MODEL FOR SHAPING A SYSTEM COMPOSED OF MEASURABLE INDICATORS FOR DEFINING PRIORITY AREAS USING US NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTHCARE AS A ROLE EXAMPLE

12+ Submit an article

Received: 20.08.2016 Published: 20.08.2016

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. 

Keywords

How to cite

Для цитирования:

Цветкова Л.А. МОДЕЛЬ ФОРМИРОВАНИЯ СИСТЕМЫ ИЗМЕРЯЕМЫХ ИНДИКАТОРОВ ДЛЯ ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ ПРИОРИТЕТНЫХ НАПРАВЛЕНИЙ НА ПРИМЕРЕ НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫХ ИНСТИТУТОВ ЗДОРОВЬЯ США // Экономика науки. 2016. Т. 2, № 1. С. 57–63.

For citation:

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. Vol. 2, no. 1. P. 57–63.

How to Cite

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. Vol. 2, no. 1. P. 57–63.

References

  1. Заседание Совета при Президенте РФ по науке и образованию от 24 июня 2015 г. (2015) Новые вызовы и приоритеты развития науки и технологий в Российской Федерации. Стенограмма / Официальный сайт Президента России. http://kremlin.ru/events/councils/by-council/6/49755.
  2. National Institutes of Health (2016) Официальный сайт NIH. http://www.nih.gov/about-nih/what-wedo/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.
  4. Делюсина И. (2012) Президент и наука: любовь и ненависть // Троицкий вариант. № 96. С. 2.
  5. 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.
  6. 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).
  7. National Institutes of Health (1997) / NIH Organization Handbook. – Bethesda, Md: Nationa lInstitutes of Health.
  8. 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.
  9. Mervis, J. (2013) Proposed change in awarding grants at NSF spurs partisan // Science. № 340. – С. 670.
  10. Linton J. (2015) From Research Project to Research Portfolio: Meeting Scale and Complexity // Foresight-Russia. Vol. 9. – № 2. – C. 38–43.
  11. Черненко О. Н. (2013) Эпидемиологические и диагностические аспекты рака молочной железы // Сибирское медицинское обозрение. № 3 (81). – С. 40–44.

Articles

All articles