Patel Sejal S
University of Pennsylvania, PA, USA.
Bull Hist Med. 2012 Spring;86(1):94-121. doi: 10.1353/bhm.2012.0017.
This article explores the 1965 controversy over the Framingham Heart Study in the midst of growing oversight into the management of science at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It describes how, beginning in the early 1960s, federal overseers demanded that NIH administrators adopt particular management styles in administering programs and how these growing pressures led administrators to favor investigative pursuits that allowed for easy prospective accounting of program payoffs, especially those based on experimental methods designed to examine discrete interventions or outcomes of interest. In light of this changing managerial culture within the NIH, the Framingham study and other population laboratories-with their bases in observation and in open-ended study designs-became harder for NIH administrators to justify and defend.
本文探讨了1965年围绕弗雷明汉心脏研究的争议,当时美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)对科学管理的监督日益加强。文章描述了从20世纪60年代初开始,联邦监管机构如何要求NIH管理人员在管理项目时采用特定的管理方式,以及这些不断增加的压力如何导致管理人员倾向于那些便于对项目收益进行前瞻性核算的研究活动,尤其是那些基于旨在检验特定干预措施或感兴趣结果的实验方法的研究。鉴于NIH内部这种不断变化的管理文化,弗雷明汉研究以及其他以观察和开放式研究设计为基础的人群实验室,对于NIH管理人员来说,越来越难以证明其合理性并为之辩护。