The National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive & Kidney Diseases

NIDDK Home > About NIDDK > Advisory Council > Meetings

February 1999 - Meeting Minutes

Department of Health and Human Services
Public Health Service
National Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases
Advisory Council
February 17-18, 1999

I. Call to Order

Dr. Gorden called to order the 149th NIDDK Advisory Council meeting on February 17, 1999 at 8:35 a.m.

A. Attendance

Council Members Present (See Attachment A)

Dr. D. Montgomery Bissell, Jr.
Dr. Judith Bond
Dr. Jeffrey I. Gordon
Dr. David M. Harlan (Ex Officio)
Ms. Ruby R. Haughton
Dr. Barbara E. Hayes
Ms. Genevieve Jackson
Dr. C. Ronald Kahn
Dr. S. Robert Levine
Dr. John McConnell
Dr. Kristen McNutt
Dr. Eric G. Neilson
Dr. Daniel Podalsky
Dr. James Rothman
Dr. Joseph T. Spence (Ex Officio)
Dr. George Stamatoyannopoulos
Dr. Ming-Jer Tsai
Dr. Dana Weaver-Osterholz
Dr. Richard D. Williams
Dr. Rena R. Wing

Council Members Absent

Dr. Jerrold M. Olefsky
Dr. Robert W. Schrier

B. Staff and Guests

In addition to Council members, others in attendance at the meeting included NIDDK staff members, representa tives of the NIH Office of the Director (OD), Center for Scientific Review (CSR) Scientific Review Administrators, and other NIH staff members. Guests were present during the open parts of the meeting. Attendees included the following:

David Badman, NIDDK John Biaden, NIDDK Josephine Briggs, NIDDK Ben Burton, NIDDK Victor Buyny, NIDDK Francisco Calvo, NIDDK Dolph Chianchiano, National Kidney Foundation Naomi Churchill-Earp, NIDDK Paul Coates, NIDDK Catherine Cowie, NIDDK Leslie Curtis, NIDDK Florence Danshes, NIDDK Jane DeMouy, NIDDK Nancy Dixon, NIDDK Jacqueline Dobson, NIDDK Richard Eastman, NIDDK Linda Edgeman, NIDDK Don Ellis, NIDDK Bill Elzinga, NIDDK Jay Everhart, NIDDK Richard Farishian, NIDDK Carol Feld, NIDDK Bill Foster, NIDDK Judith Fradkin, NIDDK Sandy Garfield, NIDDK John Garthune, NIDDK Phillip Gorden, NIDDK Colleen Guay-Broder, NIDDK Roberta Haber, NIDDK Ann Hagan, NIDDK Frank Hamilton, NIDDK Joan Harmon, NIDDK Mary Harris, NIDDK Maureen Harris, NIDDK Barbara Harrison, NIDDK Trudy Hillard, NIDDK Gladys Hirschman, NIDDK Carolyn Hodgkins, NIDDK Jay Hoofnagle, NIDDK Karen Howard, NIDDK Van S. Hubbard, NIDDK Genevieve Jackson, NIDDK Desiree Johnson, NIDDK Ephraim Johnson, NIDDK Camille Jones, NIDDK Kieran Kelley, NIDDK Mary Beth Kester, NIDDK M. H.Khan, CSR Sooja Kim, CSR Paul Kimmel, NIDDK Tom Kresina, NIDDK Krish Krishman, CSR John Kusek, NIDDK

