Archive for the 'NIH' category

The R01 Doesn't Even Pay for Revisions

Sep 11 2018 Published by under Academics, Careerism, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

Hard charging early career Glam neuroscientist Kay Tye had an interesting claim on the twitters recently.

The message she was replying to indicated that a recent request for manuscript revisions was going to amount to $1,000, making Kay's costs anywhere from $100,000 to $10,000,000. Big range. Luckily she got more specific.

One Million Dollars.

For manuscript revisions.

Let us recap.

The bog standard NIH "major award" is the R01, offered most generically in the 5-year, $250,000 direct cost per year version. $1,250,000 for a five year major (whoa, congrats dude, you got an R01! You have it made!) award.

Dr. Tye has just informed us that it is routine for reviewers to ask for manuscript (one. single. manuscript.) revisions that amount to $1,000,000 in cost.

Ex-NIGMS Director Jeremy Berg cheer-led (and possibly initiated) a series of NIH analyses and data dumps showing that something on the order of 7 (+/- 2) published papers were expected from each R01 award's full interval of funding. This launched a thousand ships of opinionating on "efficiency" of NIH grant award and how it proves that one grant for everyone is the best use of NIH money. It isn't.

I have frequently hit the productivity zone identified in NIGMS data...and had my competing revisions criticized severely for lack of productivity. I have tripled this on at least one interval of R01 funding and received essentially no extra kudos for good productivity. I would be highly curious to hear from anyone who has had a 5 year interval of R01 support described as even reasonably productive with one paper published.

Because even if Dr. Tye is describing a situation in which you barely invest in the original submission (doubtful), it has to be at least $250,000, right? That plus $1,000,000 in revisions and you end up with at best 1 paper per interval of R01 funding. And it takes you five years to do it.

The Office of Extramural Research showed that the vast majority of NIH-funded PIs hold 1 (>70%) or at most 2 (cumulative >90%) major awards at a time.

NIGMS (and some of my fellow NIH-watchers) have been exceptionally dishonest about interpreting the the efficiency data they produce and slippery as otters about resulting policy on per-PI dollar limitations. Nevertheless, one interpretation of their data is that $750,000 in direct costs per year is maximally efficient. Merely mentioning that an honest interpretation of their data ends up here (and reminding that the NIGMS policy for greybeard insiders was in fact to be about $750,000 per year) usually results in the the sound of sharpening stone on steel farm implements and the smell of burning pitch.

Even that level of grant largesse ("largesse") does not pay for the single manuscript revisions that Professor Tye describes within a single year.

I have zero reason to doubt Professor Tye's characterization, I will note. I am familiar with how Glam labs operate. I am familiar with the circle jerk of escalating high-cost "necessary" experimental demands they gratify each other with in manuscript review. I am familiar with the way extremely well funded labs use this bullshit as a gatekeeping function to eliminate the intellectual competition. I am perhaps overly familiar with Glam science labs in which postdocs blowing $40,000 on single fucked up experiments (because they don't bother to think things through, are sloppy or are plain wasteful) is entirely routine.

The R01 does not pay for itself. It does not pay for the expected productivity necessary to look merely minimally productive, particularly when "high impact publications" are the standard.

But even that isn't the point.

We have this exact same problem, albeit at less cost, all down the biomedical NIH-funded research ranks.

I have noted more than once on this blog that I experience a complete disconnect between what is demanded in peer review of manuscripts at a very pedestrian level of journal, the costs involved and the way R01s that pay for those experiments are perceived come time for competitive renewal. Actually, we can generalize this to any new grant as well, because very often grant reviewers are looking at the productivity on entirely unrelated awards to determine the PI's fitness for the next proposal. There is a growing disconnect, I claim, between what is proposed in the average R01 these days and what it can actually pay to accomplish.

And this situation is being created by the exact same super-group of peers. The people who review my grants also review my papers. And each others'. And I review their grants and their manuscripts.

And we are being ridiculous.

We need to restore normalcy and decency in the conduct of this profession. We need to hold the NIH accountable for its fantasy policy that has reduced the spending capability of the normal average grant award to half of what it was a mere twenty years ago. And for policies that seek to limit productive labs so that we can have more and more funded labs who are crippled in what they can accomplish.

