# Presentation: 501074

## Supporting Connectivity for Biomedical Research

**A workshop co-sponsored by**
**The National Center for Research Resources, NIH**
***and***
**The Telemedicine & Advanced Technology Research Center,**
**U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command**
**April 24, 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. (executive session)**
**in conjunction with the Internet2 Spring 2006 Member Meeting**
**Arlington, VA**
**April 24-26, 2006**

## Purpose

- Bring together biomedical researchers, networking experts, and funding agencies to identify key challenges to improving network connectivity and its utilization across a broad spectrum of users, including those with access to cutting-edge networks and those who have little or no connectivity
- Build on lessons learned from recent projects
- share best practices for implementing research networks
- identify key needs and challenges for future network development
- make recommendations on priorities, next steps

## Planning Committee

- Elaine Collier, DCRR
- Peter Highnam, OD
- Shelia McClure, DRI
- Bret Peterson, DBTRRR
- Mike Sayre, DRI
- Harold Watson, DCM
- Mary Kratz, U. Michigan and DoD/TATRC
- Mike McGill, Internet2 Health Sciences

## Participants (n=82)

- biomedical researchers (~40%)
- basic science
- clinical & translational research
- primary care physician research networks
- non-federal computer scientists and networking experts (academic and corporate; ~35% )
- federal agency staff (~25%)
- NCRR, NLM, NIGMS, NCMHD
- DoD/TATRC
- NSF Office of Cyberinfrastructure
- VHA Health IT Sharing
- HRSA Office of Health IT

## Presentations

**Lariat Project**
- 	   Gwen Jacobs, Ph.D., Montana State University
**Biomedical Informatics Research Network (BIRN)**
- 	   Mark Ellisman, Ph.D., Univ. of California, San Diego
**RCMI Translational Research Network**
- 	   Keith Norris, M.D., Charles R. Drew University
**Biomedical Computing Collaboration Challenges**
- 	   Chris Johnson, Ph.D., University of Utah
**Center of Excellence for Remote & Medically Underserved Areas**
- 	   Mike Shanafelt and Rob Dillon, St. Francis University/CERMUSA

## Facilitated discussion

- 	Moderator: 	Steve Corbato, Internet2
- 	Co-facilitators:	Mark Ellisman, UCSD
- 				David Lassner, CIO, U. Hawaii
- Lessons learned – presentations
- Key questions & challenges – white paper

## Take-home lessons

- Connectivity involves people, projects, and software as well as pipes
- Connectivity serves multiple purposes, so plan accordingly
- Research (*especially* interdisciplinary)
- Education and research training
- Public services, e.g., health care

## Key Questions and Challenges

- No, and probably not.
- Need better connections – both in terms of bandwidth (BW) and quality of service (QoS) - to serve diverse end users situated in widely diverse environments
- Advanced research applications (e.g., data visualization) are driving increased needs for BW, QoS
- BW constraints increasingly critical as data complexity and volume grows, especially for developing institutions

**Key Questions and Challenges**

## Key Questions and Challenges

***Is existing network infrastructure adequate to bridge academic medical centers and community health care providers to support community-based clinical and translational research?***

- No; e.g., R&D for advanced applications (e.g., medical imaging, remote surgery) requires increased BW and QoS
- Low BW and QoS hinder patient encounters in community research settings, especially in underserved areas
- commercial “broadband” (cable or DSL) unavailable at any price
- unpredictable latency *is* an impediment for busy physicians

## Key Questions and Challenges

***What are the needs of minority-serving institutions (MSIs) and institutions in rural or remote areas, and how can these needs be addressed to broaden inclusion in biomedical research?**** *

- MSIs and remote/rural institutions often have different issues and needs
- Even urban MSIs can lack last-mile connectivity to advanced networks like Internet2
- Key common issues are staff and funding constraints
- Developing institutions ***must*** be included early in the planning process for initiatives designed to promote collaborative research networks

## Key Questions and Challenges

***Will private markets and state and local governments be willing and able to develop and sustain network infrastructure that meets anticipated research needs and ensures broad access to national and international research assets?**** *

- In a nutshell; no, but...
- emerging regional optical networks (RONs) could help close the gaps
- inventory RONs
- matchmaker role for NCRR? (Steve Corbato)

## Key Questions and Challenges

***How can funding agencies balance the needs of their own missions with opportunities for collaboration where mutual interests exist, and ensure adequate planning, coordination, and evaluation of interagency programs?**** *

- Increase communication between feds with mutual interests, e.g.,
- NIH, AHRQ, HRSA, IHS community-based research
- NIH, NSF, DoE high-performance distributed computing
- Exploit existing government-wide forums
- Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) Coordinating Groups
- American Health Information Community (AHIC)

## Priority recommendations

- Nurture culture of collaboration to enable interdisciplinary team science
- Based on driving research projects
- Communication across disciplines
- Data sharing inducements
- Academic rewards, recognition

## Priority recommendations, cont’d

- Enhance support for IT personnel
- Professional project management: bridging the disciplines
- Operational project management: integrating performance sites and data
- Ongoing technical support

## Priority recommendations, cont’d

- Provide support for software engineering and maintenance to enable collaborative sharing on a production scale
*	**Formation of research networks linking shared user communities can stimulate software development (Guy Almes, NSF OCI)*

## Priority recommendations, cont’d

- Develop network performance measurement tools using common standards with end-users’ actual service experiences in mind
- Develop inventory of network resources and connections
- First-mile atlas, state-by-state
- Decision support tools for getting connected (LAN/WAN cookbook)

## Priority recommendations, cont’d

- Close wide gaps in connectivity
- developing institutions
- community health care settings
- rural and remote research sites

*Big opportunities exist for monitoring population exposures and reactions to environmental factors; these should not be limited to big cities and academic health centers (Mark Ellisman, UCSD)*

## Priority recommendations, cont’d

- Exploit existing government-wide forums to promote interagency collaboration
- NITRD (existing NCRR, NLM connections)
- AHIC (emerging NCRR connections)

**Priority recommendations, cont’d**

## Priority recommendations, cont’d

- Enhance connections to communities and health care providers to foster
- community-based clinical and translational research
- health care quality, safety, & effectiveness research
- rapid flow of health information (2-way street)
- Assess BW and QoS needs as function of application type (how much is enough?)
- Support planning grants to foster development of diverse collaborative research networks

## Next steps

- Incorporate workshop discussions into white paper (final report) and post on NCRR Web site
- lessons learned from Lariat, BIRN, RTRN, et al.
- priority recommendations
- Continue dialog with grantee communities, funding agencies, and relevant organizations (Internet2, National Lambda Rail, etc.)
- Strengthen existing relationships and forge new relationships with other ICs and agencies
- Concept clearance for collaborative initiatives to enhance cyberinfrastructure for biomedical and behavioral research