For the past 10 years, I have conducted an annual job market survey of all members (excluding Canadian members) of the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments. The survey instrument is a very simple questionnaire sent to the chairs each July, along with a letter soliciting their responses. A self-addressed, stamped return postcard is included. The chairs are asked to provide the number of unfilled positions in their departments as of that July in each of following categories: general radiology, neuroradiology, pediatric radiology, vascular and interventional radiology, chest radiology, musculoskeletal radiology, mammography, abdominal imaging, ultrasonography, nuclear medicine, research, and other openings. In addition, the chairs are asked to identify the specialty for which recruiting is “hardest.” The card includes one more question, which I change each year according to the circumstances in our field at the time. For the past 2 years, the question was whether the job market for the department's fellows and residents is the same, better, or worse. Sufficient space is also provided for a few additional comments, which I often receive, sometimes with an accompanying letter. The response rate is consistently excellent, having ranged from a low of 85% to a high of 95% over the 10-year period. The results, once tallied, are shared with the respondents, who are eager to have the information. Jonathan Sunshine and I have reported on these surveys in the past, most recently in the July 2008 issue of JACR [ 1 Sunshine J.H. Maynard C.D. Update on the diagnostic radiology employment market: findings through 2007-2008. J Am Coll Radiol. 2008; 5: 827-833 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (32) Google Scholar ].

The growth in medical imaging over the past 2 decades has yielded unarguable benefits to patients in terms of longer lives of higher quality. This growth reflects new technologies and applications, including high-tech services such as multisection computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and positron emission tomography (PET). Some part of the growth, however, can be attributed to the overutilization of imaging services. This report examines the causes of the overutilization of imaging and identifies ways of addressing the causes so that overutilization can be reduced. In August 2009, the American Board of Radiology Foundation hosted a 2-day summit to discuss the causes and effects of the overutilization of imaging. More than 60 organizations were represented at the meeting, including health care accreditation and certification entities, foundations, government agencies, hospital and health systems, insurers, medical societies, health care quality consortia, and standards and regulatory agencies. Key forces influencing overutilization were identified. These include the payment mechanisms and financial incentives in the U.S. health care system; the practice behavior of referring physicians; self-referral, including referral for additional radiologic examinations; defensive medicine; missed educational opportunities when inappropriate procedures are requested; patient expectations; and duplicate imaging studies. Summit participants suggested several areas for improvement to reduce overutilization, including a national collaborative effort to develop evidence-based appropriateness criteria for imaging; greater use of practice guidelines in requesting and conducting imaging studies; decision support at point of care; education of referring physicians, patients, and the public; accreditation of imaging facilities; management of self-referral and defensive medicine; and payment reform.

PurposeTo describe the employment market for diagnostic radiologists in 2006-2007, with attention to differences among subspecialties.MethodsThe authors conducted the most recent in a series of annual surveys of vacancies in academic departments and obtained data from the placement service of the American College of Radiology (ACR), its Professional Bureau, during its operation at the annual meeting of the Radiological Society of North America. The two data series were correlated. The percentage of academic vacancies in each subspecialty was compared with the percentage of academic radiologists in that subspecialty.ResultsJob listings per job seeker at the placement service, which serves both community and academic positions, were 0.72 for 2007 compared with approximately 1.1 to 1.2 for 2003 to 2006 and variation from 0.25 to 3.8 in the preceding decade. The correlation of the two data series was 0.84 (P = .08) for the 5 years for which both are available. Particularly high ratios of academic vacancies to academic radiologists were found for interventional radiology and breast imaging; particularly low ratios were found for neuroradiology and nuclear radiology.ConclusionsThe job market remains very much intermediate between the highs and lows that have occurred since 1990, but finding highly desirable jobs is likely to be somewhat more difficult, and filling vacancies somewhat easier, in 2007 than in the past few years. Interventional radiology and breast imaging are the subspecialties in which academic positions are most difficult to fill; neuroradiology and nuclear radiology seem to be at the opposite end of the spectrum. The same differences across subspecialties are probably found in community practice, given the strong correlation of the two data series.

