Response to: "Rescuing the NIH before it is too late"

We, the directors of the 27 NIH institutes and centers, wanted to respond to the points made by Andrew Marks in his recent editorial. While we appreciate that the scientific community has concerns, the current initiatives and directions of the NIH have been developed through planning processes that...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:The Journal of clinical investigation Vol. 116; no. 6; pp. 1462 - 1463
Main Authors: Alexander, Duane F, Alving, Barbara M, Battey, James F, Berg, Jeremy M, Collins, Francis S, Fauci, Anthony S, Gallin, John I, Grady, Patricia A, Hodes, Richard J, Hrynkow, Sharon H, Insel, Thomas R, Jones, Jack F, Katz, Stephen I, Landis, Story C, Li, Ting-Kai, Lindberg, Donald A, Nabel, Elizabeth G, Niederhuber, John E, Pettigrew, Roderic I, Rodgers, Griffin P, Ruffin, John, Scarpa, Antonio, Schwartz, David A, Sieving, Paul A, Straus, Stephen E, Tabak, Lawrence A, Volkow, Nora D
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States American Society for Clinical Investigation 01-06-2006
Subjects:
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:We, the directors of the 27 NIH institutes and centers, wanted to respond to the points made by Andrew Marks in his recent editorial. While we appreciate that the scientific community has concerns, the current initiatives and directions of the NIH have been developed through planning processes that reflect openness and continued constituency input, all aimed at assessing scientific opportunities and addressing public health needs.
Bibliography:SourceType-Other Sources-1
content type line 63
ObjectType-Correspondence-1
ObjectType-Commentary-2
ObjectType-Article-3
ISSN:0021-9738
1558-8238
DOI:10.1172/JCI28894