We need to hold each other accountable for fantasy thinking about how much science costs. R01 review should return to the days when "overambitious" meant something and was used to keep proposed scope of work minimally related to the necessary costs and the available funds. And we need to stop demanding an amount of work in each and every manuscript that is incompatible with the way the resulting productivity will be viewed in subsequent grant review.

We cannot do anything about the Glam folks, they are lost to all decency. But we can save the core of the NIH-funded biomedical research enterprise.

If you will only join me in a retreat from the abyss.

31 responses so far

The NIH Director Talked to Congress About Scientific Inspiration

The Director of the NIH went to testify before Congress today and one of the tweets from the @NIH account summarized a point he was making thusly:

In case there is any trouble with the auto post of the tweet, it reads in part:

And, now, on to my favorite: Scientific Inspiration. I can assure you that researchers funded by #NIH come to work every day full of innovative ideas and the wherewithal to see those ideas through.

It is, of course, very likely true that on any given day of the year there are at least two researchers (he did use the plural) who come to work full of innovative ideas and the wherewithal to see those idea through. Given the size and scope of the NIH funding mission (let us assume he meant extramural, not just intramural, funding) this is statistically obvious.

What is not true, however, is the broader implication that all or even most researchers who are funded by NIH extramural grants have the wherewithal to see their many innovative ideas through. If this is what he conveyed, intentional or not, he misled Congress. I was going to say "lied to" but I really have no idea whether Francis Collins legitimately believes this false notion to be true or not.

The @NIH twitter also pointed out that Director Collins bragged how they were focusing on, and increasing, the number of funded young investigators:

In an environment where the NIH budget has been essentially flatlined since 2004 (with a resulting decrement in purchasing power, due to inflation) you cannot increase the number of funded investigators without decreasing the amount of grant funding each of the investigators enjoys, on average. As we know, the purchasing power of the full modular R01 (the workhorse award) has declined substantially, it is now something like 61% of what it was in 2000.

Ever increasing numbers of applications resulted in decreasing per-application success rates all through the 2000s. Data from the NIH website show that success rates of under 20% have been the reality for the past 7 years.

At last report from the NIH, most investigators held one or two major awards from the NIH at any one time. The reality of poor success rates has meant that maintaining consistent funding with one or two awards across time is very uncertain. Even the ability to competitively continue an existing award given reasonable progress has essentially disappeared. PIs have to put in competing continuations early and many of us realize that we have to have overlapping "new" awards on the same topic in order to have any decent chance of continuity of a research program.

The loss of funding can have dire consequences. It means technicians, students or postdocs may have to be let go. New staff cannot be brought on board until funding is re-acquired. There will be a significant delay until postdocs and graduate students can be recruited (up to 12 months is not unusual). And as Datahound analyzed, the cumulative probability of a lab regaining funding after a gap was 20% within 2 years (in 2012) and reached an asymptote of about 40% within 5-6 years in prior Fiscal Year data.

I have been around approximately continuously NIH grant funded PIs for about two decades now. I have engaged similar folks in online discussion for over a decade, broadening my experiences beyond my department and subfield.

It is simply not true that the majority of NIH funded scientists enjoy some sort of halcyon period where we all "come to work full of innovative ideas and the wherewithal to see those idea through". Most of the time, we come to work fearful that we cannot maintain the wherewithal to keep the laboratory functioning in a minimally healthy way with reasonably good expectations for a continuously funded future for the duration of our careers. And we spend too much time strategizing about how to maintain the wherewithal.

Admittedly, it isn't all terrible all the time. I would estimate something on the order of 20-25%ish of my time as a grant funded PI has indeed been great. I have had extended intervals of time in which I did have the wherewithal to come to work focused only on the scientific ideas I wanted to pursue. It is AWESOME to have these intervals. Really. I totally get it. I appreciate it. I love(d) these times.

But it is not the constant reality of the vast majority of NIH funded PIs that I talk to. It has not been my consistent reality.

The fact that the very head of the NIH does not seem to understand this is dismaying. It means that nothing will change. And, in fact, given his glee at creating yet more mouths at the trough this aspect of NIH funded science will continue to get worse under his Directorship.