HomeRadiologyVol. 248, No. 2 PreviousNext Reviews and CommentaryControversiesRadiologists: Physicians or Expert Image Interpreters?C. Douglas MaynardC. Douglas MaynardAuthor Affiliations1From the Department of Radiology, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Medical Center Blvd, Winston-Salem, NC 27151-1088. Received February 26, 2008; accepted March 23; final version accepted March 24.Address correspondence to the author (e-mail: [email protected]).C. Douglas MaynardPublished Online:Aug 1 2008https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2482080375MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookXLinked In References1 By-laws of the International Society of Strategic Studies in Radiology. Vienna, Austria: International Society of Strategic Studies in Radiology, 1999. Google Scholar2 Glazer GM, Margulis AR, Wolf KJ, et al. The International Society of Strategic Studies in Radiology. Radiology 2005; 236: 386–388. Link, Google Scholar3 Brant-Zawadzki MN. Special focus: outsourcing after hours radiology—one point of view: outsourcing night call. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4: 672–674. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar4 Bradley WG. Special focus: outsourcing after hours radiology—another point of view: use of a nighthawk service in an academic radiology department. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4: 675–677. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar5 Dunkle J, Jackson VP. Special focus: outsourcing after hours radiology—a third point of view: twenty-four-hour attending radiology coverage—physical, financial and educational issues. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4: 678–679. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar6 Borgstede JP. 2007 ACR presidential oration: four foundations for our future. J Am Coll Radiol 2007; 4: 875–878. Crossref, Medline, Google Scholar7 Ebbert TL, Meghea C, Iturbe S, Forman HP, Bhargavan M, Sunshine JH. The state of teleradiology in 2003 and changes since 1999. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2007;188(2):W103–W112. Google Scholar8 Linton OW. The American College of Radiology: the first 75 years. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 1997; 67–78. Google Scholar9 Chang PJ. Leveraging informatics to enhance radiology relevance and value: keynote address, opening session (abstr). In: Radiological Society of North America scientific assembly and annual meeting program. Oak Brook, Ill: Radiological Society of North America, 2007; 54. Google Scholar10 Kennedy S, Forman HP, Kaye AH, et al. The reasons that many radiology practices don't use off-hours services. J Am Coll Radiol (in press). Google Scholar11 Kaye AH, Forman HP, Kapoor R, et al. A survey of radiology practices' use of after-hour radiology services. J Am Coll Radiol 2008; 5(6): 748–758. Google Scholar12 Wikipedia Web site. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik/It's_the_economy,_stupid. Google ScholarArticle HistoryPublished in print: 2008 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited ByEl respeto… y todo lo demásP.Rodríguez Carnero2022 | Radiología, Vol. 64, No. 5Respect... and all the restP.Rodríguez Carnero2022 | Radiología (English Edition), Vol. 64, No. 5Prioritizing the Protocol: Improving the Process of Scheduling Imaging Examinations in a Radiology Department With Partially Integrated IT SystemsColeDiRoberto, ScottHenderson, CrystalLehto, Steven J.Baccei2017 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 14, No. 3Radiologist, obstetric patient, and emergency department provider survey: radiologist-patient interaction in the emergency department settingDavid B.Erlichman, Marjorie W.Stein, AmandaWeiss, FernandaMazzariol2016 | Emergency Radiology, Vol. 23, No. 3Rounding Radiologists: Clinical Collaboration Between Radiology Residents and Internal Medicine TeamsAllison M.Aripoli, Shelby J.Fishback, Rustain L.Morgan, Jacqueline D.Hill, Amie L.Robinson2016 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 13, No. 5The Nuclear Medicine Therapy Care Coordination ServiceValeria M.Moncayo, Kimberly E.Applegate, RichardDuszak, Bruce J.Barron, JimFitz, Raghuveer K.Halkar, Daniel J.Lee, David M.Schuster2015 | Academic Radiology, Vol. 22, No. 6Is a Picture Worth a Thousand Words? The Effect of Viewing Patient Photographs on Radiologist Interpretation of CT StudiesJohnRyan, Gul-eKhanda, RebeccaHibbert, ShawnaDuigenan, AdamTunis, NajlaFasih, BlairMacDonald, MohammedEl-Khoudary, AniaKielar, MatthewMcInnes, VivekVirmani, NitinRamamurthy, NickKolenko, AdnanSheikh2015 