Maren Laughlin, NIDDK L. Earl Laurence, NIDDK Kim Law, NIDDK Alec Liacouras, CSR Helen Ling, NIDDK Mimi Lising, NIDDK Billie Mackey, NIDDK Denise Manouelian, NIDDK Donita Marconi, NIDDK Ronald Margolies, NIDDK Winnie Martinez, NIDDK Dan E. Matsumoto, NIDDK Ken May, NIDDK Ludlow McKay, NIDDK Catherine McKeon, NIDDK Nancy Miller, NIH,OD Neal Musto, NIDDK Beth Paterson, NIDDK Denise Payne, NIDDK Aretina Perry-Jones, NIDDK Judith Podskalny, NIDDK Alexander Politis, CSR Rose Pruitt, NIDDK Carmen Robinson, NIDDK Alice Robinson, NIDDK Charles Rodgers, NIDDK Mary Kay Rosenberg, NIDDK Lakshmanan Sankaran, NIDDK Sheryl Sato, NIDDK M. James Scherbenske, NIDDK Angela Sharpe, NIDDK Michael Showe, NIDDK Elizabeth Singer, NIDDK Paula Skedsvold, NIH, Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Philip F. Smith, NIDDK Gloria Snowden, NIDDK Jane Spencer, NIDDK Alan Spiegel, NIDDK Walter Stolz, NIDDK Joan Talley, NIDDK Tommie S. Tralka, NIDDK George Tucker, NIDDK Charles A. Wells, NIDDK Nola Whitfield, NIDDK Shan S. Wong, NIDDK Susan Yanovski, NIDDK Rita Yeager, NIDDK Elaine Young, Juvenile Diabetes Foundation Charles Zellers, NIDDK.

C. Conflict of Interest Statement (See Attachment B)

Dr. Gorden called to the attention of the Council the Confidentiality and Conflict of Interest Statements. After discussing the scope of confidentiality and conflict of interest, he requested that Council members comply with the requirements. He reminded Council members to avoid a conflict of interest by leaving the room when the Council discussed individual applications in which an actual or perceived conflict of interest might occur. Members were asked to sign a statement to this effect. This did not apply to "en bloc" actions.

Dr. Gorden announced that the Council meeting would be open to the public in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 92-463 on Wednesday, February 17,1999 from 8:35 a.m. to 12:40 p.m., closed from 1:30 p.m. until 5:00 p.m., closed on Thursday, February 18, 1999 from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. for review, Discussion, and evaluation of grant applications, and open from 11:00 a.m. to 12:10 p.m.

II. Consideration of the Summary Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The NDDK Advisory Council Summary Minutes of the last Council meeting were accepted unanimously by the Council members present.

III. Future Meeting Dates

Dr. Gorden asked for consideration of meeting dates for future NDDK Advisory Council meetings, and the following meeting dates were proposed and accepted:

• June 1-2, 1999
• September 9-10, 1999
• February 2-3, 2000
• May 31-June 1, 2000
• September 20-21, 2000
• February 7-8, 2001
• May 30-31, 2001
• September 20-21, 2001

IV. Director's Report (See Attachment C)

Dr. Gorden began his report by announcing that after 13 years he is stepping down as the Director of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. He said a search for a new director is under way, and that he would continue as Director until the new director is appointed.

He continued his opening remarks by introducing 6 new Council members, Drs. Jeffrey Gordon, C. Ronald Kahn, John McConnell, Ming-Jer Tsai, Dana Weaver-Osterholz, and Rena Wing.

Dr. Gorden introduced the following new institute staff members Ms. Naomi Churchill-Earp, Assistant Director for Management; Dr. Sheryl Sato, Director of the Cellular Basis of Metabolic Diseases Program in the Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Diseases; and Drs. Carolyn Miles and Shan Wong, Scientific Review Administrators in the Review Branch, Division of Extramural Activities.

Dr. Gorden continued his report by saying that the President's FY 2000 Budget calls for a 2.4 percent increase in funds for NIDDK.

Budget

Mr. Laurence said that in FY 1998, 609 grants were awarded with a success rate of 33 percent. He contrasted last year's Budget with the proposed Budget for this year and pointed out that the Congress had given the Institute an increase of 14 percent over FY 1998. He said that the increase would primarily go for grants, and that new initiatives would depend on the Budget for FY 2000, he reported that a group of advisors was being assembled to advise on new initiatives.

Discussion

Dr. Gorden said that the 2000 Budget was difficult to discuss since it was unknown what the Congress would do.

A Council member said that the Congressionally Directed Diabetes Working Group was reporting to the Congress on February 25, 1999 and that its report recommended substantial increases over the President's Budget of a 2.4 percent increase. He asked if the institute had a plan for how the recommended Budget increases would be spent. Dr. Gorden pointed out that the Institute would support the President's Budget, and that any plans for expenditures would be within the President's Budget.

