Archive for the 'NIH Budgets and Economics' category

The NIH has shifted from being an investor in research to a consumer of research

WOW. This comment from dsks absolutely nails it to the wall.

The NIH is supposed to be taking on a major component of the risk in scientific research by playing the role of investor; instead, it seems to operates more as a consumer, treating projects like products to be purchased only when complete and deemed sufficiently impactful. In addition to implicitly encouraging investigators to flout rules like that above, this shifts most of the risk onto the shoulders of investigator, who must use her existing funds to spin the roulette wheel and hope that the projects her lab is engaged in will be both successful and yield interesting answers. If she strikes it lucky, there’s a chances of recouping the cost from the NIH. However, if the project is unsuccessful, or successful but produces one of the many not-so-pizzazz-wow answers, the PI’s investment is lost, and at a potentially considerable cost to her career if she’s a new investigator.

Of course one might lessen the charge slightly by observing that it is really the University that is somehow investing in the exploratory work that may eventually become of interest to the buyer. Whether the University then shifts the risk onto the lowly PI is a huge concern, but not inevitable. They could continue to provide seed money, salary, etc to a professor who does not manage to write a funded grant application.

Nevertheless, this is absolutely the right way to look at the ever growing obligation for highly specific Preliminary Data to support any successful grant application. Also the way to look at a study section culture that is motivated in large part by perceived "riskiness" (which underlies a large part of the failure to reward untried investigators from unknown Universities compared with established PIs from coastal elite institutions).

NIH isn't investing in risky science. It is purchasing science once it looks like most of the real risk has been avoided.

I have never seen this so clearly, so thanks to dsks for expressing it.

33 responses so far

Repost: Keep the ball in play

Sep 21 2016 Published by under NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics

This was originally posted 16 September, 2014.


We're at the point of the fiscal year where things can get really exciting. The NIH budget year ends Sept 30 and the various Institutes and Centers need to balance up their books. They have been funding grants throughout the year on the basis of the shifting sands of peer review with an attempt to use up all of their annual allocation on the best possible science.

Throughout the prior two Council rounds of the year, they have to necessarily be a bit conservative. After all, they don't know in the first Round if maybe they will have a whole bunch of stellar scores come in during the third Round. Some one-off funding opportunities are perhaps schedule for consideration only during the final Round. Etc.

Also, the amount of funding requested for each grant varies. So maybe they have a bunch of high scoring proposals that are all very inexpensive? Or maybe they have many in the early rounds of the year that are unusually large?

This means that come September, the ICs are sometimes sitting on unexpended funds and need to start picking up proposals that weren't originally slated to fund. Maybe it is a supplement, maybe it is a small mechanism like a R03 or R21. Maybe they will offer you 2 years of funding of an R01 proposed for 5. Maybe they will offer you half the budget you requested. Maybe they have all of a sudden discovered a brand new funding priority and the quickest way to hit the ground running is to pick something up with end-of-year funds.

Now obviously, you cannot game this out for yourself. There is no way to rush in a proposal at the end of the year (save for certain administrative supplements). There is no way for you to predict what your favorite IC is going to be doing in Sep- maybe they have exquisite prediction and always play it straight up by priority score right to the end, sticking within the lines of the Council rounds. And of course, you cannot assume lobbying some lowly PO for a pickup is going to work out for you.

There is one thing you can do, Dear Reader.

It is pretty simple. You cannot receive one of these end-of-year unexpected grant awards unless you have a proposal on the books and in play. That means, mostly, a score and not a triage outcome. It means, in a practical sense, that you had better have your JIT information all squared away because this can affect things. It means, so I hear, that this is FINALLY the time when your IC will quite explicitly look at overhead rates to see about total costs and screw over those evil bastiges at high overhead Universities that you keep ranting about on the internet. You can make sure you have not just an R01 hanging around but also a smaller mech like an R03 or R21.

It happens*. I know lots and lots of people who have received end-of-the-FY largesse that they were not expecting. Received this type of benefit myself. It happens because you have *tried* earlier in the year to get funding and have managed to get something sitting on the books, just waiting for the spotlight of attention to fall upon you.

So keep that ball in play, my friends. Keep submitting credible apps. Keep your Commons list topped off with scored apps.