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 12, No. 1We Have Much in Common: The Similar Inter-generational Work Preferences and Career Satisfaction Among Practicing RadiologistsAndrew K.Moriarity, Manuel L.Brown, Lonni R.Schultz2014 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 11, No. 4The 21st-century radiology department: lessons from the pediatric sectionRichard E.Heller2013 | Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 43, No. 5An Evaluation of the Impact of Clinically Embedded Reading Rooms on Radiologist-Referring Clinician CommunicationAllison A.Tillack, James P.Borgstede2013 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 10, No. 5Imaging-based observational databases for clinical problem solving: the role of informaticsAlex A TBui, WilliamHsu, CoreyArnold, SuzieEl-Saden, Denise RAberle, Ricky KTaira2013 | Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, Vol. 20, No. 6La comunicazione radiologica nella società del benessereCorradoBibbolino, ElisaBusi Rizzi2012Bridging the Text-Image Gap: a Decision Support Tool for Real-Time PACS BrowsingMerlijnSevenster, Robvan Ommering, YuechenQian2012 | Journal of Digital Imaging, Vol. 25, No. 2TeleradiologyWilliam G.Bradley2012 | Neuroimaging Clinics of North America, Vol. 22, No. 3Rising Use of CT in Child Visits to the Emergency Department in the United States, 1995–2008David B. Larson, , Lara W. Johnson, , Beverly M. Schnell, , Marilyn J. Goske, , Shelia R. Salisbury, , and Howard P. Forman, 1 June 2011 | Radiology, Vol. 259, No. 3The Invisible Radiologist1Gary M. Glazer, , and Julie A. Ruiz-Wibbelsmann, 1 January 2011 | Radiology, Vol. 258, No. 1Images crossing borders: image and workflow sharing on multiple levelsPeeterRoss, HannaPohjonen2011 | Insights into Imaging, Vol. 2, No. 2Patient Preferences in Breast Cancer ScreeningGelarehSadigh, Aine M.Kelly, AngelaFagerlin, Ruth C.Carlos2011 | Academic Radiology, Vol. 18, No. 11Management in radiologiaOscarTamburrini, FrancescoDalla Palma2010Teleradiology 2010: technical and organizational issuesNeil D.Johnson2010 | Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 40, No. 6Demonstrate the Added Value! Our New Year's Resolution?Thomas H.Berquist2010 | American Journal of Roentgenology, Vol. 195, No. 6Radiologists Are Physicians, Not CommoditiesWilliam N. Lisberg, , and 1 February 2009 | Radiology, Vol. 250, No. 2Radiologists as PhysiciansLawrence E. Ginsberg, 1 February 2009 | Radiology, Vol. 250, No. 2Imaging challenges: a US perspective on controlling exposure to ionizing radiation in children with cancerSue C.Kaste2009 | Pediatric Radiology, Vol. 39, No. S1The Myriad Faces of Imaging Today (and Implications for Tomorrow)Eric M.Wilner2009 | Journal of the American College of Radiology, Vol. 6, No. 7¿Crisis también en la Radiología?J.R.Ramos Rodríguez2009 | Radiología, Vol. 51, No. 5Recommended Articles Running a Radiology Residency Program: Strategies for SuccessRadioGraphics2018Volume: 38Issue: 6pp. 1729-1743The Road to Wellness: Engagement Strategies to Help Radiologists Achieve Joy at WorkRadioGraphics2018Volume: 38Issue: 6pp. 1651-1664Developing, Purchasing, Implementing and Monitoring AI Tools in Radiology: Practical Considerations. A Multi-Society Statement from the ACR, CAR, ESR, RANZCR and RSNARadiology: Artificial Intelligence2024Volume: 6Issue: 1Increasing Median Time between Interruptions in a Busy Reading RoomRadioGraphics2021Volume: 41Issue: 2pp. E47-E56Assessing Methods and Tools to Improve Reporting, Increase Transparency, and Reduce Failures in Machine Learning Applications in Health CareRadiology: Artificial Intelligence2022Volume: 4Issue: 2See More RSNA Education Exhibits Communication Tools Returning Our Focus To Patient Centered Care: Principles, Blind-spots, Structured Communication And ChecklistsDigital Posters2021Pandemic Preparedness: Streamlining the Breast Imaging Patient Care and Teaching Experience During COVID-19Digital Posters2020Community Outreach in Breast Imaging: What Radiologists Can Do to Close the Gap for the Underserved and Uninsured PopulationDigital Posters2022 RSNA Case Collection Swimming Induced Pulmonary EdemaRSNA Case Collection2021latrogenic tracheal perforation from urgent cricothyrotomyRSNA Case Collection2020Stroke following CT guided chest biopsy RSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 248, No. 2 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download

