Page 1 of 11 

National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Research 

Program Blue Ribbon Panel Recommendations: 

Something Special 

The National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), at the request of National Institutes of Health Director, 

Elias Zerhouni, M.D., convened a Blue Ribbon Panel (BRP) of distinguished experts on January 7-8, 

2008 to review the general organization, operation, and administration of the Intramural Research 

Program (IRP) at NIMH. The Panel was co-chaired by Solomon H. Snyder, M.D., Department of 

Neuroscience, The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and Carol Tamminga, M.D., Department of 

Psychiatry, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. (See Appendix A for Panel Roster.) The 

Panel met formally with NIMH administrators Thomas Insel, M.D., NIMH Institute Director, Richard 

Nakamura, Ph.D., Deputy Director and Acting Scientific Director, and Susan Koester, Ph.D., Deputy Director, 

Division of Neuroscience and Basic Behavioral, along with Elias Zerhouni, M.D and Michael 

Gottesman M.D., Deputy Director for Intramural Research. In addition, the Panel heard from four 

NIMH IRP tenured scientists. (See Appendix B for Agenda for January 7-8 meeting.) 

The Panel was charged by Dr. Zerhouni to consider the following points during the deliberation: 

z NIMH needs to recruit a new Scientific Director (SD) for IRP. BRP should identify characteristics 

to seek in a SD. 

z Innovation and nimble adaptability are essential for qualities for research programs to excel. How 

can NIMH IRP become more innovative and adaptable? 

z NIMH IRP has many new research programs, in part in response to the suggestions from the 

previous BRP report in 1997. Are the current programs effective? How could they be improved? 

z What is the appropriate balance between related programs at other NIH IRPs and that within 

NIMH's IRP? Is anything underrepresented or overrepresented in NIMH's IRP? 

z	 NIH seeks ways in which to strengthen collaborative efforts between IRP scientists and 

extramural researchers. Clinical research in particular seems well suited for such collaborations 

because the activation energy for establishing research programs is lower at NIH's new Clinical 

Center than at many extramural sites. 

The BRP hopes that the recommendations provided below will help to strengthen the NIMH IRP. 

Moreover, many of these recommendations may serve as models to help transform and invigorate other 

Intramural Research Programs within NIH. 

Highlights of the NIMH Response to the 1997 BRP Recommendations for Improving 

the IRP: 

The 1997 BRP Report, "Finding the Balance", offered several dozen recommendations for ways in 

which NIMH IRP could be improved. The current BRP commends the NIMH leaders for the many 

laudable changes they have implemented in the past decade, largely in response to the 1997 Report. The 

most notable ones include the following: 

z	 NIMH significantly enhanced clinical and translational research in the IRP by recruiting a cadre of 

experienced and talented physician-scientists. Most notably, they created the Mood and Anxiety 

Disorders Program. Launched in 2000 with the hiring of half a dozen senior psychiatric 

researchers, this program is now nationally recognized for its preclinical and translational research 

leading to the development of new treatments (1). 
Page 2 of 11 

z	 Also in 2000, NIMH substantially enhanced the brain imaging and nuclear medicine components 

of the IRP by creating the Molecular Imaging Branch and recruiting three senior investigators to 

serve as the nucleus of the unit. This program now has gained international renown for the 

development and application of new radioligands for use in real-time imaging studies of brain 

function that are both clinical and basic in nature (2). 

z	 The NIMH leadership strengthened its enforcement of a policy in which IRP reduces or eliminates 

research support for investigators, including tenured ones, whose work receives a sub-par 

evaluation from its Board of Scientific Counselors (BSC). These efforts have contributed to a 

decrease in the number of tenured IRP investigators from 59 in 1997 to 37 in 2007. This strategy 

is also helping to diminish overly centralized large research groups which impacts the 

opportunities for both the hiring and advancement of young researchers. 

z	 With the completion of Phase I development of the Porter Neuroscience Center, NIMH recruited 

several strong junior faculty, mainly in 2006, to occupy that new facility. All these young 

researchers have demonstrated commitment to translational as well as basic science along with an 

eagerness to collaborate with the other neuroscientists in the Center. 

z	 As a demonstration of its capacity to take a central role in responding to new and emerging mental 

health needs in the US, in 2006, the NIMH IRP responded to the reported increase in autism by 

launching a major effort to understand and better deal with the condition (3). The program started 

by establishing three clinical studies aimed at defining the characteristics of autism subtypes and 

at defining new and better treatments that can be tailored to clinical needs. 

z	 The Board of Scientific Counselors played an active and important role in facilitating these 

advances by acting as a 'guardian of quality' for individual researchers as well as for new 

programs. The BRP feels that the BSC of NIMH is one of the finest, if not the very best, among 

NIH institutes and so should be strongly supported in its efforts. 