A Council member asked about the special funding for research on type 1 diabetes that had been received two years before and when it would be expended. Dr. Gorden said that this initiative was in its second year of funding and that the appropriation was for 5 years so it still had the years 2000, 2001, and 2002 left. He also pointed out that the funds were included in the NIH Budget and not in the NIDDK Budget, although the majority of the funds were managed by the NIDDK.

V. Reports and Discussions

A. NIDDK Financial Management Plan for FY 1999 (See Attachment D)

Dr. Gorden and Mr. Laurence proposed plans for funding grants in FY 1999. Dr. Gorden pointed out that the plan had evolved over the year. He said that the payline for FY 1999, as in previous years, was at the 25th percentile for new applications and 27th percentile for competing continuation applications and new investigators. He reported that it was planned to raise the average grant size slightly as the Council members previously had recommended. He said that the 2 programs with Congressional interest that impacted the Institute Budget were diabetes and prostate cancer. He said that Congressional emphasis on these programs constitutes mandatory obligations for the Institute.

He pointed out that there would be an overall increase in funding in the career awards because of the phasing in of 4 new career development mechanisms, the K23, K24, K01 and the trans-NIH K30.

Dr. Gorden reported that it was estimated that 755 regular research applications would be funded in FY 1999 in comparison to 609 funded in FY 1998. He said that 65 center grants would be supported in FY 1999 compared with 59 center grants paid in FY 1998. New centers will include 2 additional clinical nutrition research centers and 4 polycystic kidney disease research centers.

Discussion

A Council member asked for clarification of the process for identifying applications beyond the payline for funding.

Dr. Gorden responded that applications could be funded beyond the normal payline in either of 2 ways: as high program relevance or special emphasis grants, and he gave definitions of those 2 categories. He pointed out that in the first case an application within the payline would be displaced and that an explanation was needed for not paying such an application. The special emphasis grants are paid from any additional funds beyond our mandatory commitments.

A Council member asked for further clarification of whether applications recommended for special payment were recommended for programmatic reasons or as initiative-driven. Dr. Gorden responded that either could be the case.

A Council member asked about new research centers that were more narrowly defined, such as polycystic kidney disease centers, compared with more broadly defined centers such as diabetes or gastroenterology centers, and whether the Budget needs of the centers differed. Dr. Gorden responded by describing some of the different center programs and mechanisms. He explained that each type of center fit the needs of a particular research effort and had different Budget implications, and that each program division had its own mix of centers. He said that the Institute was fully funding the centers to the recommended levels, but the caps imposed on the sizes of centers would remain in place.

Mr. Laurence said that with the exception of 5 or 6 centers, each center had a legislative history with legislative language that shaped the size and type of centers. He also said that outside review groups also helped to shape the centers as well.

A Council member asked if the institute had initiated centers on its own. Dr. Gorden responded that the institute had a role in the type of centers that were established, but had not often initiated centers programs entirely on its own. He pointed out that in the FY 2000 Budget, the institute would be recommending the initiation of a biotechnology centers program.

A Council member asked about the proposal to fund a new center in FY 2000, given the outlook for the Budget. Dr. Gorden responded that there was legislative language to increase the numbers of digestive diseases and diabetes centers for FY 1999, but it had been decided to have a major competition for these centers and to pay for them in FY 2000.

A Council member said that under the umbrella of initiatives, NIGMS had an effective program that allowed supplements to grants where the grantees wanted to partner with x-ray crystallographers or biophysical scientists involving the structure of biologically important molecules, and he wondered whether NIDDK had a comparable program. Dr. Gorden recommended that the divisions discuss this in their Subcouncil meetings and bring back to the full Council for Discussion their ideas and recommendations.

A Council member asked about how the Institute could tie their initiatives into the great interest in aging research. Dr. Gorden responded that aging was an ingredient that broadly crossed the Institute programs. He pointed out, that if Council members felt there should be more focus on aging, the concept could be discussed.

