OFFICE M.MORANDUM e@ STANFORD UNIVERSITY © OFFICE MEMORANDUM © STANFORD UNIVERSITY © OFFICE MEMORANDUM

To

From

SupJect:

JUN 1 > t9%

Date. June 10, 1971

Joshua Lederberg, Ed Feigenbaum, and Elliott Levinthal
aa

Ron Jamtgaard

 

Initial NIH Response to Annual Report

I spoke today with Marty Blumsack, an assistant to Bill Raub who is head of
Research Resources Branch at NIH. I asked him for an initial reaction to
our Annual Report. He provided me with the following comments:

1) Grant Extension Request: NIH rules permit extensions without funds
up to 12 months at a time with multiple extensions possible. Ex-
tensions with funds, however, are available only once and can be
made for a maximum of 12 months. Thus our request for a 15 month
extension with funds must be reduced to no more than 12 months.

He pointed out that extensions with funds are possible but rarely
given. A review process of some kind will be necessary. Exten-
Sions must be cleared by the Division Directors office. Therefore,
Dr. Raubs office must prepare a thorough justification of the ex-
tension and submit it to his director for approval. To prepare
this rationale, Mr. Blumsack assumed that a review group would be
formed by staff persons from the Research Resources Branch plus

one or more consultants who would visit Stanford and prepare rec-
ommendations. The staff personnel in Raub'soffice have an initial
reaction to our extension request which is favorable.

2) Dr. Harrisons Arrhymia Detection Project: The initial reaction from
the Research Resources Branch is not favorable. It was felt that
the program had a significant cost and that primarily due to its
size, would require a competitive review. There was also some
questions about the uniqueness or inovative attributes of the pro=
ject. Therefore, he said that it was unlikely that the Research
Resource Branch option of allowing service income to be used to
support this task would be approved. This view reflects an ini-
tial pass of the Annual Report. A more definitive statement con-
cerning this project will be available at approximately one week.
A review of the entire Annual Report by Dr. Raubs staff is to be
concluded on Wednesday, June 16.

3) Some general comments on the proposal were as follows: In effect,
the Annual Progress Report is like a work proposal or application.
It will be read by persons within and outside of NIH. Marty
Blumsack felt that ACME had not painted the best possible picture
of ACME as a resource in its Annual Report. Perhaps we should
have placed our best foot forward more emphatically. He also
mentioned that the specific user projects which we highlighted
did not touch upon some of the strongest political issues of the

WNONVYOWIW 310 © ALISYJAINN GYOINVIS © WNONVAYOWIW 331ddO © ALISUJAINN GYOANVIS © WNAONVYOW3W 3D91dJO ¢ ALISYIAINN GYOINVILS e
ee:

Page 2

day such as cancer. It also lacks some of the global direction state-
ments which would help the Research Resources Branch to justify to
others within NIH the continued support for ACME. Parts of the report
were found to be very operations oriented.

He indicated that Bill Raub or a new assistant branch chief, who may
be appointed in the very near future, will visit Stanford within the
next month sometime.

I asked him how early a separate proposal covering the Arrhymia Detec-
tion work of Dr. Harrison could be reviewed. He indicated that a pro-
posal submitted in the next two weeks to Dr. Samual Swartz in DRG with
a letter requesting waiver of the June 1 deadline could possibly be
considered in the November Council.

ACME has proposed the use of service income to support local develop-
ment tasks. Mechanically this does not fit the NIH scheme. He indi-
cated that our cost ceiling could be increased to a higher level to

achieve this goal but that income would have to be used as an offset

to the total operating cost budget. I indicated that we would discuss
this further with Dr. Raub on his visit.

C. Dickens
D. Harrison