Foreword

Over the past few years, there has been increasing interest in priority setting and strategic planning processes throughout the Federal sector. Among the overarching purposes of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), which was passed by Congress and subsequently signed into law in 1993, were provisions to make Federal agencies accountable for achieving program results through the establishment of program goals and objectives against which progress could be measured.

Within the scientific community, concerns have often been voiced that the science cannot be planned, because the course of science is often influenced by unexpected findings. Yet it could be argued that the conduct of science is one of the most carefully planned of all activities funded by the Federal Government. Indeed, the instructions for submitting a research grant application require each applicant to specify: what will be done, why it is important, what has already been done, and how it will be done. These points must be covered in the application's sections on the specific aims, background and significance, preliminary studies and progress report, and research design and methods. Evaluation of the applicant and the proposed research through the peer review process are also key elements of research funding. These components bear great resemblance to the requirements for a strategic plan identified in the GPRA.

While the focus of planning at the individual project level is less global than at the program level, the basic elements are essentially the same—establishment of goals and objectives, assessment of the progress, identification of the needs and/or opportunities, and description of the research approaches to be used. Admittedly, the exact course of scientific research or rate of discovery cannot always be predicted, because both depend greatly on incremental advances in knowledge that often occur over a period of years. Nonetheless, it is incumbent on us to ensure that the investment of public funds is made in areas that are deemed to represent the greatest need and opportunity for progress.

For more than 20 years, the National Eye Institute (NEI) and the National Advisory Eye Council (NAEC), through NAEC's Vision Research Program Planning Subcommittee, have attempted to conscientiously meet their stewardship responsibilities through a comprehensive planning process. During the planning process for their first plan, published in 1975, the NEI and the NAEC stated the need for involving the research community in establishing recommendations for the conduct and evaluation of vision research:

Such recommendations, when formulated with the assistance of respected members of the research community, can be helpful to the investigator in planning the future course of his or her research and to the Federal administrator anxious to assure continuity of high-quality research support in an uncertain period of fluctuating research budgets.

The NEI and the NAEC have long considered the planning and evaluation activities of the program as essential components of the strategic planning process. Panels of experts are assembled to review and make recommendations on NEI research programs. They are also asked to determine where progress was made by identifying the most important research accomplishments that were achieved since publication of the last plan. Not only is this assessment key to evaluating the progress that has been made in achieving the goals and objectives in the previous plan, it is also a vital first step in identifying the future needs and opportunities in each program.

It should be stressed, however, that the NEI and the NAEC have never viewed these plans as blueprints or master plans for research, but rather as vehicles to draw attention to areas of research need and opportunity. Our first priority has been and continues to be funding the highest quality investigator-initiated research applications that will help achieve the goals and objectives outlined in these plans. To that end, the principal factor considered in determining which applications are funded continues to be the scientific merit of the proposal, as evaluated through the peer review system, combined with the programmatic considerations of the NAEC.

In drafting this sixth formal plan, through the cooperative efforts of members of the vision research community, the NAEC, and the staff of the NEI, special consideration was given to the purpose, intent, and requirements of the GPRA. On behalf of those who promote, support, and conduct every aspect of science that is related to vision, it is a great privilege to transmit this strategic plan for vision research that conveys the goals and objectives to improve the visual health of our Nation as we move into the 21st century.

Carl Kupfer, M.D.
Director
National Eye Institute