6 responses so far

Of course the NIH can strong-arm Universities if they really want to

I think the NIH should more frequently use the power of the purse to change the behavior of Universities. I expressed this recently in the context of a Congressional demand for information from the NIH Director on the NIH oversight of the civil rights obligations of their awardee institutions. I have probably expressed this in other contexts as well. Before the invention of the K99/R00 one saw handwringing from the NIH about how Universities wouldn't hire less experienced PhDs and this was the RealProblem accounting for the time-to-first-R01 stat. My observation at the time was that if the NIH was serious they could just ask Universities for their hiring stats and tell ones that didn't hire enough young faculty that they were going to go to the back of the line for any special consideration awards.

This could also apply to occasionally bruited NIH concerns about women, underrepresented groups and other classes of folks not typically treated well by Universities. Exhibit lower than average hiring or promoting of women or URM professors? You go to the back of the special consideration line, sorry.

My suggestions are typically met with "we can't" when I am talking to various NIH Program types and various grades of "they can't" when talking to extramural folks about it.

Of course the NIH can.

They already do.

One very specific case of this is the K99/R00 award when it comes time for administrative review of the R00 phase hiring package. If the NIH finds the proposed hiring package to be deficient they can refuse to award the R00. I have no idea how many times this has been invoked. I have no idea how many times an initial offer of a University has been revised upwards because NIH program balked at the initial offer. But I am confident it has happened at least once. And it is certainly described extensively as a privilege the NIH reserves to itself.

A more general case is the negotiation of award under unusual circumstances. The NIH allows exemptions from the apparent rules all the time. (I say "apparent" because of course NIH operates within the rules at all times. There are just many rules and interpretations of them, I suspect.) They can, and do, refuse to make awards when an original PI is unavailable and the Uni wants to substitute someone else. They cut budgets and funded years. They can insist that other personnel are added to the project before they will fund it. They will pick up some but not other awards with end of year funds based on the overhead rate.

These things have a manipulating effect on awardee institutions. It can force them to make very specific and in some cases costly (startup packages, equipment, space) changes from what they would otherwise have done.

This is NIH using the power of the purse to force awardee institutions to do things. They have this power.

So the only question is whether they choose to use it, for any particular goal that they claim to be in favor of achieving.

2 responses so far

GAO report shows the continued NIH grant funding disparity for underrepresented PIs

Aug 15 2018 Published by under NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding, Underrepresented Groups

A comment from pielcanelaphd on a prior post tips us off to a new report (PDF) from the General Accountability Office, described as a report to Congressional Committees.

The part of the report that deals with racial and ethnic disparities is mostly recitation of the supposed steps NIH has been taking in the wake of the Ginther report in 2011. But what is most important is the inclusion of Figure 2, an updated depiction of the funding rate disparity.
GAO-18-545:NIH RESEARCH Action Needed to Ensure Workforce Diversity Strategic Goals Are Achieved

These data are described mostly as the applicant funding rate or similar. The Ginther data focused on the success rate of applications from PIs of various groups. So if these data are by applicant PI and not by applications, there will be some small differences. Nevertheless, the point remains that things have not improved and PIs from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups experience a disparity relative to white PIs.

No responses yet

Senator Murray and Representative DeLauro Want to Know What NIH Is Doing About Sexual Harassment

Readers of this blog will not need too much reminder that sexual harassment and sex-based workplace discrimination are very much a problem in academic science. We have seen numerous cases of this sort of academic misconduct reach the national and sometimes international press in the past several years. Indeed, recent discussions on this blog have mentioned the cases of Thomas Jessell and Inder Verma as well as three cases at Dartmouth College.

In these cases, and ones of scientific fraud, I and others have expressed frustration that the NIH does not appear to use what we see as its considerable power of the purse and bully pulpit to discourage future misconduct. My view is that since NIH award is a privilege and not a right, the NIH could do a lot to help their recipient institutions see that taking cases of misconduct more seriously is in their (the recipient institution's) best interest. They could pull the grants associated with any PI who has been convicted of misconduct, instead of allowing the University to appoint a replacement PI. They could refuse to make any new awards or, less dramatically, make any exception pickups if they aren't happy with the way the University has been dealing with misconduct. They could focus on training grants or F-mech fellowships if they see a particular problem in the treatment of trainees. Etc. Lots of room to work since the NIH decides all the time to fund this grant and not that grant for reasons other than the strict order of review.

