Abstract:

A commentary on recent planning for multidisciplinary research on aging in the U.S., arguing that Douglas Black's (1992) pessimistic conclusion about the irrelevance of such planning is incorrect. Created by the Congress in 1975, the National Institute on Aging (NIA) was a novelty in the National Institutes of Health. NIA was mandated to have a broadly multidisciplinary research agenda that included behavioral & social sciences & to produce periodic reports to Congress on a consensual agenda for future research. Two previous research agendas were developed internally by NIA. The recently released third agenda, which is of interest here, was organized externally by the Instit of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. While the subagendas in aging research for basic biology, clinical medicine, & health services research will be of interest to some, the focus here is specifically on the behavioral & social scientific agenda. High priority substantive issues were identified. Beyond the building of a consensus concerning research priorities, other functions of national research planning are identified in the field of aging.