Some Recent Contributions of NIMH IRP Investigators to Mental Health Research: 

The BRP applauds the numerous vital contributions that NIMH IRP investigators are making to mental 

health. The IRP emphasis on translational research and focus on high risk-high yield projects helps to 

accomplish their goal of innovation. A few noteworthy bodies of work include: 

z	 The 2007 report showing that attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by 

a delay in development of critical brain regions, which ultimately follow a normal pattern (4) 

z	 The pioneering of "imaging genomics", which brings together in vivo brain imaging and family 

genetic studies, including twin studies, to elucidate patterns of normal and abnormal brain 

function and their genetic determinants (5) 

z The interdisciplinary research that links depressed affect to a specific brain region (area 25) and a 

specific regulator of brain chemistry (the serotonin transporter) (6) 

z The validation of the rapid antidepressant effects of the anesthetic ketamine in humans, supporting 

the development of NMDA glutamate receptor antagonists as a novel treatment for depression (7) 

z	 The refinement of BOLD (blood oxygen level detection) functional magnetic resonance imaging 

(fMRI), which enhances both spatial and temporal resolution of fMRIs (8), and the application of 

BOLD fMRI in studies such as those on adolescent mental disorders (9) 

The Next Decade at the NIMH IRP - Its Role in Mental Health Research and Its Place 

in Neuroscience Among NIH IRPs: 

In his vision for NIMH as a whole, Director Thomas Insel stated, "the field [of mental health research] 

has gone through two tectonic shifts recently". Basic neuroscience has shifted beyond strict 

reductionism into a "systems" era in which researchers are learning how to describe, understand, and 
Page 3 of 11 

intelligently manipulate neural pathways and networks. At the same time, psychiatry has moved from 

focusing on metapsychology and psychoanalysis to placing greater emphasis on biology. A further shift, 

now underway, stresses the genetic basis of individual vulnerability to mental illness. Given the tools 

available, it should be possible within the foreseeable future to elucidate the genetic variations that 

predispose certain individuals to schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, autism and anxiety disorders, and to 

define the developmental changes within neural pathways and circuits that are associated with such 

pathologies. 

A great deal of mental health research currently aims to translate observations about normal and 

pathological human brain function and behavior into appropriate laboratory models. NIMH IRP has 

already demonstrated that it is well suited to lead the way in identifying disease candidate genes and 

then developing experimental systems in which to study their roles in normal and pathological brain 

function (10). The intramural program is also well suited for homing in on candidate genes that are 

critical for various aspects of brain development through the use of in vivo brain imaging in clinical 

genetic studies (11). On the other hand, as Insel explained, certain types of studies, including genetic 

association studies requiring tens of thousands of subjects may best be executed through extramural 

programs rather than in the IRP. In its deliberation to develop recommendations for the future of the 

NIMH IRP, the BRP tried to keep such relative strengths and limitations in mind. 

The BRP expressed strong support for Insel and what he has accomplished at NIMH IRP. Clinical and 

translational research in general and brain imaging research in particular - both at the clinical and basic 

levels - have developed considerable strength in the current NIMH IRP. By contrast, it was the general 

consensus among BRP members that basic cell and molecular neuroscience in the IRP is weaker and 

needs to be augmented within the NIMH IRP. 

Perhaps the greatest single impediment to the further development of an outstanding IRP at NIMH has 

been the lack of a Scientific Director (SD) for much of the past decade. For that reason, shortly after the 

January meeting terminated, the BRP communicated informally to Dr. Insel its recommendation that a 

search for a new SD commence promptly. 

The Blue Ribbon Panel's Recommendations for the NIMH IRP: 

The BRP proposes that the only rationale for the existence of intramural NIH research programs, 

including NIMH, lies in IRP conducting research that is not feasible in the extramural world, nimbly and 

using innovative, often expensive, methodologies. In the early days of the modern NIH, the scientific 

excellence of IRP tended to exceed that of even the best universities, which, of itself, represented 

something unique. Seymour Kety, the first Scientific Director of both NIMH and NINDB (now NINDS) 

provides an outstanding early example, having made two pioneering scientific contributions (12). First, 

he devised a method for measuring cerebral blood flow and brain glucose metabolism, which laid the 

foundation for quantitative and qualitative neuroimaging of living animals including humans. Second, 

Kety gathered the first evidence for a genetic basis of schizophrenia, setting in motion a much broader 

program on the genetics of normal and abnormal behaviors. Julius Axelrod characterized catecholamine 

disposition, discovered norepinephrine reuptake as a mechanism of synaptic inactivation, and showed 

that antidepressants act by blocking such uptake(13). Louis Sokoloff developed the 2-deoxyglucose 

technique for evaluating cerebral metabolism leading to metabolic studies in humans by PET scanning 

(14). 