Well, two Democratic members of Congress have sent a letter (PDF) to NIH Director Francis Collins gently requesting* information on how NIH is addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. And the overall message is in line with the above belief that NIH can and should play a more active role in addressing sexual misconduct and harassment.

As pointed out in a Mike the Mad Biologist's post on this letter, these two Congresspeople have a lot of potential power if the Democrats return to the majority.

are ranking members of committees that oversee NIH funding–and if the Democrats take back the House or Senate, would be the leaders of those committees.

One presumes that the NIH will be motivated to take this seriously and offer up some significant response. Hopefully they can do this by what seems a rather optimistic deadline of 8/17/2018, given the letter was dated 8/06/2018.

The first 6 listed items to which NIH is being asked to response seem mostly to do with the workings of Intramural NIH, both Program and the IRP. Those are of less interest as a dramatic change, important as they are.

Most importantly, the letter puts the NIH squarely on the hook for the way that it ensures that the extramural awardee institutions are behaving. Perhaps obviously, the power of NIH to oversee issues of harassment at all of the Universities, Institutes and companies that they fund is limited. The main point of justification in this letter is the NOT-OD-15-152: Civil Rights Protections in NIH-Supported Research, Programs, Conferences and Other Activities.

To give you a flavor:

Federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, and age in all programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance, and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities conducted by colleges and universities. These protections apply in all settings where research, educational programs, conferences, and other activities are supported by NIH, and apply to all mechanisms of support (i.e., grant awards, contracts and cooperative agreements). The civil rights laws protect NIH-supported investigators, students, fellows, postdocs, participants in research, and other individuals involved in activities supported by NIH.

The notice then goes on to list several specific statutes, some of which are referenced in footnotes to the letter.
The Murray/DeLauro letter concentrates on the obligation recipient institutions have to file an Assurance of Compliance with the Health and Human Services (NIH's parent organization) Office of Civil Rights and the degree to which NIH exercises oversight on these Assurances.

I think the motivations of Senatory Murray and Rep DeLauro are on full display in this passage (emphasis added).

"It therefore appears that NIH's only role...is confirming...institution has signed, dated, and mailed the compliance document....

This lack of engagement from NIH is particularly unacceptable in light of disturbing news reports that cases of sexual harassment in the academic sciences often involve high profile faculty offenders whose behavior is considered an 'open secret'.

...colleagues may have warned new faculty and students.....but institutions themselves take little to no action."

It is on.

__
*demanding

8 responses so far

NIH policy on A2 as A0 that I didn't really appreciate.

Jul 26 2018 Published by under Grantsmanship, NIH, NIH funding

The NOT-OD-18-197 this week seeks to summarize policy on the submission of revised grant applications that has been spread across multiple prior notices. Part of this deals with the evolved compromise where applicants are only allowed to submit a single formal revision (the -xxA1 version) but are not prohibited from submitting a new (-01, aka another A0 version) one with identical content, Aims, etc.

Addendum A emphasizes rules for compliance with Requirements for New Applications. The first one is easy. You are not allowed an extra Introduction page. Sure. That is what distinguishes the A1, the extra sheet for replying.

After that it gets into the weeds. Honestly I would have thought this stuff all completely legal and might have tried using it, if the necessity ever came up.

The following content is NOT allowed anywhere in a New A0 Application or its associated components (e.g., the appendix, letters of support, other attachments):

Introduction page(s) to respond to critiques from a previous review
Mention of previous overall or criterion scores or percentile
Mention of comments made by previous reviewers
Mention of how the application or project has been modified since its last submission
Marks in the application to indicate where the application has been modified since its last submission
Progress Report

I think I might be most tempted to include prior review outcome? Not really sure and I've never done this to my recollection. Mention of prior comments? I mean I think I've seen this before in grants. maybe? Some sort of comment about prior review that did not mean the revision series.

Obviously you can accomplish most of this stuff within the letter of the law by not making explicit mention or marking of revision or of prior comments. You just address the criticisms and if necessary say something about "one might criticize this for...but we have proposed....".

