NIH Updates their approach again, study section meeting back on

Oct 22 2013 Published by under NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

NOT-OD-007 supersedes the prior one.


Responding to input from applicants and reviewers, NIH has reevaluated the plans for rescheduling initial peer review meetings that were cancelled due to the government shutdown. NIH will now reschedule most of the 200+ missed peer review meetings so that most applications are able to be considered at January 2014 Council meetings

If the section for your application simply cannot be rescheduled, they will apparently notify you during the week of Nov 4. There will then be the opportunity to withdraw it by Nov 15.

Refreshed applications that will be pushed to the May 2014 Council Round are then due by Dec 11th.

Most of the rest seems the same as from the prior Notice. The Nov 5th and Nov 15 deadlines are still intact. The Oct 5 deadline moves to Nov 12 and the Oct 15 deadline moves to Nov 18.

18 responses so far

  • juniorprof says:

    YESSSSS!!!!

    Just got a notice from my SRO that they will be breaking up the review into 3 sections:
    1) Established R01s
    2) New R01s and other rather rare mechs (they get a few Ks apparently) for that study section
    3) R21s and other smaller grants

    The three sections will be done by IAR at different times. I think it sounds like a quite reasonable plan.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Do you mean Established *investigators* versus New investigators? or are they breaking the competing renewals apart from the -01s?

  • juniorprof says:

    breaking competing renewals from 01s

  • juniorprof says:

    No!, I am wrong, it is established investigator R01s broken from new investigator R01s... even better

  • Dr Becca says:

    W00t! And there was much rejoicing.

    Power to the people!

  • doctor_chick says:

    Usual lurker here who has learned much from the community, especially regarding the government shutdown fallout.

    I saw this, though, and had to de-lurk and share: "the DrugMonkey blog" (and peers) has made the news!

    http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/2013/10/u.s.-shutdown-fallout-continues-agencies-reschedule-grant-panels

  • Noob says:

    Did you email your SRO to get this info?

  • Dr Strangely Strange says:

    Well, We're beginning to see the light...... I get the feeling some folks up high in the NIH are listening,

    Since you are listening NIH, when could we start having a candid conversation about 1) capping indirect costs and 2) capping the total funds awarded to any one investigator or making anything over 1 million total costs awarded to one PI contingent on some pretty amazing progress and evidence of fostering training, equal collaborations or any type of altrustic behavior currently lacking in the ruling class of the system...

  • Another Lurker says:

    Dr. SS, your latter concern is being addressed for PIs with more than $1,000,000 in direct costs:

    Notice of NIH Special Council Review of Research Applications from PDs/PIs with More than $1.0 Million Direct Costs in Annual NIH Support

    http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-12-140.html

  • Dr SS, AL: I think this (limit in R01$$ to PI's) is something that senior PIs (the dreaded boomers) can actually do. They can speak out about this. It's tough and people (admins, BSDs) don't like it. But I was on a chair search and brought this up to every candidate. Interesting responses (many were 3+ R01s). But, everytime I bring it up, someone else hears it. This is something that just needs more people saying it. Over and over.

  • A_Funsho says:

    I am an ESI. The original peer review meeting schedule for my first R01 was yesterday (22nd), but I am not sure if the meeting was rescheduled (there is no change in my eRA common status). I was wondering whether it is wise to email the SRO or not.

  • Dave says:

    This is something that just needs more people saying it. Over and over.

    Not really.

    We have had this discussion time and time again. The proportion of PIs that have multiple awards is very small and so there is little money to be saved there. I get that the optics is bad in lean times, but it's a distraction.

  • Another Lurker says:

    A_Funsho, it couldn't hurt to contact the SRO. I imagine he or she is scrambling to hash out the logistics of the rescheduled review meeting, and will post the information on eRA Commons when the new meeting date and time are finalized.

  • meshugena313 says:

    The study section for one of my proposals was rescheduled to a Saturday in November! Wow. The other was scheduled for December weekday. Is CSR limiting them to 1 day meetings?

  • Dr Strangely Strange says:

    AL, thank you, yes. This is a good point, though, based on my survey, the very well funded are still very well funded despite lackluster performance. And Dave that is true as well. Not a whole lot of PI with more than 1 mill indirect costs so we cannot squeeze enough from there.... But then this brings up a good point. What are the key issues that NIH could easily address to make the system more fair, inclusive and to encourage better science (other than throwing more money at us). They rescinded on their initial move to cancel this round. Is there something else that we can all agree on that it would make a difference?

  • drugmonkey says:

    based on my survey, the very well funded are still very well funded despite lackluster performance.

    it is very easy on the individual level to say "hey, give ME the extra R01 wasted by that specific dude over there". it is much harder to recognize how many of you there are looking at his extra grant and how few of him there really are. Until you review the stats that Rockey posted. It is pretty hard to sustain this fantasy when you look at how many *funded* investigators there are with only 1-2 R01s. Now imagine how many *unfunded* ones there are. then slide on over to the 3-, 4-, 5- grant moneybags categories and see how few "extra" grants there are to feed the unfunded masses.

    Is there something else that we can all agree on that it would make a difference?

    Right. if the online discussions tell us anything it is that every single fucking person insists that the "obvious", "just", "rational", "fair", etc solution to the problems of the NIH are whatever just so conveniently happen to suit their own situation or imagined near-future situation. The only person I've ever heard advance a "solution" that kicks him or herself right sqaaar is....me. yeah that's right. but then I also argue for a lot of shit that would be in my own interest so I'm not pleading any special status at all. (and no, I'm not specifying which is which, either.)

  • Dr Strangely Strange says:

    I have no problem if people argue for things that conveniently suits their specific situation. However, if more and more peope propose the same "solution" then we might have something. I vote for mandatory retirement and lapel pins and commemorative "wish you were here" coffee mugs for all outgoing retirees

  • drugmonkey says:

    There are numerically speaking "more" small timers than there are ginormous labs. There are, numerically speaking, more NCI funded people than, say, NIAAA funded people. A lot more bench-jockeys than there are human-subjects researchers. As we know, there are still more Boomers than anyone else.

    Now if those people propose that we only support cancer research, boomers, one-grant labs, benchwork, etc...? Where are we? Is gutter democracy really the way to go here?

    I happen to think not, especially since my topic domains are dwarfed by NCI and NHLBI.

Leave a Reply