Eugene W. Caldwell Lecture 2007: Radiology Research—Good to Great?C. Douglas Maynard1Audio Available | Share

HomeRadiologyVol. 238, No. 1 PreviousNext CommunicationsSpecial CommunicationsRobert R. Hattery, MD, President Radiological Society of North America, 2006C. Douglas MaynardC. Douglas MaynardAuthor Affiliations1From the Radiological Society of North America, 820 Jorie Blvd, Oak Brook, IL 60523.C. Douglas MaynardPublished Online:Jan 1 2006https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2381052541MoreSectionsFull textPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesCiteTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareShare onFacebookXLinked In Article HistoryPublished in print: 2006 FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsRecommended Articles David A. Bluemke, MD, PhD, Named Editor of RadiologyRadiology2016Volume: 282Issue: 1pp. 10-11David A. Bluemke, MD, PhD, Named Editor of RadiologyRadioGraphics2017Volume: 37Issue: 1pp. 5-6Diagnosis Please Certificates of Recognition Awarded to Four Individuals and to International and North American Radiology Resident GroupsRadiology2021Volume: 301Issue: 3pp. 497-501Congratulations to the 2021 Editorial FellowsRadioGraphics2021Volume: 41Issue: 5pp. E140-E141Congratulations to the 2021 Editorial FellowsRadiology2021Volume: 301Issue: 1pp. 1-2See More RSNA Education Exhibits Fluoroscopic Guided Contrast Examinations Of The Rectum And Colon: Essential Contributions To Clinical Decision-making.Digital Posters2021Resident Primer in Fluoroscopic Imaging of the Upper Gastrointestinal Tract: Overview of Technique, Pearls and PitfallsDigital Posters2020MRI Imaging Findings Of Papillary Necrosis - The Utility Of Non-contrast MR Imaging Of The Pelvicalyceal System Including The Importance Of Papillary Diffusion Restriction.Digital Posters2021 RSNA Case Collection Vertebral TuberculosisRSNA Case Collection2021HepatoblastomaRSNA Case Collection2021Pediatric distal forearm fracturesRSNA Case Collection2020 Vol. 238, No. 1 Metrics Altmetric Score PDF download

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to analyze and summarize the latest data describing the diagnostic radiologist employment market.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Three sources of data--vacancies in academic radiology departments as of July 1, 2005; the ratio of job listings to job seekers at a major placement service; and the number of positions advertised in the American Journal of Roentgenology and Radiology-are presented and compared with previous data.RESULTS:Vacancies in academic departments averaged 4.5 in 2005, an increase of 16% from 2004 but a decrease of 16% from the 2001 peak. Vacancies increased from 2004 in all specialties except nuclear medicine and "other," and vacancies decreased from 2001 in all specialties except pediatric radiology and purely research positions. Job listings per job seeker increased 8% from 2004 but remain far below peak levels. The total number of positions advertised decreased by 6% from 2004, reaching the lowest level since 1998. In 2005, 42% of the total advertised jobs were academic, as compared with 45% in 2004. Proportional decreases were seen between 2004 and 2005 in total advertisements per region except the Northwest and California. The largest proportional increases in subspecialties occurred in general radiology, abdominal imaging, and "other."CONCLUSION:Data from the American College of Radiology Professional Bureau and a survey of academic radiology departments show an increased demand for diagnostic radiologists in 2005, whereas data from the help wanted index show a decrease. In addition, the regional distribution of advertisements and the proportion of advertisements for certain specialties have shown some shifting in 2005. We believe the job market remains strong, with regional and specialty shifting.