In the succeeding decades, biomedical science in universities has escalated in excellence, with a 

significant contribution to that development coming from creative IRP-trained physician-scientists, 

especially during the Vietnam War. During that time, notable accomplishments have emerged from the 
Page 4 of 11 

NIMH IRP, and are still ongoing. Such programs span the gamut from basic chemistry and physics 

leading to the development and use of new radioligands for in vivo imaging of a host of brain chemicals, 

to clinical research such as longitudinal studies of brain development in human and nonhuman primates, 

establishing essential baseline data about normal brain development and starting to uncover anatomical, 

physiological and biochemical correlates of various mental illnesses, Nonetheless, the BRP felt IRP has 

not realized its full potential, and that changes recommended by the BRP may enable NIMH to 

accomplish important objectives not feasible in extramural settings. 

Rationales offered for the existence of NIMH IRP include the following: 

z The protected environment of IRP permits scientists to pursue high risk-high yield research. 

z The potential for large focused expenditures enables IRP to develop national resources such as 

powerful imaging facilities. Having in their domain a great deal of cutting-edge research 

equipment makes IRP scientists valuable collaborators for extramural investigators needing access 

to such equipment. While several such collaborations have and still do take place and include not 

just investigators from within the US but also from around the world, they are few in number 

relative to actual potential. 

z A focused federal research agency may be better equipped than the extramural program to mount 

rapid responses to national emergencies such as a reported rise in incidences of autism and posttraumatic stress disorder. 

z IRP may afford unique opportunities for various forms of research training. 

Limitations in accomplishing these objectives stem in part from the intrinsic handicaps of a federal 

agency. There is also a need for stable intramural leadership. Our recommendations attempt to address 

these problems. We anticipate that many problems of NIMH IRP are shared to a greater or lesser extent 

with other institutes. Accordingly, we recommend that NIMH IRP executives work with other institutes, 

particularly those relevant to neuroscience, to coordinate directives that will advance IRP function 

across the NIH. 

Recommendations: 

1. Appoint a Scientific Director (SD) of World-Class Stature as a Scientist and Administrator: 

With the exception of the years 1998-2004, NIMH IRP has lacked sustained scientific leadership for 

extended periods during most of the past two decades. As in any institution, NIMH IRP requires a strong 

leader with vision, interpersonal skills, and administrative wisdom to implement his/her vision. Because 

of the complex federal bureaucracy, some sources have recommended that SD be a professional 

administrator. We judge that the principal role of SD is to develop innovative scientific directions and to 

recruit the most talented scientists possible. These activities demand an individual of scientific stature 

who can command respect among the finest researchers and lead by example. Because a major portion 

of NIMH IRP is devoted to clinical research, an optimal SD might be a physician-psychiatrist with a 

stellar research background, though a talented Ph.D. could do as well. An investigator with 

bioinformatic expertise in developing, managing, mining and exploiting large scale databases relevant to 

mental illness could be considered given the increasing reliance upon these sources of information for 

both at risk populations and hypothesis generation. Ideally, SD should be an individual who is still 

personally active in research. However, it is possible that a capable individual who appreciates all the 

principal research domains and displays creative yet rigorous vision, but who no longer gives top 

priority to his/her own research program would be suitable. Most importantly, SD should possess the 

generative skills to nurture young IRP scientists and the maturity not to compete with them. Whether the 

new SD should be recruited from outside or inside NIMH IRP is not critical because each choice has 
Page 5 of 11 

merit; an extramural candidate may bring fresh ideas and new perspectives while an intramural 

investigator would be familiar with the nuances of working in a federal government agency. 

Recruiting new scientists is another crucial task, a process in which there is no substitute for making 

scientific excellence, "the best of the best," a prime criterion. We recommend that SD primarily recruit 

in areas of relevance to the NIMH mission of mental health and neuroscience. This criterion stems from 

the BRP's judgement that coordination of IRP scientists is of greater importance than in the extramural 

community. Thus, laboratory science is often dominant in many universities, whereas the IRP affords an 

opportunity to develop teams that seamlessly traverse molecular, systems and cognitive neuroscience 

and link them to clinical investigations. The Porter Neuroscience Research Center offers one such model 

of a cross-disciplinary environment in which neuroscience laboratory research can succeed in the IRP. 

In addition, various special programs such as the well established Mood and Anxiety Disorder Program 

in the IRP already demonstrate significant translation across levels of analysis and across disciplines. 

The new SD should continue this trend towards collaborative innovation. 

2. Initiate the SD Search Process Now: 

Given the time required to constitute a search committee, we would urge that NIMH initiate the formal 

search for SD as soon as possible. 

3. NIMH IRP as an Incubator: 

Some aspects of the intrinsic structure of a federal agency impede turnover and foster the retention of 

less productive scientists. The current state of IRP science is regarded as weaker than the research at the 

top extramural institutions, especially in the basic laboratory sciences. This reputation may lag behind 

reality at the NIMH IRP, based on an analysis of citations, rates of faculty turnover, and quality of 

recent faculty recruits. But the misperception that the IRP remains scientifically weak impedes 

recruitment. Moreover, the resurgent European and Asian universities compete for outstanding scientific 

talent. Young scientists find attractive those institutions in which their professional advancement can be 

enhanced by an environment of world-class colleagues. The incubator program we propose aims to 

address the twin problems of a need for turnover and the need to recruit the best scientists. 

