MODEL FOR SHAPING A SYSTEM COMPOSED OF MEASURABLE INDICATORS FOR DEFINING PRIORITY AREAS USING US NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTHCARE AS A ROLE EXAMPLE
Abstract
President ofRussian Federationset a goal to develop measurable indicators and mechanisms for reaching scientific-technological priorities. The analysis was completed of one of the most well-developed models for selecting priority areas for scientific-technological development with the usage of measurable indicators, which is implemented in National Institutes of Healthcare (NIH) in theUSAwhen managing scientific-technological activity. Assessment is made of whether this system can be applied to Russian reality.
About the Author
L. A. Tsvetkova
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Moscow
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
PhD in Biological sciences, leading researcher of The Scientific-Technical Center
References
1. Meeting of Committee of Presidential Council on science and technology dated 24 June 2015 «New challenges and priorities for developing science and technologies in Russian Federation» (2015) Stenograph / Official website of Russian President. http://kremlin.ru/events/councils/bycouncil/6/49755.
2. National Institutes of Health (2016) Official web site of NIH. http://www.nih.gov/about-nih/whatwe-do/budget. 3. Katz E. (2014) Are NIH Budget Cuts Really to Blame for the Spread of Ebola / Government Executive. http://www.govexec.com/management/2014/10/are-nih-budget-cuts-really-blame-spread-ebola/96443.
3. Deljusina I. (2012) President and the science: the love and hatred relationship // Troickij variant. № 96. P. 2.
4. Analysis of Science & Technology Priorities in Public Research in Europe and the U.S (2010) / BILAT-USA G.A. n 244434 – Task 2.1 Milestone 3.
5. Scientific Opportunities and Public Needs: Improving Priority Setting and Public Input at the National Institutes of Health (1998) / Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on the NIH Research Priority-Setting Process. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US).
6. National Institutes of Heal th (1997) / NIH Organization Handbook. – Bethesda, Md: Nationa lInstitutes of Health.
7. Gilmour J. B. (2007) Implementing OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART): Meeting the Challenges of Integrating Budget and Performance // OECD Journal on Budgeting. V.7. № 1.
8. Mervis, J. (2013) Proposed change in awarding grants at NSF spurs partisan // Science. № 340. – С. 670.
9. Linton J. (2015) From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and Complexity // Foresight-Russia. Vol. 9. – № 2. – C. 38–43.
10. Chernenko O. N. (2013) Epidemiological and diagnostic aspects of breast cancer // Siberian medical review. № 3 (81). – P. 40–44.
Review
For citations:
Tsvetkova L.A. MODEL FOR SHAPING A SYSTEM COMPOSED OF MEASURABLE INDICATORS FOR DEFINING PRIORITY AREAS USING US NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTHCARE AS A ROLE EXAMPLE. Economics of Science. 2016;2(1):57-63. (In Russ.)
Views:
515
Email this article 