B. Strategic Planning Recommended by the Institute of Medicine (See Attachment E)

Ms. Carol Feld summarized the recommendations contained in the Institute of Medicine's report "Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs, Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the NIH." She described how NIDDK planning documents were developed at present. She talked about the 2 documents developed annually by the Institute, including one containing research progress reviews and the other containing research initiates. She indicated that both documents received extensive Council input and other external input at several stages in their development.

She said that the establishment of an NIDDK public liaison office had been accomplished in response to one IOM study recommendation. She said another recommendation had been that every institute would send to Dr. Varmus a multi-year (2- to 5-year) Strategic plan with broad input, and in language appropriate for the Congress and the lay public. A goal was to post the plan on the Institutes' web sites to increase the public's access to the information. She said that these plans were due in Dr. Varmus' office in December 1999. She asked for Council members' input to this process.

C. Progress Reports: New Career Development Programs and Applications from New Investigators (See Attachments F and G)

Dr. Stolz reported on the current status of new and revised NIDDK Career Development awards and on the numbers of new investigators applying for R01s since the FIRST award mechanism was phased out.

He said that, based on Discussions in the Council over a number of years, 3 new career awards, the K01, K23, and K24 were initiated last year and the K08 was upgraded. Also, he reminded the Council that the Institute had initiated a small grant award to augment the research funds of the K08 grantees in the last 2 years of their awards. He pointed out that none of these programs had been in place long enough to assess how well they were working; however, the numbers of appllications submitted for them showed substantial interest on the part of young investigators. He said that, if the numbers of all the K applications received were added together, it represented a significant increase over the K's received in previous years by the Institute.

Dr. Stolz reported briefly on new investigators. He said that, with the phasing out of the FIRST award (R29), there was concern about how new investigators would fare. He said that the NIH Office of Extramural Research planned to track new investigators. From this tracking, Dr. Stolz reported that in FY 1997, the Institute funded 118 new investigators, about one-half who had applied for R29 awards and one-half as new R01 awards. He pointed out that phasing out the R29 program would cost the Institute up to the equivalent of 28 extra R01 awards because the average size of an R01, even for first-time awardees, was nearly twice the size of an R29.

Discussion

A Council member asked about the K08 award and what the Institute was looking for with these changes; specifically, a greater interest in the award or an improvement in transition to the R01 award. He asked if there were any analysis of transitions of these applicants to R01 awards. Dr. Stolz responded that the Institute had not done an analysis.

A Council member pointed out that an advantage for the R29 was the 5-year length of time of the award, and he asked if this would be true for the new investigator receiving an R01 award. Dr. Stolz said that the advantage of the R01 was that it could be funded for whatever period was appropriate to the science proposed and approved. Also, Dr. Stolz reported that, although the NIH had made the commitment to track new investigators, it was not as easy as it appeared. He said that neither reviewers nor staff always agreed as to whether a specific applicant should be considered "new."

Dr. Gorden pointed out that the goal was to maintain a balance of new investigators, and that it was up to the staff to identify them. He said that the Council members would be asked for their advice on how to maintain this balance.

D. Report of the Congressionally Directed Diabetes Mellitus Working Group

Dr. C. Ronald Kahn reported on the Diabetes Research Working Group Strategic Plan. He explained the process used to develop the report and said that the findings and recommendations of the Working Group, which he chaired, would be sent to the Congress and officially released on February 25, 1999. He said that the Diabetes Caucus in the Congress believed that the only solution to lessen the burden of diabetes on health care in the U.S. was through biomedical research. He said that, along with the funding for type 1 diabetes passed in the Congress for FY 1997, there was a mandate to establish a Diabetes Working Group to recommend a comprehensive approach to the NIH for diabetes research. The Working group consisted of 12 scientists and 4 lay people who either had diabetes or represented diabetes organizations.

He described all the steps that the Working Group had taken to assess the state of diabetes in the population in the U.S. as well as the status of diabetes research in the U.S. He pointed out that the NIDDK funded 55 percent of the research on diabetes and that other institutes funded the other 45 percent. He said that about 3 percent of the NIH Budget was devoted to diabetes research disease affects 6-7 percent of the population at a cost of 10 to 14 percent of the health care costs in the U.S. He said that the Group did not think this percentage of 3 percent, currently, was enough to fund diabetes research.