Specifically, we propose that recruits be appointed for defined periods, perhaps five-seven years with a 

possibility of reappointment. However the great majority of recruits should leave IRP for the extramural 

community after the initial term of appointment. Among basic scientists, a single term of appointment 

should be the rule rather than the exception. For clinical investigators whose projects are often relatively 

long-term, reappointment might be more frequent. One of the attractions of IRP is the guarantee of an 

abundance of "hard" money support for research without the need to constantly write grant applications, 

teach courses and sit on committees. For clinical research recruits, the Clinical Center and the special 

NIMH patient populations represent unique resources. 

Additionally, we recommend a "reverse" dowry. Presently, IRP scientists are often reluctant to seek 

university positions, and universities may be reluctant to recruit them for the following reason: Skills in 

raising funds through grant writing and other mechanisms are paramount in the extramural world. After 

a decade or more in IRP, scientists would be seeking relatively senior positions in universities that 

require substantial grant funding. While senior in the scientific sense, IRP investigators often are 

novices in this entrepreneurial venue. Accordingly, we propose a program whereby IRP scientists 

moving to universities may receive a substantial reverse dowry, perhaps $500,000/year for four years 

with a strong commitment by the scientist to apply for extramural support during that time. The level of 

support may differ depending upon the experience and time spent in the IRP by the scientist. 
Page 6 of 11 

Mechanisms to implement this program already exist. For instance, during the period of reverse dowry, 

the investigator might still be designated an intramural scientist but on leave to the university. When 

combined with the otherwise attractive components of an IRP recruitment package, the reverse dowry 

ought to make NIMH IRP competitive with the best universities in the country. We feel that this 

program may be of interest to other NIH institutes. 

The incubator concept can apply not just to young scientists but also to science, specifically to high-risk 

research programs that require an extended period of sheltered support in order to thrive. Whereas hiring 

decisions in the extramural community tend to factor in the potential fundability of the candidate's 

research plan, the IRP, as an incubator, need not be so risk-averse or discouraging of descriptive 

research when the outcomes could substantially benefit the field of mental health. The early work on 

brain imaging in vivo, rendering it high-resolution and quantitative, exemplifies such a highrisk/enormous pay-off project at NIMH IRP. Similarly, work to amass data on normal brain 

development during childhood, while not the hypothesis driven research that is favored in extramural 

settings, has provided a detailed picture of structural developmental changes in normal children. 

Accordingly, the BRP endorses the current approach to launching novel programs that may require 

major investment that is more feasible in IRP than universities. 

4. Exit Strategy Facilitated by a Reverse Dowry: 

Rejuvenation of IRP scientific excellence is critically dependent upon recruitment of new outstanding 

scientists. In an era of relatively static resources, recruitment will not be feasible without turnover of 

existing personnel. The BRP judged that, on balance, clinical research at IRP is strong and well focused 

on the most important targets of the NIMH mission. By contrast, we found substantial weaknesses in the 

cellular/molecular neuroscience components of IRP. Additionally, some of the research was not well 

linked to the NIMH mission and only peripherally related to any aspect of mental health. Since the last 

Blue Ribbon Panel about a decade ago, there has been turnover of some of the weakest IRP scientists 

through denial of tenure for young investigators and through termination of support for senior scientists. 

However, a substantial number of scientists with tepid reviews by the Board of Scientific Counselors 

remain. To facilitate new recruitment and to enhance the overall scientific excellence of IRP, we 

recommend efforts to augment turnover of such relatively weak scientists. Because most of these 

individuals have been in IRP for over a decade, they would not fare well in the academic job market and 

are themselves often fearful of the "outside world." 

Because of all these considerations, we propose that the reverse dowry, described above for new 

recruits, be applied for some currently tenured researchers as well, to enable long-term IRP investigators 

to compete for academic positions. The amounts and duration for such support might be similar to levels 

described above in packages for new recruits. For senior IRP investigators, larger amounts and longer 

durations might be required to facilitate their transition to the university community. The reverse dowry 

would be an adjunct to existing mechanisms for poorly rated investigators such as decreasing funding, 

assignment to administrative activities and even closing labs. 

We recognize that some IRP investigators who are no longer highly productive may be better suited for 

other roles, most notably administrative or teaching ones. In many universities such senior scientists are 

offered some formal training and support to help make such transitions. The BRP recommends that IRP 

become similarly aggressive to assist these individuals to make successful mid-career course changes. 