The Progress Report prohibition is a real head scratcher. The Progress Report is included as a formal requirement with a competing continuation (renewal in modern parlance) application. But it has to fit within the page limits, unlike either an Introduction or a List of Publications Resulting (also an obligation of renewals apps) which gets you extra pages.

But the vast majority of NIH R01s include a report on the progress made so far. This is what is known as Preliminary Data! In the 25 page days, I tended to put Preliminary Data in a subsection with a header. Many other applications that I reviewed did something similar. It might as well have been called the Progress Report. Now, I sort of spread Preliminary Data around the proposal but there is a degree to which the Significance and Innovation sections do more or less form a report on progress to date.

There are at least two scenarios where grant writing behavior that I've seen might run afoul of this rule.

There is a style of grant writer that loves to place the proposal in the context of their long, ongoing research program. "We discovered... so now we want to explore....". or "Our lab focuses on the connectivity of the Physio-Whimple nucleus and so now we are going to examine...". The point being that their style almost inevitably requires a narrative that is drawn from the lab as a whole rather than any specific prior interval of funding. But it still reads like a Progress Report.

The second scenario is a tactical one in which a PI is nearing the end of a project and chooses to continue work on the topic area with a new proposal rather than a renewal application. Maybe there is a really big jump in Aims. Maybe it hasn't been productive on the previously proposed Aims. Maybe they just can't trust the timing and surety of the NIH renewal proposal process and need to get a jump on the submission date. Given that this new proposal will have some connection to the ongoing work under a prior award, the PI may worry that the review panel will balk at overlap. Or at anticipated overlap because they might assume the PI will also be submitting a renewal application for that existing funding. In the old days you could get 2 or 3 R01 more or less on the same topic (dopamine and stimulant self-administration, anyone?) but I think review panels are unkeen on that these days. They are alert to signs of multiple awards on too-closely-related topics. IME anyway. So the PI might try to navigate the lack of overlap and/or assure the reviewers that there is not going to be a renewal of the other one in some sort of modestly subtle way. This could take the form of a Progress Report. "We made the following progress under our existing R01 but now it is too far from the original Aims and so we are proposing this as a new project.." is something I could totally imagine writing.

But as we know, what makes sense to me for NIH grant applications is entirely beside the point. The NOT clarifies the rules. Adhere to them.

7 responses so far

When NIH uses affirmative action to fix a bias

Jul 20 2018 Published by under Anger, Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Careerism

We have just learned that in addition to the bias against black PIs when they try to get research funding (Ginther et al., 2011), Asian-American and African-American K99 applicants are also at a disadvantage. These issues trigger my usual remarks about how NIH has handled observed disparities in the past. In the spirit of pictures being worth more than words we can look up the latest update on success rates for RPG (a laundry list of research grant support mechanisms) broken down by two key factors.
First up is the success rate by the gender of the PI. As you can see very clearly, something changed in 2003. All of a sudden a sustained advantage for men disappeared. Actually two things happened. This disparity was "fixed" and the year after success rates went in the tank for everyone. There are a couple of important observations. The NIH didn't suddenly fix whatever was going on in study section, I guaranfrickentee it. I guarantee there were not also any magic changes in the pipeline or female PI pool or anything else. I guarantee you that the NIH decided to equalize success rates by heavy handed top-down affirmative action policies in the nature of "make it so" and "fix this". I do not recall ever seeing anything formal so, hey, I could be way off base. If so, I look forward to any citation of information showing change in the way they do business that coincided directly with the grants submitted for the FY2003 rounds.
The second thing to notice here is that women's success rates never exceeded that for men. Not for fifteen straight Fiscal Years. This further supports my hypothesis that the bias hasn't been fixed in some fundamental way. If it had been fixed, this would be random from year to year, correct? Sometimes the women's rates would sneak above the men's rates. That never happens. Because of course when we redress a bias, it can only ever just barely reach statistically indistinguishable parity and if god forbid the previously privileged class suffers even the tiniest little bit of disadvantage it is an outrage.
Finally, the fact that success rates went in the tanker in 2004 should remind you that men enjoyed the advantage all during the great NIH doubling! The salad days. Lots of money available and STILL it was being disproportionately sucked up by the advantaged group. You might think that when there is an interval of largesse that systems would be more generous. Good time to slip a little extra to women, underrepresented individuals or the youth, right? Ha.

