Quality in research requires more than rigorous review; it requires individual talent. It is vital that the NCI IRP sustain and regularly renew its scientific talent, through measures to encourage the creativity, independence, and welfare of its current staff, and through vigorous recruitment to fill vacancies.
There are reasons to believe that the NCI IRP could readily meet the objectives of rigorous recruitment and support of intellectual talent. First, the appointment to tenure track in the IRP offers attractive resources to young investigators. The IRP should be able to exploit this in the recruitment of new doctoral-level staff. Second, the leadership of the IRP has been subject to at least a modicum of surveillance over the stewardship of talent and resources. Third, there have been recent and laudable grass-root initiatives directed toward the encouragement of doctoral-level careers for women and minorities underrepresented in the sciences.
Despite areas of excellence, the Working Group found deficiencies in the recruitment and sustenance of individual scientists throughout the NCI IRP. Perhaps the most troubling finding was a broad dissatisfaction with the general ethos within the intramural community. Scientists reported a hierarchical approach to research that is both intimidating and limiting to the development of independent investigators. Examples of this were found among section, laboratory, and branch chiefs. While this problem is not universal, it appears to be alarmingly prevalent, and seems to have escaped remedy by the division directors. As a consequence, at least some scientists find their independence repressed, or at least discouraged, and creativity is secondary to the programmatic needs of superiors.
The Working Group recognizes that the mission of the IRP includes research that requires a team effort. But there is no substitute for the creativity of individual scientists in the long term, and some portions of the IRP seem to have lost sight of this principle. Arguments in support of the hierarchical approach to research within the IRP appear to be self-serving.
Similarly, the NCI IRP has used poor practice in recruiting new scientists. Like any other research organization, the IRP, in order to remain competitive and on the cutting edge, must constantly renew its store of intellect and ideas through aggressive, rigorous, and open recruitment of new talent. Although recommendations of the EAC regarding recruitment have already been implemented, the Working Group found evidence that all efforts are not being made to recruit young investigators with potential for independent research careers. Advertisements for tenure-track positions appear to be very narrow and designed to fulfill and sustain technical needs within existing programs. Vacancies at all levels have usually been filled by resident staff rather than through recruitment from the outside research community. This practice has led to an inbreeding of attitudes and failure to tap the full pool of biomedical talent available.
Once recruited, intramural scientists should be provided the opportunity to work in a setting that rewards excellence and creativity. The Working Group strongly endorses the new NIH-wide tenure policy which utilizes the judgment of senior NIH scientists rather than administrators. The system will have to be evaluated after some time, but the structure seems appropriate to meet previous concerns regarding arbitrariness, failure to recognize truly independent investigators, and the entrenchment of a reward system that favored those who followed the direction of laboratory chiefs rather than their own research paths.
The Working Group found little evidence of stewardship review at all levels of administration from laboratory chiefs to the Institute director. The current system permits dominance of laboratory chiefs in the scientific, budgetary, personnel, and operational issues faced by an independent investigator. This unchecked power allows laboratory chiefs to direct scientific operations toward their own line of research, thereby hindering the career development of independent investigators. There is little accountability required for administrative actions and too little attention paid to the role of laboratory chiefs in career development of junior faculty. Appointments to laboratory chief are rarely revoked. Individual investigators, particularly junior scientists, have limited opportunities to expand their research portfolios and increase their resources beyond those allowed and approved by senior management.
The Working Group believes strongly that the independence of investigators can never be fully realized until all tenure-track and tenured junior faculty have independent annual budget authority and are given the opportunity to compete for additional funds to develop new ideas.
Despite recent efforts across the NIH IRP to improve tenure and stewardship review, the Working Group identified lingering concerns. In particular, the new tenure system has been greeted with resistance by some IRP supervisors. In addition, some IRP staff expressed concern that the new tenure system would not recognize the special difficulties that arise when research requires a team approach.
Finally, the NCI has historically paid inadequate attention to the barriers confronting women and underrepresented minorities in pursuing research careers within the IRP. Recent studies have shown that women and minorities generally enter the IRP at lower salary and that their career paths have a lower trajectory throughout their time in the IRP. Inequities at the lowest entry levels almost predestine an adverse outcome, for it is this early period in which the junior scientist must establish a track record, which will then justify additional resources and opportunities for advancement.
The Working group views these deficiencies in renewing and sustaining talent with great concern. They may represent the largest barrier to achieving and preserving excellence in the IRP.
The Working Group encountered within the IRP an environment that is not conducive to independence on the part of younger scientists. The Working Group also confirmed the EAC findings that the IRP has failed to recruit new talent vigorously and that its policies for promotion of scientists have lacked rigor. In order to fulfill its mission, the IRP must consistently seek to renew its intellectual capital. Its scientists should be provided the opportunity to work in a setting that encourages independence and rewards both creativity and excellence. To sustain and renew talent in the IRP, the Working Group recommends the following.
The funds should be used to develop new ideas and pilot programs with no programmatic specification. Funding should be considered supplemental to the investigator s programmatic research budget. It would become the responsibility of the investigator, with neither the competitively awarded funds nor the base funds available for reprogramming by the section or laboratory chief.
Should the grants program prove successful, the NCI might consider making the competition available to all intramural NIH scientists conducting research relevant to cancer.