Abstract
Translational research conducted in academic health centers is confounded by the organizational structure in which the work is performed. Investigators must obtain research funding and appropriate recognition as a part of a research team in a not-for-profit environment which has more readily rewarded basic work, and individual accomplishments. What results is a unique form of conflict of interest, best understood by relating the basic principles underlying the not-for-profit form to the conduct of translational research in the AHC setting.
Highlights
In his classic article entitled "On the Folly of Rewarding A while Hoping for B", Kerr outlines a common phenomenon in organizational management and behavior [1]
Translational Research and Contract Failure in Academic Health Centers (AHC) If the research mission of AHC is to make basic discoveries which are translated into advantage for maintaining or improving human health, does contract failure exist for the translational research mission? Stakeholders cannot judge the quality of scientific research conducted by individual investigators, nor can they readily determine the likelihood that advances will be translated into new diagnostics, therapeutics or preventative strategies
While the administrative conditions for the award are set by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), while budget allocations to individual institutes or for particular initiatives do influence the scope of the funded research, and while NIH program officers have some discretion in insuring that grant awards fulfill program goals, it is not even clear that budget allocations faithfully match the burden of disease or government intent [15,16,17]
Summary
In his classic article entitled "On the Folly of Rewarding A while Hoping for B", Kerr outlines a common phenomenon in organizational management and behavior [1]. Stakeholders (the public) cannot judge the quality of scientific research conducted by individual investigators, nor can they readily determine the likelihood that advances will be translated into new diagnostics, therapeutics or preventative strategies By these criteria, the conditions for contract failure are met. While the administrative conditions for the award are set by the NIH, while budget allocations to individual institutes or for particular initiatives do influence the scope of the funded research, and while NIH program officers have some discretion in insuring that grant awards fulfill program goals, it is not even clear that budget allocations faithfully match the burden of disease or government intent [15,16,17] These considerations are not meant to call into question the rigor or validity of the review process, both of which are held in high regard. While detailed lists of recommendations [22] are beyond the scope of this manuscript, selected budgetary policies are reflective of the philosophy: a.) crediting a percentage of indirect costs from all projects to support cross departmental infrastructure for IDR, b.) providing seed money, staff and space to support IDR, c.) creating a campus-wide inventory of equipment to enhance sharing of across facilities
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