OBJECTIVE:The objective of this article is to summarize the latest information concerning the diagnostic radiologist employment market.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Three sources of data are presented and compared with previous data: vacancies in academic radiology departments as of July; the ratio of job listings to job seekers at a major placement service; and the number of positions advertised in Radiology and the American Journal of Roentgenology.RESULTS:Vacancies in academic radiology departments averaged 3.9 in 2004, down 29%, and decreased for all subspecialties as compared with 2001, but the number of vacancies remained very similar to that for 2003. Job listings per job seeker were 1.1 in 2004, stable over the past 2 years but at the lowest level since 1997. The overall number of positions advertised declined by 14% in 2003 compared with 2002 and by an additional 17% in 2004, reaching the lowest level since 1998. In 2004, 45.3% of positions advertised were academic. Comparing 2003-2004 with 2001-2002, all geographic regions exhibited absolute declines in advertisements except the Northeast, which showed a 1.5% increase. Absolute increases occurred for musculoskeletal and emergency radiology positions. Statistically significant proportional decreases occurred for general radiology, vascular/interventional radiology, and pediatric radiology.CONCLUSION:Three separate data sources confirm a substantial and broad-based multiyear decline in the strength of the demand for diagnostic radiologists, with some shifting in relative demand for subspecialties. It is not clear if the decrease continued in 2004 or if 2004 demand was similar to that of 2003. Data are relative and do not indicate the employment market is weak in absolute terms.

OBJECTIVE:The purpose of this study is to present the latest information available on the shortage of diagnostic radiologists.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Four sources of information are available, and we present their data: first, the number of jobs for diagnostic radiologists advertised in Radiology and the American Journal of Roentgenology; second, vacancies in academic radiology departments as of July 1, 2003, ascertained by a survey of these departments; third, the ratio of job listings to job seekers at a major professional placement service, the Professional Bureau of the American College of Radiology (ACR); and fourth, diagnostic radiologists' self-reported workload burden, from the ACR's 2003 Survey of Diagnostic Radiologists.RESULTS:Jobs advertised in September-November 2003 (latest data available) were 28% fewer than in the same months of 2002. Vacancies per department averaged 3.9 in 2003, compared with 5.4 in 2001 and 5.1 in 2002. Listings per seeker were 1.4 in 2002 (latest data available) compared with 3.0 or more in 1999 and 2000. Responses to a question directly tying changes in workload to changes in income indicated that reported desires for workload reduction and workload increase were approximately equal.CONCLUSION:All four information sources have important limitations, but all indicate that the shortage has considerably eased. We plan to study the causes of this easing and continue to monitor the situation.

In December 2000, President Clinton signed legislation establishing the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). This action was the result of a multidecade effort of the biomedical imaging and engineering communities to gain increased recognition for biomedical imaging and engineering research within the National Institutes of Health and to enhance the impact of these disciplines on the health and well-being of people worldwide. Beginning in January 2001, several activities were initiated to form NIBIB into a real asset for researchers in biomedical imaging and engineering. These activities reflect a recognition that research in biomedical imaging and bioengineering has the potential of positively influencing research in many other biomedical disciplines, as well as directly affecting the welfare of people everywhere. This potential impact is discussed in this report, together with the history and present status of the formation of NIBIB.

In December 2000, President Clinton signed legislation establishing the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). This action was the result of a multidecade effort of the biomedical imaging and engineering communities to gain increased recognition for biomedical imaging and engineering research within the National Institutes of Health and to enhance the impact of these disciplines on the health and well-being of people worldwide. Beginning in January 2001, several activities were initiated to form NIBIB into a real asset for researchers in biomedical imaging and engineering. These activities reflect a recognition that research in biomedical imaging and bioengineering has the potential of positively influencing research in many other biomedical disciplines, as well as directly affecting the welfare of people everywhere. This potential impact is discussed in this report, together with the history and present status of the formation of NIBIB.

Considerable progress toward the full establishment of the new National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioegineering (NIBIB) has been achieved in recent months. As this is being written, a search committee is moving forward toward the selection of a permanent director for the NIBIB, other key staff recruitments are under way, and the initial NIBIB staff members are occupying office space in Building 31 on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) campus, where they are evaluating research initiatives for fiscal year 2002, developing a budget proposal for fiscal year 2003, and even planning for the growth of NIBIB over the next 5 years.