He said the primary goals developed by the Working Group were (1) to understand the causes of diabetes and their complications, so preventive strategies could be developed; and (2) to develop optimum methods for management of the disease with the ultimate goal of finding a cure. Secondary goals were to reduce the burden on minority populations and children, to translate research advances into medical practice, and to educate the general public.

He said that the Group identified what it considered as extraordinary opportunities in diabetes research, as well as trying to identify manpower needs to move the field forward.

Discussion

A Council member pointed out that the report was a starting point for going forward. Dr. Kahn reported out that the Working Group had the backing of the diabetes foundations as well as the scientific community and the NIH.

A Council member pointed out the difficulty in identifying basic research that was related to diabetes. Dr. Kahn said out that the NIH had been tracking basic vs. clinical research related to diabetes for many years, so the definition would depend on what the NIH had identified as diabetes research, and that it had not changed over the years.

A Council member pointed out that justifications for increased funding for diabetes research were in the scientific opportunities and the burden of diabetes on the health care system.

A Council member said that the report would be an important way of telling researchers that there were opportunities in diabetes research.

A Council member said that the attrition rate of researchers was underestimated, and should be assessed. Dr. Kahn agreed that this was a good point, and said that the career-track for a researcher was not a user-friendly system, and it needed to be to attract young investigators. He also pointed out that a better marketing system was needed.

E. Annual Report of the Division of Intramural Research

Dr. Allen Spiegel gave the Intramural Division Report. He said the Division had about 800 people in a variety of appointments and a Budget of about $100 million, which was about 10.8 percent of the NIDDK total Budget. He said the Division occupied about 150,000 square feet of space.

He discussed some of the career tracks in the Intramural Division and some of the major comings and goings of personnel. He also discussed briefly the reviews carried out by the Board of Scientific Counselors and how he used them to shape the Division's programs. Finally, he described some of the recent research initiatives and advances in the Division.

Discussion

A Council member inquired about the role of the Intramural Division and how it differed or was similar to the Extramural Divisions, and how research directions were determined.

Dr. Spiegel responded that the end product of the science was the same, but that the areas of science that the Intramural Division pursued often were those not easily supportable in the extramural program. He said that the NIH intramural program could offer unique opportunities, particularly in support of clinical trials and in research on rare diseases. He said he was open to suggestions of other unique areas.

VI. Scientific Presentation: Hemoglobinpathies 2000

Dr. George Stamatoyannopoulos gave the scientific presentation on hemoglobinopathies. He began his report by describing the extent of the public health problem due to diseases of hemoglobin C and E. He pointed out that there were 80,000 patients in the U.S. with sickle cell disease whose care exceeded $5 billion per year. He said that in Thailand, diseases associated with hemoglobin E were a major problem with Thalassemia syndrome the most common singular gene disorder in the world. He said that there were 300-400 million carriers of alpha-Thalassemia while beta-Thalassemia was common in Mediterranean and Asiatic populations.

He pointed out that in the 1990's, major emphasis had been on understanding the molecular structure of the hemoglobulin gene and the development of therapies. He said that the focus had been on gene loci and determining how the genes worked.

He described two mechanisms that were found to be involved in globulin gene switching. One mechanism was autonomous and involved silencing of the embryonic and fetal globulin gene, while the second mechanism was a competitive mechanism involving mutually exclusive interactions between the LCR and the gamma and beta globin genes.

VII. Division Director's Reports

A. Division of Extramural Activities (See Attachments H, I, and J)

Dr. Stolz gave the Division of Extramural Activities report beginning with his annual presentation for review of the Council operating procedures. Dr. Stolz asked Council members for any recommendations for further modifications of the Council operating procedures.

Discussion

A Council member asked if the new NIH policy on how appeal letters sent in by applicants were handled would conflict with the way the NDDK Council operated. Dr. Stolz responded that the only action was an applicant's request for re-review of the application. Other actions such as cuts in Budget and changes in the number of years of the grant were no longer appealable issues, but administrative issues.