As with the use of reverse dowries for new recruits, we suspect that these mechanisms for enhancing 

turnover of long-term IRP scientists may be applicable to other NIH institutes. 
Page 7 of 11 

5. Structure and Linkage of IRP Basic and Clinical Neuroscience - Importance of Investigator 

Independence: 

IRP laboratories are currently structured in several different ways. The basic molecular/cellular 

neuroscience laboratories are relatively small with independent research programs that often are 

unrelated to each other or to the clinical enterprise. The cognitive neuroscience research activities are 

more coherent and do provide some conceptual support for clinical efforts. For instance, elucidation of 

circuits that link cognitive and affective behavior helps explain schizophrenic disorders of thinking and 

feeling. Clinical efforts are organized in two large programs that include basic as well as clinical 

research. The Genes, Cognition and Psychosis (GCAP) program has a top-down tightly coordinated 

structure (15). By contrast, the Mood and Anxiety Program (MAP) comprises a grouping of relatively 

independent laboratories that have fairly close coordination with a focus on common goals (16). 

Depending on the personalities of the individuals involved, different structures may each afford unique 

benefits. However, many decades of experience both in universities and in NIH IRP strongly support the 

notion that scientists are most successful when provided a broad freedom of inquiry. For basic research, 

relatively small laboratories, generally not exceeding 15 individuals, are optimal for creative advances. 

Somewhat larger structures may be needed for clinical investigation, but collaboration of 

independent/semi-independent teams is generally better than large groups with a single leader. 

The BRP proposes that basic and clinical groups in NIMH IRP be linked more closely than is generally 

the case in universities. Linking basic and clinical teams of investigators may facilitate the translational 

goals of understanding disease mechanisms and developing novel therapies. 

Since basic neuroscience is conducted in multiple NIH institutes, it has been suggested that NIMH IRP 

need not support basic neuroscience, instead deriving its conceptual basis from work at other NIH 

institutes. While interactions between institutes are valuable, we advocate that NIMH IRP maintain its 

own strong basic science operation. The ability to translate fundamental studies directly to mental 

illnesses and to carry out "reverse translation" are functions greatly advantaged by an intra-institute 

relationship between laboratories. 

In terms of new scientific directions, we recommend attention to developmental neuroscience. This 

recommendation is based on an increasing realization that major mental illnesses have strong 

developmental components. A full understanding of interactions between developmental trajectories and 

environmental risk factors requires this focus. Additionally, molecular/cellular neuroscience, which is 

emerging as one of the most exciting fields of biomedical research, requires interdisciplinary, 

multidimensional analytic approaches from genetics to signaling to brain imaging. Opportunities to 

translate these new findings and insights regarding molecular and cellular mechanisms of brain function 

into an understanding of mental illnesses and treatment of it should be maximized. 

Our recommendations are predicated on the demonstrated clinical relevance of basic neuroscience 

research. Therapeutic benefits deriving from such research include the following: Fundamental studies 

of subtypes of metabotropic glutamate receptors led to the development of mGluR2/3 agonists (17), 

which have displayed impressive efficacy in Phase II clinical trials in schizophrenia (18). Basic research 

into subtypes of muscarinic cholinergic receptors has resulted in promising clinical actions of desmethyl 

clozapine, which may afford clinical benefit in schizophrenia with diminished side effects (19). An 

emphasis on translating such fundamental discoveries to novel clinical therapeutics across mental health 

diseases should be feasible within the IRP. 

6. The Need for Additional Laboratory Research Space: 
Page 8 of 11 

Due to budgetary constraints, Phase II in the development of the Porter Neuroscience Research Center 

has been on hold, which has meant that the total wet lab space available to NIMH is less than it was 10 

years ago. Clearly, NIMH IRP will require greater lab space to achieve the goals we have proposed. 

Therefore, the completion of the Center, which already promotes the collaboration across institutes and 

links to the clinical research mission, will be critical to provide the space and resources for a new cadre 

of interacting, discovery-oriented scientists. 

7. The Fluidity of IRP Funding - Discretionary Funds: 

The NIMH SD possesses substantial authority in allocating funds, with concurrence of the NIMH 

Director. While some NIMH IRP scientists entrepreneurially lobby with SD for increased funding and 

new programs, funding is generally a top-down enterprise. By contrast, in universities each faculty 

member, even the most junior assistant professor, is an independent entrepreneur when it comes to 

raising funds from NIH and elsewhere. We propose that NIMH IRP develop mechanisms to facilitate 

such activities. A substantial "pot" of discretionary funds would enable IRP to be more nimble in 

addressing new challenges. We understand that SD presently has available some amount of discretionary 

funds. We recommend a larger pool of such funds for which individual IRP investigators, including the 

most junior, could apply. We do not favor the cumbersome application process of the present extramural 

program. Instead, proposals could be brief, perhaps 2-5 pages. An independent committee of 

disinterested IRP scientists (with extramural consultants as needed) would judge and award the "grants" 

and subsequently assess the productivity and relevance of outcomes to NIMH IRP mission. 

In terms of efficient utilization of funds, BRP was concerned that expenditures are not as critically 

examined as they are in the extramural community, where individual PIs exercise more detailed 

oversight. One example lies in those IRP cores for which individual labs are not charged for usage. 

