Anthony Hayward, M.D., Ph.D. Director, Division for Clinical Research Resources National Center for Research Resource

1. Clinical and Translational Science Awards and Cancer Centers: Update National Cancer Institute Cancer Center Directors Annual Retreat May 14, 2010 Anthony Hayward, M.D., Ph.D. Director, Division for Clinical Research Resources National Center for Research Resources National Institutes of Health

2. Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA)

3. WA ME MT ND VT OR MN NH WI ID SD NY MA MI WY RI PA IA NE NV OH MD IN DE IL UT CO WV KS VA CA MO KY NC TN OK AR AZ SC NM GA AL MS AK TX LA FL HI Building a National CTSA Consortium 46 CTSA sites in 26 states;60 sites when fully implemented NJ = CTSA State PR = CTSA Site

4. Who uses CTSA resources?

5. Fraction of NCI grants using CTSA resources

6. CTSA Strategic Goals for 2009-2010 Building national clinical and translational research capability Training and career development of clinical and translational scientists Enhancing consortium-wide collaborations Enhancing the health of our communities and the Nation Encouraging T1 translational research www.CTSAWeb.org

7. CTSA Goal #1: Building National Clinical and Translational Research Capabilities Web Resources for Research Collaborations • ResearchMatch • National recruitment Registry • Centralized, disease-neutral Web portal to connect researchers to research volunteers • Includes over 38 CTSAs • CTSpedia • Wiki structure • Identifies and shares resources across the national consortium and community researchers world-wide • REDCap • Web-based tools • Supports data capture and dissemination for clinical and translational research www.ResearchMatch.org www.project-redcap.org www.CTSpedia.org

8. CTSA Goal #2: Training and Career Development of Clinical and Translational Scientists • 7 of 8 K23 awardees for 2009 came from institutions with CTSAs • 3 of 8 awardees mention CTSAs in their applications • One, Dr. Greenlee from Columbia University, was previously supported by a KL2 award • She was one of 394 KL2 scholars who were supported across the CTSA consortium in 2009 Heather Greenlee, Ph.D. Assistant Professor of Epidemiology, Columbia Greenlee H, Gammon MD, Abrahamson PE, Gaudet MM, Terry MB, Hershman DL, Desai M, Teitelbaum SL, Neugut AI, Jacobson JS. Prevalence and predictors of antioxidant supplement use during breast cancer treatment: the Long Island Breast Cancer Study Project. Cancer. 2009 Jul 15;115(14):3271-82.

9. Strategic Goal #3: Social Networking: A Tool for Biomedical Researchers Social Networking – Definition • Social structure made of individuals or organizations that are tied by one or more specific types of interdependency, such as values, visions, ideas, friendship, research interests or trade Social Networking – Benefits: • Establishes meaningful connections between and among individuals • Previously accomplished by business card exchange and conversations • Emergence of internet supported by affordable personal computers has expanded social networking into ubiquitous online communities

10. Mapping the Evolution of Co-Authorship Networks • Identifies major publications and their interrelations, topic trends over time, • Recognizes major authors and their co-authorship networks Line color ~ year of first time co-authors Node color ~ number of citations Node size ~ number of papers Source: Weimao Ke, Katy Borner, Lalitha Viswanath, 2004, University of Indiana

11. Strategic Goal #4: Community Engagement • The Community Networks Program (CNP) is designed to address the cancer burden in racial/ethnic minorities and other underserved populations by using Community-Based Participatory Research (CBPR). RFA encourages CTSAs to apply. • New initiatives in comparative effectiveness research – including several new training opportunities.

12. Strategic Goal #5: Stimulating TranslationThe Diamond Project at the Pittsburgh CTSA Diamond is a software infrastructure,developed jointly by Intel and CarnegieMellon University, that enables usersto interactively search terabyte-sizedvolumes of complex data, such asimages audio and video. M Satyanarayanan, · R Sukthankar, · L MummertA Goode · J Harkes · S Schlosser. The uniquestrengths and storage access characteristics of discard-based search. J Internet ServAppl2010

13. NCRR, NCI and our Mutual Interests in Core Facilities Gregory K. Farber, Ph.D. NCRR May 2010

14. Why Does NCRR Care About Cores? • Instrumentation Grants • Shared Instrumentation Grants (S10) • High-End Instrumentation (S10) • Biomedical Technology Research Centers (P41) • National Primate Research Centers • Animal and Biological Material Resources • Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) • Institutional Development Award (IDeA) • Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) • Research Facilities Improvement (G20, C06) • Science Education Partnership Awards (SEPA)

15. Why Does NCRR Care About Cores? • Instrumentation Grants • Shared Instrumentation Grants (S10) • High-End Instrumentation (S10) • Biomedical Technology Research Centers (P41) • National Primate Research Centers • Animal and Biological Material Resources • Clinical and Translational Science Awards (CTSA) • Institutional Development Award (IDeA) • Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) • Research Facilities Improvement (G20, C06) • Science Education Partnership Awards (SEPA)

16. Recent Interest in Cores • Too many similar cores at an institution supported by different NIH ICs • Inconsistent reporting policies for core facilities between NIH ICs • Federal rules that are hard to understand (A21/A122)

17. Recent Core Activities from NCRR Released a Request For Information (RFI-RR-09-003) in February 2009. Hosted a meeting in Bethesda based on the responses to the RFI in July 2009.

18. Request for Information/Meeting - Highlights • Desire for a centralized directory for information about cores: location, contact info, the cost per experiment, the certification/quality of the core, user experiences with the core. • Strong desire for training resources for core facility directors – especially concerning business practices. • Core management – the benefit of centralized vs decentralized institutional management, the advantages of small cores vs large operations • Core operations – finding resources for centralized operations at the institution level and for personnel who work in core facilities

19. Request for Information/Meeting - Highlights • NIH issues • Similar cores established by different ICs • Cost recovery issues – OMB Circular A21 • Relationship between the Shared Instrument Grant program and core facilities and other issues with the Shared Instrument Grant program.

20. NIH Response – So Far 1) Released a program announcement to support core facility renovation, repair, and improvement using ARRA funds • 30 applications were funded (each award between $1M and $10M) • Released a Notice to invite supplements to support core consolidation (NOT-RR-10-001). • 12 ICs participated. • 26 supplements will be funded (~up to $1.3M each) • The funded supplements come from 9 different ICs

21. Next Steps • Building an informatics system to make it easy to find and access core facilities. • Release a FAQ sheet concerning OMB Circular A21 and related issues. • Host a meeting in Bethesda in November to get advice from the community on the following issues: • Software for (centralized) core management • Training for core directors in managing the business aspects of a core facility • Development of tools to evaluate the quality of a core facility