This paper describes the history, current status, and objectives and potential impact of the new National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB). Three of the authors (Hendee, Chien, and Maynard) have been involved over several years in the effort to raise the identity of biomedical imaging and bioengineering at the National Institutes of Health. The fourth author (Dean) is the Acting Director of the newly formed NIBIB. These individuals have an extensive collective knowledge of the events that led to formation of the NIBIB, and are intimately involved in shaping its objectives and implementation strategy. This special report provides a historical record of activities leading to establishment of the NIBIB, and an accounting of present and potential advances in biomedical engineering and imaging that will be facilitated and enhanced by NIBIB. The National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering represents a “coming of age” of biomedical engineering and imaging, and offers great potential to expand the research frontiers of these disciplines to unparalleled heights. © 2002 Biomedical Engineering Society.

Establishment of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) is a milestone for radiology and medical imaging. For the first time, the premier medical research institution in the world includes an organization dedicated to the development of new imaging techniques and technologies with broad applications to a wide range of disease processes and organ systems. The new institute has the potential to lead a revolution in medical science that will dramatically improve the practice of medicine and facilitate advances in biomedical research. Just as the creation of NIBIB is a turning point for radiology, it also represents a sharp departure for the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Until now, the typical institute at the NIH has been organized around a particular disease process or organ system. Nevertheless, as NIH Acting Director Ruth L. Kirschstein, MD, recently said, “while dedicating an institute to medical technologies rather than diseases, organ systems, or populations may seem novel for the NIH, it is truly a reflection of what science is today—and where science will be taking us tomorrow.” Because NIBIB, as Dr. Kirschstein says, embodies the present and future of medical science, it is multidisciplinary and exceptionally broad in its scope. The institute will bring together various disciplines, including information science, physics, chemistry, mathematics, materials science, and computer science, to achieve its mission. It will also coordinate with other NIH institutes and federal agencies that support imaging and bioengineering research in order to facilitate more efficient expenditures, joint research projects where appropriate, and technology transfer. In accordance with its mission, NIBIB will support a diverse portfolio focused mainly on basic, crosscutting research with broad potential applications. Acting NIBIB Director Donna J. Dean, PhD, has identified some of the research areas that the institute might exploit. These include biosensors, minimally invasive technologies, contrast agents, imaging device development, nanotechnology, biomaterials and tissue engineering, implant science, and image processing and analysis. Many other subjects, of course, will be added to the list by both extramural investigators and the NIBIB staff. It is expected that research using applications of imaging techniques and technologies to look at individual diseases and organ systems will, for the most part, remain in the institutes that have supported such investigations in the past. A number of proposals inevitably will fall into a gray area between NIBIB and other institutes. In some of these cases, collaborations among institutes might be appropriate, while in others the primary focus of the research will determine the most appropriate funding institutes. The new institute is intended to complement, not replace, imaging and bioengineering research supported by the other institutes. Perhaps the most significant advantage offered by the existence of NIBIB is the capability to direct resources toward research on specific subjects that offer particular opportunities for scientific advances. Solicitations for research proposals, such as requests for applications (RFAs) and program announcements (PAs), are powerful tools for guiding the direction of research and can also be effective in leveraging support from other institutes through collaborative initiatives. In addition, training new generations of imaging and bioengineering investigators will be an important focus for NIBIB. Intramural training programs and extramural training grants are needed to fill a void that existed in the previous NIH organizational structure, which emphasized training in the fields that constituted the primary missions of the disease and organ system institutes. The initial implementation plan for NIBIB does not specify the creation of an intramural research and training program; instead, NIH officials have stated that this decision will be reserved for the permanent director when that individual is selected. Nevertheless, there is a strong consensus in the imaging community that an intramural program is essential to achieving the mission of NIBIB. Organizing a new institute with such a broad mission cannot be accomplished overnight. This is particularly true in a case such as NIBIB, in which the new organization must be created from the ground up rather than through the transfer of existing programs. For that reason, the remainder of the current fiscal year will be devoted to organizing NIBIB. This effort will include beginning the search for a permanent director, appointing an advisory council, assembling a basic staff, and moving into NIBIB office space. The goal is that NIBIB will have an appropriation and a sufficient staff to operate independently by the beginning of fiscal year 2002, on October 1, 2001. The Academy of Radiology Research, which is an alliance of 25 professional imaging societies, including the ISMRM, has been working with the NIH to support the organizational effort. In addition, a top priority for the Academy is ensuring that NIBIB is provided with sufficient resources to achieve its mission. The new institute will receive its fiscal year 2002 budget from two sources: the transfer of certain existing imaging and bioengineering research grants from the other institutes and the appropriation of “new” funds. Although the NIH has not yet announced the total amount of existing grants to be transferred, early indications are that the NIH envisions a total fiscal year 2002 budget for NIBIB of approximately $100 million ($60 million in transferred grants and a $40 million appropriation). The Academy is working with members of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees to increase both of those figures. Although organizing NIBIB and securing an adequate budget are critical issues, it should be recognized that the long-term success of the new institute will ultimately depend in large part on the extramural radiology and bioengineering communities. The Academy, which led the campaign to establish NIBIB, will continue to work on annual funding for the institute, but it is vital that the number and quality of grant proposals be sufficient to use those resources effectively. Through their own efforts, radiologists, imaging scientists, and bioengineers have helped to create an extraordinary opportunity; now they must take full advantage of it.