Which brings me to the fate of first-time investigators versus established investigators. Oh look, the never-funded were instantly brought up to parity in 2007. In this case a few years after the post-doubling success rates went in the toilet but more or less the same pattern. Including the failure of the statistically indistiguishable success rates for the first timers to ever, in 11 straight years of funding, to exceed the rates for established investigators. Because of affirmative action instead of fixing the bias. As you will recall, the head of the NIH at that time made it very clear that he was using "make it so" top-down heavy handed quota based affirmative action to accomplish this goal.

Zerhouni created special awards for young scientists but concluded that wasn't enough. In 2007, he set a target of funding 1500 new-investigator R01s, based on the previous 5 years' average.

Some program directors grumbled at first, NIH officials say, but came on board when NIH noticed a change in behavior by peer reviewers. Told about the quotas, study sections began “punishing the young investigators with bad scores,” says Zerhouni.

"quotas".

I do not recall much in the way of discussing the "pipelines" and how we couldn't possible do anything to change the bias of study sections until a new, larger and/or better class of female or not-previously-funded investigators could be trained up. The NIH just fixed it. ish. permanently.

For FY2017 there were 16,954 applications with women PIs. 3,186 awards. If you take the ~3% gap from the interval prior to 2003, this means that the NIH is picking up some 508 research project grants from women PIs via their affirmative action process. Per year. If you apply the ~6% deficit enjoyed by first time investigators in the salad days you end up with 586 research project grants picked up by affirmative action. Now there will be some overlap of these populations. Women are PI of about 31% of applications in the data for the first graph and first timers are about 35% for the second. So very roughly women might be 181 of the affirmative action newbie apps and newbies might be 178 of the affirmative action women's apps. The estimates are close. So let's say something like 913 unique grants are picked up by the NIH just for these two overt affirmative action purposes. Each and every Fiscal Year.

Because of the fact that, for example, African-American PIs of research grants or K99 apps represent such tiny percentages of the total (2% in both cases), the number of pickups that would be necessary to equalize success rate disparities is tiny. In the K99 analysis, it was a mere 23 applications across a decade. Two per year. I don't have research grant numbers handy but if we use the data underlying the first graph, this means there were about 1,080 applications with African-American PIs in FY2017. If they hit the 19% success rate this would be about 205 applications. Ginther reported about a 13% success rate deficit, working out to 55% of the success rate enjoyed by white applicants at the time. This would correspond to a 10.5% success rate for black applicants now, or about 113 application. So 92 would be needed to make up the difference for African-American PIs assuming the Ginther disparity still holds. This would be less than one percent of the awards made.

Less than one percent. And keep in mind these are not gifts. These are making up for a screwjob. These are making up for the bias. If any applicants from male, established or white populations go unfunded to redress the bias, they are only losing their unearned advantage. Not being disadvantaged.

28 responses so far

Racial Disparity in K99 Awards and R00 Transitions

Oh, what a shocker.

In the wake of the 2011 Ginther finding [see archives on Ginther if you have been living under a rock] that there was a significant racial bias in NIH grant review, the concrete response of the NIH was to blame the pipeline. Their only real dollar, funded initiatives were to attempt to get more African-American trainees into the science pipeline. The obvious subtext here was that the current PIs, against whom the grant review bias was defined, must be the problem, not the victim. Right? If you spend all your time insisting that since there were not red-fanged, white-hooded peer reviewers overtly proclaiming their hate for black people that peer review can't be the problem, and you put your tepid money initiatives into scraping up more trainees of color, you are saying the current black PIs deserve their fate. Current example: NIGMS trying to transition more underrepresented individuals into faculty ranks, rather than funding the ones that already exist.

Well, we have some news. The Rescuing Biomedical Research blog has a new post up on Examining the distribution of K99/R00 awards by race authored by Chris Pickett.

It reviews success rates of K99 applicants from 2007-2017. Application PI demographics broke down to nearly 2/3 White, ~1/3 Asian, 2% multiracial and 2% black. Success rates: White, 31%, Multiracial, 30.7%, Asian, 26.7%, Black, 16.2%. Conversion to R00 phase rates: White, 80%, Multiracial, 77%, Asian, 76%, Black, 60%.