Accordingly, a scientist may order 10 different knockout mice, because "it's free," whereas the scientific 

goals could be attained with two knockouts. If funds for the cores were incorporated into lab budgets, 

PIs would be less careless in their ordering habits. 

8. BRP Recommendations and NIMH Strategic Plan: 

Achieving the ambitious but compelling mental health objectives set out in the NIMH Strategic Plan 

(2007 draft) will require substantive evolution of both organizational structure and research talent within 

the NIMH IRP. Future recruits to the IRP should be driven by their contribution to achieving the 

objectives set forth in the Strategic Plan with particular focus on genetics, epigenetics, bioinformatics, 

developmental neurobiology, biomarker development and therapeutic development. While the BRP 

realizes that course setting is an iterative and ongoing process, in our best judgement, implementation of 

BRP recommendations is an integral and necessary step towards achieving the goals and objectives of 

the NIMH Strategic Plan. 

Conclusion: 

Through its research programs on the mind, brain, and behavior, NIMH aims to reduce the burden of 

mental illness. NIMH's Intramural Research Program sits poised to be the hub of these endeavors, given 

the strength and scope of IRP's current research efforts and the opportunity that IRP has to make tactical 

programmatic changes in response to BRP's recommendation. In making the recommended changes, we 

believe IRP should become the magnet research center for outstanding young investigators to begin 

innovative studies into causes and treatments of mental illness. Because the recommended new program 

would have most of these researchers leaving the Bethesda campus after a defined number of years, IRP 

would become the pre-eminent source of creative and well-trained mental health researchers for seeding 
Page 9 of 11 

new basic, translational, and clinical research programs in academic medical centers throughout the 

country. In that way, NIMH's IRP would truly become something special. 

References 

(1) Du J, Creson TK, Wu LJ, Ren M, Gray NA, Falke C, Wei Y, Wang Y, Blumenthal R, MachadoVieira R, Yuan P, Chen G, Zhuo M, Manji HK. The role of hippocampal GluR1 and GluR2 receptors in 

manic-like behavior. J Neurosci. 2008 Jan 2;28(1):68-79. PMID: 18171924 

(2) Cai L, Liow JS, Zoghbi SS, Cuevas J, Baetas C, Hong J, Shetty HU, Seneca NM, Brown AK, 

Gladding R, Temme SS, Herman MM, Innis RB, Pike VW. Synthesis and evaluation of N-methyl and 

S-methyl 11C-labeled 6-methylthio-2-(4'-N,N-dimethylamino)phenylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridines as 

radioligands for imaging beta-amyloid plaques in Alzheimer's disease. J Med Chem. 2008 Jan 10;51 

(1):148-58. PMID: 18078311 

(3) Press Release: New NIMH research program launches autism trials 

(http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2006/new-nimh-research-program-launches-autismtrials.shtml) 

(4) Shaw P, Eckstrand K, Sharp W, Blumenthal J, Lerch JP, Greenstein D, Clasen L, Evans A, Giedd J, 

Rapoport JL. Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is characterized by a delay in cortical maturation. 

Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Dec 4;104(49):19649-54. PMID: 18024590 

(5) Representative publications include: 

Tan HY, Callicott JH, Weinberger DR. Intermediate phenotypes in schizophrenia genetics redux: is it a 

no brainer? Mol Psychiatry. 2008 Mar;13(3):233-8. PMID: 18285755 

Tan HY, Callicott JH, Weinberger DR. Dysfunctional and compensatory prefrontal cortical systems, 

genes and the pathogenesis of schizophrenia. Cereb Cortex. 2007 Sep;17 Suppl 1:i171-81. 

Review.PMID: 17726000 Buckholtz JW, Sust S, Tan HY, Mattay VS, Straub RE, Meyer-Lindenberg A, 

fMRI evidence for functional epistasis between COMT and RGS4. Mol Psychiatry. 2007 Oct;12 

(10):893-5, 885. PMID: 17895922 

Tan HY, Chen Q, Sust S, Buckholtz JW, Meyers JD, Egan MF, Mattay VS, Meyer-Lindenberg A, 

Weinberger DR, Callicott JH. Epistasis between catechol-O-methyltransferase and type II metabotropic 

glutamate receptor 3 genes on working memory brain function. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 Jul 

24;104(30):12536-41. PMID: 17636131 

Marenco S, Siuta MA, Kippenhan JS, Grodofsky S, Chang WL, Kohn P, Mervis CB, Morris CA, 

Weinberger DR, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Pierpaoli C, Berman KF. Genetic contributions to white matter 

architecture revealed by diffusion tensor imaging in Williams syndrome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 

2007 Sep 18;104(38):15117-22. PMID: 17827280 

Goldman AL, Pezawas L, Mattay VS, Fischl B, Verchinski BA, Zoltick B, Weinberger DR, MeyerLindenberg A. Heritability of brain morphology related to schizophrenia: a large-scale automated 

magnetic resonance imaging segmentation study. Biol Psychiatry. 2008 Mar 1;63(5):475-83. PMID: 

17727823 

Meyer-Lindenberg A, Straub RE, Lipska BK, Verchinski BA, Goldberg T, Callicott JH, Egan MF, 
Page 10 of 11 

Huffaker SS, Mattay VS, Kolachana B, Kleinman JE, Weinberger DR. Genetic evidence implicating 

DARPP-32 in human frontostriatal structure, function, and cognition. J Clin Invest. 2007 Mar;117 

(3):672-82. PMID: 17290303 

Lipska BK, Mitkus SN, Mathew SV, Fatula R, Hyde TM, Weinberger DR, Kleinman JE. Functional 

genomics in postmortem human brain: abnormalities in a DISC1 molecular pathway in schizophrenia. 