While enactment of H.R. 1795, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Establishment Act, in December 2000 marked the culmination of a 5-year effort involving the entire radiologic community, it also signaled the beginning of a process to organize the new institute. As reported in a previous article (1), the Academy of Radiology Research (ARR), which led the campaign to create the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), is closely monitoring this process and participating actively wherever possible.

In previous articles we have focused almost solely on the campaign to establish the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the current efforts to organize the new institute. At the time this is being written in early October, however, two of the most important processes related to organizing NIBIB—the search for a permanent director and the appropriation of funds for fiscal year 2002—are both incomplete. A search committee has been appointed to identify candidates for director, and the NIH is currently advertising for and accepting applications. In the legislative arena, the appropriation for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services (including the NIH), and Education has been slowed by uncertainties regarding the cost of the education bill passed by the Congress earlier this year. The Congress is expected to pass an appropriation for the NIH later in the fall.

In a previous article (1), we described the initial steps toward organizing the new National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB), including the appointment of a task force of National Institutes of Health (NIH) institute directors to oversee the organizational process, the selection of Donna J. Dean, PhD, to coordinate transition efforts, and the adoption of a mission statement for NIBIB. Externally, the Academy of Radiology Research and the American Institute for Medical and Biological Engineering created a joint committee to work with the NIH on matters related to NIBIB.

As we reported in the December 2000 issue of Academic Radiology (1), the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1795, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering Establishment Act, in September and sent that legislation to the Senate. Since that time, the Academy of Radiology Research has been working with the Senate sponsor of this bill, Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss), to advance this proposal in the Senate. Unfortunately, at the time this article was written, the Senate had not yet acted on this legislation. The Congress had been expected to complete its work and adjourn for the election by early or mid-October. Instead, the House and Senate remained in session throughout October but were unable to resolve differences on important legislation. Both Houses therefore recessed with plans to return in mid-November after the election to complete work on controversial tax and spending bills. The fiscal year 2001 appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education was among the bills that were not yet passed when the Congress recessed. Funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is included in this legislation. Senate consideration of the proposal to establish an institute was thus postponed at least until mid-November. Because we have detailed the main arguments in support of the proposed institute in recent issues of Academic Radiology, we will focus in this article on the nature of the opposition that has delayed final passage of this proposal. The primary source of opposition thus far has been the NIH itself, which has traditionally opposed virtually all proposals to create new institutes. Although the NIH did not provide a witness for the September 13 hearing in the House Commerce Health and Environment Subcommittee, the agency did submit a written statement to the Subcommittee expressing opposition to the bill. In its printed testimony for the hearing record, the NIH emphasizes that it is already “making a large and growing investment” in bioimaging and bioengineering and that these fields “are proving to be integral to the operations of all of the present Institutes and Centers” (2). Moreover, the NIH takes the position that the present structure, rather than the establishment of a separate institute for imaging and bioengineering, fosters collaboration between engineers/physicists and clinicians/biologists that focuses research attention on “compelling biological questions.” The NIH also asserts that it recognizes that imaging and bioengineering do not fit neatly into a single existing institute and is taking effective steps to coordinate activities across the institutes. These include the Bioengineering Consortium (BECON), which was established in 1997 “to bring all of the Institutes and Centers together to shape the future directions of the NIH” in imaging and bioengineering and to “address problems raised by these scientific communities” (2). Additionally, in response to a Acad Radiol 2001; 8:116–118