In terms of Hispanic ethnicity, 26.9% success for K99 and 77% conversion rate, neither significantly different from the nonHispanic rates.

Of course, seeing as how the RBR people are the VerySeriousPeople considering the future of biomedical careers (sorry Jeremy Berg but you hang with these people), the Discussion is the usual throwing up of hands and excuse making.

"The source of this bias is not clear...". " an analysis ...could address". "There are several potential explanations for these data".

and of course
"put the onus on universities"

No. Heeeeeeyyyyyuuullll no. The onus is on the NIH. They are the ones with the problem.

And, as per usual, the fix is extraordinarily simple. As I repeatedly observe in the context of the Ginther finding, the NIH responded to a perception of a disparity in the funding of new investigators with immediate heavy handed top-down quota based affirmative action for many applications from ESI investigators. And now we have Round2 where they are inventing up new quota based affirmative action policies for the second round of funding for these self-same applicants. Note well: the statistical beneficiaries of ESI affirmative action polices are white investigators.

The number of K99 applications from black candidates was 154 over 10 years. 25 of these were funded. To bring this up to the success rate enjoyed by white applicants, the NIH need only have funded 23 more K99s. Across 28 Institutes and Centers. Across 10 years, aka 30 funding cycles. One more per IC per decade to fix the disparity. Fixing the Asian bias would be a little steeper, they'd need to fund another 97, let's round that to 10 per year. Across all 28 ICs.

Now that they know about this, just as with Ginther, the fix is duck soup. The Director pulls each IC Director aside in quiet moment and says 'fix this'. That's it. That's all that would be required. And the Directors just commit to pick up one more Asian application every year or so and one more black application every, checks notes, decade and this is fixed.

This is what makes the NIH response to all of this so damn disturbing. It's rounding error. They pick up grants all the time for reasons way more biased and disturbing than this. Saving a BSD lab that allegedly ran out of funding. Handing out under the table Administrative Supplements for gawd knows what random purpose. Prioritizing the F32 applications from some labs over others. Ditto the K99 apps.

They just need to apply their usual set of glad handing biases to redress this systematic problem with the review and funding of people of color.

And they steadfastly refuse to do so.

For this one specific area of declared Programmatic interest.

When they pick up many, many more grants out of order of review for all their other varied Programmatic interests.

You* have to wonder why.
__
h/t @biochembelle

*and those people you are trying to lure into the pipeline, NIH? They are also wondering why they should join a rigged game like this one.

13 responses so far

Startup Funds That Expire On Grant Award

Jul 11 2018 Published by under Academics, Ask DrugMonkey, NIH Careerism

From the email bag:

My question is: Should institutions pull back start-up funds from new PIs if R01s or equivalents are obtained before funds are burned? Should there be an expiration date for these funds?

Should? Well no, in the best of all possible worlds of course we would wish PIs to retain all possible sources of support to launch their program.

I can, however, see the institutional rationale that startup is for just that, starting. And once in the system by getting a grant award, the thinking goes, a PI should be self-sustaining. Like a primed pump.

And those funds would be better spent on starting up the next lab's pump.

The expiration date version is related, and I assume is viewed as an inducement for the PI to go big or go home. To try. Hard. Instead of eking it out forever to support a lab that is technically in operation but not vigorously enough to land additional extramural funding.

Practically speaking the message from this is to always check the details for a startup package. And if it expires on grant award, or after three years, this makes it important to convert as much of that startup into useful Preliminary Data as possible. Let it prime many pumps.

Thoughts, folks? This person was wondering if this is common. How do your departments handle startup funds?

10 responses so far

Trophy collaborations

Jul 05 2018 Published by under Conduct of Science, NIH, NIH Careerism

Jason Rasgon noted a phenomenon where one is asked to collaborate on a grant proposal but is jettisoned after funding of the award:

I'm sure there are cases where both parties amicably terminate the collaboration but the interesting case is where the PI or PD sheds another investigator without their assent.

Is this common? I can't remember hearing many cases of this. It has happened to me in a fairly minor way once but then again I have not done a whole lot of subs on other people's grants.

17 responses so far

Older posts »