Dialogues Clin Neurosci. 2006;8(3):353-7. Review. PMID: 17117617 

Meyer-Lindenberg A, Weinberger DR. Intermediate phenotypes and genetic mechanisms of psychiatric 

disorders. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2006 Oct;7(10):818-27. Review. PMID: 16988657 

Chen J, Lipska BK, Weinberger DR. Genetic mouse models of schizophrenia: from hypothesis-based to 

susceptibility gene-based models. Biol Psychiatry. 2006 Jun 15;59(12):1180-8. Review. PMID: 

16631133 

Meyer-Lindenberg A, Buckholtz JW, Kolachana B, R Hariri A, Pezawas L, Blasi G, Wabnitz A, Honea 

R, Verchinski B, Callicott JH, Egan M, Mattay V, Weinberger DR. Neural mechanisms of genetic risk 

for impulsivity and violence in humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Apr 18;103(16):6269-74. 

PMID: 16569698 

Lipska BK, Peters T, Hyde TM, Halim N, Horowitz C, Mitkus S, Weickert CS, Matsumoto M, Sawa A, 

Straub RE, Vakkalanka R, Herman MM, Weinberger DR, Kleinman JE. Expression of DISC1 binding 

partners is reduced in schizophrenia and associated with DISC1 SNPs. Hum Mol Genet. 2006 Apr 15;15 

(8):1245-58. PMID: 16510495 

(6) Murphy DL, Lesch KP. Targeting the murine serotonin transporter: insights into human 

neurobiology. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008 Feb;9(2):85-96. Review. PMID: 18209729, and references 

therein 

(7) Zarate CA Jr, Singh JB, Carlson PJ, Brutsche NE, Ameli R, Luckenbaugh DA, Charney DS, Manji 

HK. A randomized trial of an N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonist in treatment-resistant major depression. 

Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006 Aug;63(8):856-64. PMID: 16894061 

(8) Kriegeskorte N, Bandettini P. Analyzing for information, not activation, to exploit high-resolution 

fMRI. Neuroimage. 2007 Dec;38(4):649-62. Review. PMID: 17804260 

Kriegeskorte N, Bandettini P. The neuroscientific exploitation of high-resolution functional magnetic 

resonance imaging. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2006;1:21-4. Review. PMID: 17946772 (9) 

Giedd JN. The teen brain: insights from neuroimaging. J Adolesc Health. 2008 Apr;42(4):335-43. 

PMID: 18346658 

(10) Chen J, Lipska BK, Weinberger DR. Genetic mouse models of schizophrenia: from hypothesisbased to susceptibility gene-based models. Biol Psychiatry. 2006 Jun 15;59(12):1180-8. Review. PMID: 

16631133 

(11) Lenroot RK, Schmitt JE, Ordaz SJ, Wallace GL, Neale MC, Lerch JP, Kendler KS, Evans AC, 

Giedd JN. Differences in genetic and environmental influences on the human cerebral cortex associated 

with development during childhood and adolescence. Hum Brain Mapp. 2007 Nov 27; PMID: 18041741 

(12) Sokoloff L. Seymour S. Kety: 25 
Page 11 of 11 

August 1915 - 25 May 2000. Proc Am Philos Soc. 2002 Mar;146(1):101-10. PMID: 12068902 

(13) Julius Axelrod Lecture for 1970 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 

(http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1970/axelrod-lecture.html) 

(14) 1981 Albert Lasker Award for Clinical Medical Research - to Louis Sokoloff 

(http://www.laskerfoundation.org/awards/1981_c_description.htm) 

(15) Clinical Brain Disorder Branch, the principle research laboratory in the Genes, Cognition, and 

Psychosis Program of the DIRP at NIMH (http://cbdb.nimh.nih.gov/) 

(16) NIMH Mood & Anxiety Disorders Program (http://intramural.nimh.nih.gov/mood/) 

(17) Egan MF, Straub RE, Goldberg TE, Yakub I, Callicott JH, Hariri AR, Mattay VS, Bertolino A, 

Hyde TM, Shannon-Weickert C, Akil M, Crook J, Vakkalanka RK, Balkissoon R, Gibbs RA, Kleinman 

