Midterm evaluation of the contraceptive research and development (CONRAD) program

External evaluation covers the period 9/86-3/89. The project has moved rapidly and successfully to initiate numerous activities in contraceptive research. The intramural (in-house) research program is making good progress in a number of areas, such as (1) the GnRH antagonist subproject (SP), which involves suppression of gonadotropin secretion through the use of the compound Nal-Lys-GnRH antagonist, and (2) reproductive immunology efforts, which focus on identifying, characterizing, and isolating sperm- and egg-based antigens germane to fertilization. Research on spermicide and virucide screening is also under way as part of an initiative on the prevention of the heterosexual transmission of HIV. The project has also funded 40 extramural SP's, and held two international workshops. An excellent technical advisory committee has been assembled, and the SP's developed seem appropriate, necessary, and scientifically feasible. Excellent working relations have been established with other contraceptive research and development organizations, both national and international. Project weaknesses are primarily related to an overemphasis on longer-term leads in the research portfolio. In particular, the clinical research component of the intramural program has had a slower start than anticipated, although staff and facilities are now in place to accommodate a heavier load of SP's if they can be identified. Another problem is that management has not complied with the project mandate to allocate two-thirds of project research resources for the extramural component (research with outside institutions) and one-third to the intramural. Currently, about half of the resources are supporting intramural research and the extramural component is not receiving the attention anticipated from the intramural staff. That the project has gotten somewhat off course is largely due to a lack of firm management control. Planning of staff time and resource allocation is inadequate, and staff have not routinely attempted either to articulate goals or identify progress indicators. Project monitoring and budgeting systems also need to be improved.