English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article explores the 1965 controversy over the Framingham Heart Study in the midst of growing oversight into the management of science at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It describes how, beginning in the early 1960s, federal overseers demanded that NIH administrators adopt particular management styles in administering programs and how these growing pressures led administrators to favor investigative pursuits that allowed for easy prospective accounting of program payoffs, especially those based on experimental methods designed to examine discrete interventions or outcomes of interest. In light of this changing managerial culture within the NIH, the Framingham study and other population laboratories-with their bases in observation and in open-ended study designs-became harder for NIH administrators to justify and defend.

Methods and Management: NIH Administrators, Federal Oversight, and the Framingham Heart Study