JE, Weinberger DR. Variation in GRM3 affects cognition, prefrontal glutamate, and risk for 

schizophrenia. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 24;101(34):12604-9. PMID: 15310849 

Crook JM, Akil M, Law BC, Hyde TM, Kleinman JE. Comparative analysis of group II metabotropic 

glutamate receptor immunoreactivity in Brodmann's area 46 of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex from 

patients with schizophrenia and normal subjects. Mol Psychiatry. 2002;7(2):157-64. PMID: 11840308 

(18) Patil ST, Zhang L, Martenyi F, Lowe SL, Jackson KA, Andreev BV, Avedisova AS, Bardenstein 

LM, Gurovich IY, Morozova MA, Mosolov SN, Neznanov NG, Reznik AM, Smulevich AB, Tochilov 

VA, Johnson BG, Monn JA, Schoepp DD. Activation of mGlu2/3 receptors as a new approach to treat 

schizophrenia: a randomized Phase 2 clinical trial. Nat Med. 2007 Sep;13(9):1102-7. Erratum in: Nat 

Med. 2007 Oct;13(10):1264. PMID: 17767166 

(19) Raedler TJ, Knable MB, Jones DW, Urbina RA, Egan MF, Weinberger DR. Central muscarinic 

acetylcholine receptor availability in patients treated with clozapine. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2003 

Aug;28(8):1531-7. PMID: 12799613 
APPENDIX A 

NIMH DIRP Blue Ribbon Panel Members 

January 2008 

CO-CHAIRS 

Solomon H. Snyder, M.D. Carol Tamminga, M.D. 

Department of Neuroscience, Department of Psychiatry, 

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine University of Texas 

 Southwestern Medical Center 

MEMBERS 

Huda Akil, Ph.D. Peter Macleish, Ph.D. 

Department of Psychiatry Neuroscience Institute 

Molecular Behavioral Neruoscience Institute Department of Anatomy & Neurobiology 

University of Michigan School of Medicine Morehouse University School of Medicine 

 

David Botstein, Ph.D. John March, M.D. 

Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics Department of Psychiatry 

Princeton University Duke University Medical Center 

 

Roberta Diaz Brinton, Ph.D. Eric Nestler, M.D., Ph.D.* 

School of Pharmacy, Pharmacology & Department of Psychiatry 

Pharmaceutical Sciences University of Texas Southwestern Medical 

University of Southern California 

 

Paul Greengard, Ph.D. Marcus Raichle, M.D. 

Laboratory of Molecular & Cellular Department of Radiology & Neurology 

Neuroscience Washington University School of Medicine 

The Rockefeller University 

John Krystal, M.D. Bruce Rosen, M.D., Ph.D. 

Department of Psychiatry Athionoula A. Martinos Center for 

Connecticut Mental Health Center Biomedical Imaging 

Yale University School of Medicine Massachusetts General Hospital 

 Harvard Medical School 

Pat Levitt, Ph.D.** Edward Scolnick, M.D. 

Department of Pharmacology Psychiatric Disease Initiative 

John F. Kennedy Center for Research Broad Institute at MIT and Harvard 

on Human Development 

Vanderbilt University Medical Center 

SCIENCE WRITER 

Beth Schachter, Ph.D. 

Still Point Coaching & Consulting 

*Attended by teleconference Jan 7 only, **Attended by teleconference Jan 8 only
 

1
 
APPENDIX B 

Agenda 

NIMH Intramural Program Blue Ribbon Panel
 

January 7-8, 2008 

Monday January 7, 2008 

NIH Campus 

Bldg 31C, room 6C6 

9:30 AM Introductions 

Charge to the Committee – Elias Zerhouni, Director, NIH 

Introduction to the Intramural Progams at NIH – Michael Gottesman, Deputy Director for 

Intramural Research, NIH 

10:00 Orientation to the NIMH Intramural Program, history, response to prior Blue Ribbon Panel 

Report – Thomas Insel, Director, NIMH 

10:50	 Break 

11:00	 Peer Review for the Intramural Program: Board of Scientific Counselors – Richard Nakamura, 

Deputy Director and Acting Scientific Director, NIMH 

12:00 Lunch, Discussion 

12:30pm Moving forward: Models of research – Richard Nakamura 

1:00	 GCAP – Daniel Weinberger 

1:45	 MAP – Husseini Manji 

2:30	 Break 

2:45	 Research in Children at NIMH – Susan Swedo 

3:30	 Cognitive Neuroscience at NIMH – Leslie Ungerleider 

4:15 Executive Session 

5:30	 Break for transport to hotel, dinner 

6:30	 Dinner and group discussion – Brasserie Monte Carlo (Blue Ribbon Panel, Insel, Nakamura, 

Koester) 

Tuesday, January 8 

9:00	 Panel meet with Insel, Nakamura, Koester, and Donald Rosenstein, Clinical Director, NIMH 

 

10:20	 Break 

10:30 Executive Session 

12:00 Discussion, working lunch 

1:00 Adjourn 

2