Clinical and Translational Science Awards: Can They Increase the Efficiency and Speed of Clinical and Translational Research?

Most agree that the recent decades-long boom in biomedical research discoveries has not had a sufficient effect on the public's health. To overcome some of the barriers to speeding clinical and translational (C/T) research, the National Institutes of Health has established the Institutional Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA). To explore whether the CTSA proposal addresses major C/T barriers and whether funded institutions offer adequate solutions, the authors reviewed the obstacles to C/T research described in the literature and examined the completeness of the solutions offered by the 12 initial CTSA awardees. Through an analysis of the literature, the authors categorized C/T barriers into three categories (research workforce, research operations, and organizational silos). They then analyzed each CTSA proposal regarding the types of programs offered to address these barriers. They found that, in general, institutions developed detailed programs to address research workforce and research operations barriers but had limited to no solutions for organizational silos. The authors suggest that differences in how barriers are addressed are consistent with the degree of control that CTSA centers have over these obstacles and solutions. They argue that although CTSA centers might have an important role in successfully addressing some of the barriers to C/T research, CTSA centers might ultimately have difficulties achieving their purported goal of facilitating and increasing the efficiency and speed of C/T research because of a lack of control over solutions to some important obstacles facing such research.

[1]  J. Pober,et al.  Obstacles facing translational research in academic medical centers , 2001, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[2]  Lynn Morrison The CTSAs, the Congress, and the Scientific Method , 2008, Journal of Investigative Medicine.

[3]  D. Rhoten Interdisciplinary research: Trend or transition , 2004 .

[4]  W. Hait Translating Research into Clinical Practice: Deliberations from the American Association for Cancer Research , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[5]  J. Ioannidis Materializing research promises: opportunities, priorities and conflicts in translational medicine , 2004, Journal of Translational Medicine.

[6]  Stephen B. Johnson,et al.  Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. , 2003, JAMA.

[7]  Jordan J. Cohen,et al.  Academic medical centers and medical research: the challenges ahead. , 2005, JAMA.

[8]  A. Schechter,et al.  Editors' Introduction: Why is Revitalizing Clinical Research So Important, Yet So Difficult? , 2004, Perspectives in biology and medicine.

[9]  R. Holcombe Reengineering the Clinical Research Enterprise , 2006, Journal of Investigative Medicine.

[10]  J. Stamler,et al.  Translation of academic discovery into societal benefit: proposal for a balanced approach--part 1. , 2003, The American journal of medicine.

[11]  E. Zerhouni,et al.  Medicine. The NIH Roadmap. , 2003, Science.

[12]  John P A Ioannidis,et al.  Translation of highly promising basic science research into clinical applications. , 2003, The American journal of medicine.

[13]  S. Woolf The meaning of translational research and why it matters. , 2008, JAMA.

[14]  W. Crowley,et al.  The continuing dilemma in clinical investigation and the future of American health care: a system‐wide problem requiring collaborative solutions , 1996, Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges.

[15]  D. Korn,et al.  Promoting Translational and Clinical Science: The Critical Role of Medical Schools and Teaching Hospitals , 2006, PLoS medicine.