
a better-than-average exchange of information. Proposals or plans for very
marked deviations should, I feel, require interim administrative review.

The premise that the program project or center should be directed to core
support for shared, interdisciplinary and innovative activities, leaving

to the submission of individual research proposals those efforts that have
reached the point of maturity, so they can be effectively reviewed that way:
As you know, I did have some problems with understanding precisely what you
had in mind here, and thus called you up. I gather that you are saying that
3

there are some ongoing projects that are funded under other auspices, and
that will not be included in the application. There are some new projects
which, you feel, can be very competitive and receive favorable review.

These will require some shared core facilities which will also be requested.
All this seems reasonable. The important thing here is that the reviewers
and the Institute get a feel of the degree of commitment of every one con-
cerned to the aims of the program-project or center, as compared to other
research obligations. To this end, the table of "other support” and the
time/effort figures are often examined and discussed by the reviewers.

I think another thing to keep in mind is that the "Center" as an intellectual
environment and focus for related investigations may be far larger than the
"Center" as a funding instrument. Some applications therefore include a
descriptive section on related activities, by center participants and their
associates, for which no funds are requested by which may contribute to the
overall environment.

The Current Status and Authorization of the Genetics Center Efforts. Is
this a Credible Objective to Aspire to? The answer is yes. In the

past year, a number of the Genetics Centers which started some four years
ago had their first re~review. Some did not survive, either because of the
quality of the individual projects, or because of problems with leadership
or cohesion. Unfortunately, we have noted that this has engendered some
rumors that NIGMS "was getting out of the Centers business". We are not,
and, in fact, most of the clinical research in Genetics and a lot of model-
systems oriented research of our program continues to be supported by

the Genetics Centers. However, we do insist that there be no compromise
with quality in comparison to research funded by the individual project
grants.

 

I am pleased that you plan to be in close touch with us as your plans proceed,
and look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Fred H. neoun Ph.D.

Program Director, Genetics
National Institute of
General Medical Sciences

Enclosures: Letter to Lederberg, 8/29/77 (draft instructions)
General Guidelines, NIGMS Research Center Grants
NIGMS Genetics Centers: Intention, Prerequisites & Guidelines