A Council member pointed out that the portfolio analysis provided to Council members in the DEM Division provided a listing of every grant under consideration in the Subcouncil linked to its program area with an indication of whether it was in the funding range or whether it fell below the payline. He said that Council members had asked for these listings and that the listing had been discussed numerous times. He said the DEM Division listing had proved to be very helpful. He asked whether other divisions had a similar listing that could be distributed to all Council members so they would know what they were voting on in the en bloc vote on all grants not discussed in the Council meeting.

A Council member said that the DEM analysis had been helpful as an overview of the division's programs, as well as enabling him to discern areas of overlap, areas that were complementary, and areas of redundancy and deficiencies.

Dr. Stolz said it had been a goal to create these analyses for all divisions, and that currently, each division did the analysis differently according to its needs. He said that now there were computer tools available that could make these analyses that could be applied to all the divisions.

Dr. Gorden said that the documents that Carol Feld had referred to in her talk about the planning process were a part of the analyses of program areas. He said that there were two documents, one related to research advances and the other to program initiatives which came from program areas. He pointed out that these were tied together and could be used to determine whether the stated goals were being met. He said that the Institute would try to bring these together in a way that would be useful.

Dr. Stolz concluded his report with a description of the new modular grant mechanism.

Discussion

A Council member asked if the modular grant concept would be NIH-wide. Dr. Stolz replied that it would be NIH-wide, and that it would be evaluated after 2 years.

A Council member asked if the modular concept had been tried in the study sections, and if so what had been the response. Dr. Stolz responded that it had been tried with RFA's in several institutes.

A Council member said he believed the modular grant concept would not save anyone time.

B. Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolic Diseases (See Attachment K)

Dr. Eastman began the division report by giving the legislative background and an overview of the $30 million research dollars that the Department of Health and Human Services would receive each year, over 5 years, for type 1 diabetes research.

Dr. Margolis reported on a workshop, Co-activators and Co-repressors of Gene Expression, held in Dec 1998 on signal transduction through cell surface and steroid receptors. He said that the report of the workshop would be published in Trends in Endocrinology and Metabolism.

C. Division of Digestive Diseases and Nutrition

Dr. Hoofnagle gave the Division report. He said that the most important initiative this year in the Division was the Study of Health Outcomes of Weight Loss (SHOW) clinical trial.

He reported that an RFA on hepatitis C was under way and the applications would be coming to the June 1999 Council.

He reported on a liver disease that he said was virtually unknown: non-alcoholic steato-hepatitis. He said that these patients have no signs of liver disease, but they have abnormal liver tests and that it would be necessary to separate this disease from fatty liver disease. He said this disease progresses over a period of time with progressive fibrosis. He described a meeting that had been held to develop diagnostic criteria and recommend therapies, and he announced that a summary of the meeting would be published. He gave some statistics on how common the disease was in the U.S. that was estimated at 1.4 percent among women and 4 percent among men.

D. Division of Kidney, Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases (See Attachments L and M)

Dr. Briggs had been asked by Dr. Gorden to give an overview of the trans-NIH activity that involved NIDDK. She said that the activity was initiated by the NIH Director's office and had been set up after a meeting advising the NIH Director on strengthening the mouse as a research tool on disease and gene- finding research. She said that priorities were recommended including the sequencing of the mouse genome. She said that it was planned to use the C57BL/6 mouse and to have a draft of the sequence by the year 2003. This was estimated to cost $21 million over a 5-year period and to be funded through the NIH Director's 1 percent tap on the institutes. The NIDDK would be contributing to this project.

She said it was also planned to strengthen gene-finding methods that were linked to function. This included three major priorities: (1) establishing centers for mutagenesis and phenotyping using random mutagenesis strategies; (2)enhancing facilities for storing and distributing mouse strains; and (3) increasing training in mouse pathology.

Dr. Briggs described several RFAs that had been announced by several institutes such as the NICHD's project on mouse sperm cryopreservation, NINDS' phenotyping of the mouse nervous system, NCRR's strengthening regional centers for making mouse strains available, and five institutes establishing a center for developing the best approach for random mutagenesis strategies to identify important genes. She said that this would depend on high throughput screening methods to identify phenotypes of interest. Dr. Briggs described an example of how this would be used to identify genes, and she pointed out how it would be used in determining the severity of polycystic kidney disease.

