A Review of the Department of Defense's Program for Breast Cancer Research (1997)

Chapter: Appendix D: Responses to Dear Colleague Letter

Previous Chapter: Appendix C: Dear Colleague Letter
Suggested Citation: "Appendix D: Responses to Dear Colleague Letter." Institute of Medicine. 1997. A Review of the Department of Defense's Program for Breast Cancer Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5808.

APPENDIX D
Responses to "Dear Colleague" Letter

The committee mailed a "Dear Colleague" letter to all principal investigators of 1993/1994 and 1995 grant and contract awards (approximately 700 individuals) asking for feedback on all aspects of the grant process (see Appendix C). We received responses from 94 individuals as well as one from a person who was aware of the survey but had been denied grant funding. The characteristics of the respondents are outlined below.

Characteristics of Respondents

No. of Respondents

Total respondents (all grant recipients)

94

BCRP study section members

19

BCRP study section chairs

3

Denied funding for at least one application

11

Overwhelmingly positive

48

Positive with suggestions for improvement

39

Mostly negative, major criticisms

7

Suggested Citation: "Appendix D: Responses to Dear Colleague Letter." Institute of Medicine. 1997. A Review of the Department of Defense's Program for Breast Cancer Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5808.

Criticism

No. of Letters

Application Process

 

Cumbersome application process (e.g., length of forms, details required of safety plans, laboratory environment)

46

Communication with DOD staff inadequate regarding grant submission

8

No mechanisms to resubmit or improve grants not funded

3

Training grant applications should request and evaluate training environment, mentors, other key factors in training program

3

Time from submission to notification about funding too long

3

Grants Management

 

Annual report requirements too long, not well reviewed, oversight too rigid

13

Human volunteers regulations too burdensome

8

No flexibility in spending across budget categories

3

Peer/programmatic review

 

Concerns about funding out of priority score order

10

Lack of continuity in study section members

3

Suggested Citation: "Appendix D: Responses to Dear Colleague Letter." Institute of Medicine. 1997. A Review of the Department of Defense's Program for Breast Cancer Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5808.
Page 119
Suggested Citation: "Appendix D: Responses to Dear Colleague Letter." Institute of Medicine. 1997. A Review of the Department of Defense's Program for Breast Cancer Research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5808.
Page 120
Next Chapter: Appendix E: Tissue Bank Letter and Questionnaire
Subscribe to Email from the National Academies
Keep up with all of the activities, publications, and events by subscribing to free updates by email.