Dr. Charles W. Shilling
DR. SHILLING'S presentation was divided into two sections.
One on
the research evaluation and contract procedures and the second on
the plans for establishing programmatic categories
DBM RESEARCH
PROGRAM
EVALUATION
both of which had resulted from inquiries and suggestions made by the ACEM at previous meetings. The
principal points covered by DR. SHILLING are given
in Appendix A. He explained the major changes being
made to previous methods of evaluating research contracts.
1.
Contracts valued at $10,000 and under, of which
there are very many, are being presented to the regular research
meetings in a different manner.
After review of such proposals
by all branches, the contracts are presented to the Research
Committee only if questions have been raised or if the Branch
having jurisdiction requests it. Contract renewals in this
class are reviewed by the Committee only at the third, sixth,
and ninth renewal, unless specifically requested.
In presenting
contract proposals before the Committee, more attention will be
paid to its overall integration in the entire program. Advisors
or referees assisting in the evaluation may be invited to attend.
DR. BURNETT and DR. GLASS raised questions about the use of categories
and about advisory and referee groups.
It was stated that there
are plans to set up definite committees of referees for each major
category.
These will consist of two or three consultants which will
visit major contractors together with DBM representatives and assist
in evaluating each separate program.
In response to questions by
DR. BUGHER and DR. BURNETT, it was explained that such groups would
be purely advisory and decisions would be made by the ACBM staff.
DR. SHILLING concluded by giving a breakdown of the number of current
research contracts as follows:
204 of $10,000 and under
197 ef $10,000 to $25,000
37 of $25,000 to $50,000
24 of $50,000 and over.
DR. GLASS raised a@ question about the contract with Dr. Neel of the
University of Michigan which was recentiy approved for renewal for
a very brief period after which another application was received for
a fourteen-month period at a considerably higher degree of support.
This was explained by DR. SHILLING and DR. EMERSON as being a tech-
nicality because of the fact the type of contract was changed to a
cost reimbursement contract which had to be renewed on the first of
October together with the fact that this department was moved into
another building with plans for increasing the staff considerably.
It was pointed out that Michigan now has a department of human
genetics in the medical school, the first one in the United States.
DR. SHILLING indicated that the formalization of the advisory group