This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mandel, H. G. Articles by Shimkin, M. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mandel, H. G. Articles by Shimkin, M. B.

Funding: Grants or Contracts? A Survey of Cancer Scientists¹

Department of Pharmacology, The George Washington University Medical Center, Washington, D. C. 20037 [H. G. M.]; College of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, New Jersey Medical School, Newark, New Jersey 07103 [E. H.]; Sloan-Kettering Institute for Cancer Research, New York, New York 10021 [J. H. B.]; and Department of Community Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California 92037 [M. B. S.]

The members of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) were polled for their reactions to the current controversy of funding by research grant versus that by the research contract and to the nature of the scientific review appropriate for the evaluation of both types of applications. About 50% of the members responded; 97% of these felt that additional basic knowledge was absolutely essential or probably essential for the successful pursuit of the goals of the National Cancer Program. Eighty % of the respondents concluded that the funding of such research programs should be derived largely from grants rather than contracts. Most of the participants agreed that there should be a major rather than a minor redistribution of funds toward grants and away from contracts.

About 50% of the respondent AACR members currently are being supported by research grants, about 10% receive contracts only, and another 25% of the members have both types of funds at their disposal. The group of contract-supported scientists felt less critical of contracts, but about one-half of that group also wished to see more funds going into the grant rather than into the contract programs for the additional support of basic research.

There was considerable agreement among all groups of respondents that the review process for contracts should make much more active use of extramural peer evaluation to eliminate scientific inequities now existing between the two instruments for funding of work in cancer research.

¹ This report was prepared by the members of an American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Ad Hoc Committee and reviewed by the members of the Policy Committee of the AACR.

² To whom reprint requests should be addressed.

Received 1/13/75. Accepted 2/11/75.