At the request of NASA, an IOM committee reviewed NASA Human Research Program's (HRP's) Scientific Merit Assessment Processes for directed research. Directed research is commissioned or noncompetitively awarded research that is not competitively solicited because of specific reasons, such as time limitations or highly focused or constrained research topics. The scientific merit assessment processes have been developed by NASA to evaluate individual directed research tasks in order to ensure the scientific integrity of the HRP's directed research portfolio. The committee examined the HRP's current scientific merit assessment processes and conducted a public workshop to identify best practices among other federal agencies that use various assessment processes for similar types of directed research.Review of NASA Human Research Program's Scientific Merit Processes: Letter Report finds that the scientific merit assessment process used by the HRP for directed research is scientifically rigorous and is similar to the processes and merit criteria used by many other federal agencies and organizations - including the Department of Defense, National Institutes of Health, and the United States Department of Agriculture - for comparable types of research. This report also makes recommendations on ways to streamline and bolster the accountability and transparency of NASA's current processes.
National Research Council, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Institute of Medicine, and Families Board on Children, Youth, Steve Olson
Institute of Medicine, Board on the Health of Select Populations, and Transgender Health Issues and Research Gaps and Opportunities Committee on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual
Institute of Medicine, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Division of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, Division of International Health
Institute of Medicine, Committee to Develop Methods Useful to the Department of Veteran Affairs in Estimating Its Physician Requirements, Joseph Lipscomb
Institute of Medicine, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Committee to Review the Clinical and Translational Science Awards Program at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, Catharyn T. Liverman, Andrea M. Schultz, Sharon F. Terry, Alan I. Leshner
Institute of Medicine, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Committee on the Public Health Dimensions of the Epilepsies, Larisa M. Strawbridge, Andrea M. Schultz, Catharyn T. Liverman, Mary Jane England
Institute of Medicine, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Committee on the Respiratory Protection Curriculum for Occupational Health Nursing Programs, Catharyn T. Liverman, Andrea M. Schultz, M.E. Bonnie Rogers, Linda Hawes Clever
Institute of Medicine, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Committee on Occupational Information and Electronic Health Records, Larisa M. Strawbridge, Andrea M. Schultz, Catharyn T. Liverman, David H. Wegman
Institute of Medicine, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Committee on the Treatment of Cardiac Arrest: Current Status and Future Directions, Andrea M. Schultz, Margaret A. McCoy, Robert Graham
Institute of Medicine, Committee on Improving the Organization of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to Advance the Health of Our Population, Judith A. Salerno, Andrea M. Schultz, Leonard D. Schaeffer
and Medicine National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Committee on Accessible and Affordable Hearing Health Care for Adults, Catharyn T. Liverman, Sarah Domnitz, Dan G. Blazer
and Medicine National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Health and Medicine Division, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice, Andrea M. Schultz, Margaret A. McCoy
Institute of Medicine, Board on Health Sciences Policy, Committee on Assessing the Need for Clinical Trials of Testosterone Replacement Therapy, Dan G. Blazer, Catharyn T. Liverman