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.

1. The role of the laboratory and branch chiefs should be defined more explicitly. The Working Group views them as comparable to department chairs in academic settings. In that light, they should encourage and facilitate the independent development of the scientists under their supervision.

2. Stewardship reviews of laboratory and branch chiefs and scientific directors should be conducted by extramural committees selected by the BSC Chair and the NCI DDIR. Reviews should consider each individual in terms of success in recruitment and mentoring, and in fostering the career development of independent investigators, the professional welfare of women and underrepresented minorities in the program, and the equitable allocation of funds. The reviews should be separate from any assessment of research performance and should seek the views of all individuals who are under the authority of the supervisor.

3. The Working Group recommends that laboratory and branch chiefs and scientific directors be appointed for renewable terms of five years. If a stewardship review is adverse, it should be repeated after one year. Two poor reviews would be cause for removal from the supervisory position.

4. The Working Group strongly supports the implementation of the new tenure system in the IRP and is confident that it will allow proper advancement of basic and clinical scientists.

5. Recruitment of excellent scientists at all levels of the IRP should be vigorously conducted, and competitions for positions should be fully open to scientists in the intramural and extramural communities. Primary consideration should be given to the abilities of the individual, rather than to fulfilling a particular need of the laboratory, branch, or section chief.

6. Independent investigators, tenure track and above, should receive fully specified budgets at the beginning of each fiscal year and should have full control over those budgets throughout the year. Any necessary rescissions over the course of a year should be accomplished in an equitable manner.

7. The Working Group believes that the NCI IRP should develop a cadre of talented young scientists who would establish their careers as independent investigators, but move on from the IRP to other institutions within three to five years. As a first effort, the Working Group suggests the establishment of an NCI Distinguished Fellows program, with awards made through a well-advertised national competition. The program would fund as many as 10 young investigators per year, with terms of no more than five years. Fellows would establish research groups of three to five individuals within select laboratories and branches. The program would be administered by the DDIR of NCI.

8. The Working Group recommends that NCI set aside approximately $3 million annually for an open grants competition within the IRP of NCI. An average of 30 three-year awards of $100,000 could be made for research above and beyond that already being conducted in accordance with the programs reviewed by the BSCs. Review of proposals could be conducted by a trans-NIH committee administered by the DDIR of NCI. The awards would be intended primarily for young investigators, but available to any tenure-track or tenured investigator.

   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.

9. The Working Group recommends establishing a program targeted for recruitment of women and minorities at all levels, and endorses plans to include women and minority representatives on search committees for tenure-track and tenured scientists. Suitable examples for recruitment plans can be found in the measures required of extramural training grants.

10. The Working Group recommends developing programs of mentoring for women and minority scientists within the IRP.

11. The Working Group urges that the stewardship review of laboratory and branch chiefs and scientific directors address issues of recruitment and advancement of women and minority scientists. There have been laudable efforts to examine the welfare of minority and women scientists throughout NIH and NCI. These efforts have generated explicit recommendations regarding stewardship and stewardship review. The recommendations of those reports could be easily implemented through the review of stewardship recommended above.

12. An ombudsperson should be appointed by the DDIR of NCI to deal with career advancement (as well as other concerns of women and underrepresented minorities) and administrative issues.