Dr. Briggs also reported on renal strategic planning activities with some of the societies and foundations with interests in common with the division. She described the use of a planning group and retreats that had been held.

Dr. Briggs asked Dr. Badman to report on the institute's involvement with the Zebrafish project. He reported on a meeting and the resulting report on Zebrafish genomics co-sponsored by NIDDK and NICHD which developed recommendations to create a map of the Zebrafish genome as an aid in doing functional studies. He said that Dr. Varmus had asked that a NIH Zebrafish coordinating committee be convened that included all the institutes except for the nursing institute. Dr. Badman described some of the grants that had been awarded and the meetings planned. He pointed out that Dr. Varmus had a meeting on non-mammalian models in which the Zebrafish was considered an important model.

Dr. Gorden said that the institute was moving into the year 2000 with a billion dollar Budget and as the fifth largest institute at the NIH. He said that the expectations and responsibilities of the institute would grow. He pointed out that an important issue would be the balance across the institute in the make-up of the grant portfolio of the institute. He said that the combined interest of the Council across the divisions was important.

VIII. Consideration of Review of Grant Applications

Summary Table 1

Applications Taken to Council
All Applications by Budget Category	Scored Applications	NRFC Applications	Deferred Applications	No Action	Totals
Regular Research* (P01, R01, R37, R41, R42, R43, R44)	638	-	-	-	638
Other Research* (R03, R13, R15, R21, K01, K02, K08, K23, K24)	144	-	-	-	144
Centers (P30)	4	-	-	-	4
Training* (T32)	14	-	-	-	14
MBS (S06) DK Secondary only	-	-	-	-	-

Summary Table 2

Applications Taken to Council
Applications by Support Mecanism	Scored Applications	NRFC Applications	Deferred Applications	No Action	Totals
Program Projects (P01)	12	-	-	-	12
Research (R01)	523	-	-	-	523
MERIT (R37)	4	-	-	-	4
STTR (R41) (R42)	11 3	- -	- -	- -	11 3
SBIR (R43) (R44)	67 18	- -	- -	- -	67 18
Small Grants (R03)	16	-	-	-	16
Conferences (R13)	21	-	-	-	21
AREA (R15)	15	-	-	-	15
Exploratory/Develop. (R21)	48	-	-	-	48
Careers (K01) (K02)	6 1	- -	-	-	6 1
CIA (K08)	15	-	-	-	15
PSA (K23) (K24)	9 18	- -	- -	- -	9 18
Core Centers (P30)	4	-	-	-	4
Training (T32)	14	-	-	-	14
MBS (S06) DK Secondary only	-	-	-	-	-
Totals	800	-	-	-	800

Summary Table 3

Applications Not Taken to Council
Categories by Support Mechanism	Bottom-Tier Applications	NRFC Applications	Excluded by Institute Staff	Non-Competitive	Total Applications
Traditional Research (R01)	6	1	-	357	364
STTR Phase I (R41)	-	-	-	2	2
STTR Phase II (R42)	-	-	-	1	1
SBIR Phase I (R43)	-	-	-	53	53
SBIR Phase II (R44)	-	-	-	9	9
Small Grants (R03)	-	2	-	1	3
Conferences (R13)	-	3	-	-	3
AREA Grants (R15)	-	-	-	3	3
Exploratory/Developmental	-	2	-	25	27
CIA (K08)	-	3	-	-	3
Totals	6	11	-	451	468

IX. Adjournment

Dr. Gorden thanked the Council members for their attendance and advice. There being no other business, Dr.Gorden adjourned the 149th meeting of the NDDK Advisory Council on February 18, 1999, at 12:35 p.m.

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing summary minutes and attachments are accurate and complete.

Phillip Gorden, M.D.
Director, National Institute of Diabetes and
Digestive and Kidney Diseases
and
Chairman, National Diabetes and Digestive and
Kidney Diseases Advisory Council