The proposal by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) to dismantle the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) (see http://go.nature.com/yw3cq3) is more likely to inhibit than enhance translational research.

Through its Division of Comparative Medicine (DCM), the NCRR has long promoted translational research by supporting facilities and by providing resources and training to identify and target disease mechanisms. The proposed replacement for the NCRR, the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), acknowledges the value of an integrated DCM by retaining its core functions as a cohesive programme within an 'Infrastructure Entity'.

However, in our view, the vision of NCATS as an incubator for innovative medicines is unrealistic. A major obstacle to developing new treatments through translational science is an inadequate understanding of basic biological pathways and mechanisms — not anaemic efforts by industry to test potential drug candidates. Using the NCRR's existing research resources as a means of enhancing the NIH's traditional strength in mechanistic research is a more certain route to translational success than focusing on chemical screening and intramural bioassays, as proposed for NCATS.

As veteran comparative biologists, we feel that the decision to slash the NCRR to initiate NCATS was undertaken without due diligence or sufficient opportunity for public debate. The rush to establish NCATS without a settled organizational plan and against the advice of numerous translational science researchers bodes ill for the new centre's ability to perform meaningful translational research in the foreseeable future.

The preservation of the DCM in the Infrastructure Entity will maintain core NIH translational science functions. The sprint to form NCATS by dismembering the NCRR might be good politics, but it is bad public policy.