__
*As we move into October, you can peruse SILK and RePORTER to see which proposals have a start date of Sep 30. Those are the end-of-year pickups.

h/t: some Reader who may or may not choose to self-identify 🙂

3 responses so far

More evidence of the generational screw job in NIH grant award

Sep 02 2016 Published by under NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics, NIH Careerism

ScienceHound has posted a new analysis related to the NIH budget and award policy. He's been beavering away with mathematical models lately that are generally going to be beyond my ability to understand. In a tweet however, he made it pretty clear.

As expanded in his blog post:

The largest difference between the curves occurs at the beginning of the doubling period (1998-2003) where the model predicts a large increase in the number of grants that was not observed. This is due to the fact that NIH initiated a number of larger non–RPG-based programs when substantial new funding was available rather than simply funding more RPGs (although they did this to some extent). For example, in 1998, NIH invested $17 million through the Specialized Center–Cooperative Agreements (U54) mechanism. This grew to $146 million in 1999, $188 million in 2000, $298 million in 2001, $336 million in 2002, and $396 million in 2003. Note that the change each year matters for the number of new and competing grants that can be made because, for a given year, it does not matter whether funds have been previously committed to RPGs or to other mechanisms.

This interval of time, in my view, is right around when the first of the GenXers were getting (or should have been getting) appointed Assistant Professor. Certainly, YHN was appointed in this interval.

Let us recall a couple of graphs. First, this one:

The red trace depicts success rates from 1962 to 2008 for R01 equivalents (R01, R23, R29, R37). Note that they are not broken down by experienced/new investigators status, nor are new applications distinguished from competing continuation applications. The blue line shows total number of applications reviewed...which may or may not be of interest to you. [update 7/12/12: I forgot to mention that the data in the 60s are listed as "estimated" success rates.]

Ok, Ok, Not much to see here, right? The 30% success rate was about the same in the doubling period as it was in the 80s. Now view this broken down by noobs and experienced investigators.
RPGsuccessbyYear.png
source

As we know from prior posts, career-stage differences matter a LOT. In the 80s when the overall success rate was 30%, you can see that newcomers were at about 20% and established investigators were enjoying at least a 17%age point advantage (I think these data also conflate competing continuation with new applications so there's another important factor buried in the "Experienced" trace.) Nevertheless, since the Experienced/New gap was similar from 1980 to 2006, we can probably assume it held true prior to that interval as well.

Again, first time applicants had about the same lack of success in the 80s as they did in the early stages of the doubling (ok, actually a few points higher in the 80s). About 20%. Things didn't go severely into the tanker for the noobs until the end of the doubling around 2004. But think of the career arc. A person who started in the 80s with their first grant jumped up to enjoy 30% success rates and a climbing trend. Someone who managed to land a five year R01 in 2000, conversely, faced steeply declining success rates just when they were ready to get their next grant 4-5 years later.

This is for Research Project Grants (R01, R03, R15, R21, R22, R23, R29, R33, R34, R35, R36, R37, R55, R56, RC1, P01, P42, PN1, U01, U19, UC1) and does not refer to the Centers or U54 that ScienceHound discussed. Putting his analysis and insider explanation (if you don't know, ScienceHound was NIGMS Director from 2003-2010) to work, we can assume that these RPG or R01-equiv success rates would have been much higher during the doubling, save for the choice of NIH not to devote the full largesse to RPGs.

So. Instead of restoring experienced investigator success to where it had been during the early 80s and instead of finally (finally) doing something about noob-investigator success rates that had resulted in handwringing since literally the start of the NIH (ok, the 60s anyway) the NIH decided to spend money on boondoggles.

The NIH decided to assign a disproportionate share of the doubling to the very best funded institutions and scientists using mechanisms that were mostly peer reviewed by....the best funded scientists from the best-funded institutions. One of the CSR rules, after all, is that apps for a given mechanism should be reviewed mostly by those who have obtained such a mechanism. You have to have an R01 to be in a regular R01-reviewing panel and P50/P60/P01 are reviewed mostly by those who have been funded by such mechanisms.

One way to look at this is that a lot of the doubling was sequestered from the riff-raff by design.

This is part of the reason that Gen X will never live up to its scientific potential. The full benefit of the doubling was never made available to us in a competitive manner. Large-mech projects under the elite, older generation kept us shadowed. Maybe a couple of us* shared in the Big-Mechanism wealth in minor form but we were by no means ready to make a play to lead them and get the full benefit. Meantime, our measly R01 applications were being beat up mercilessly by the established and compared unfavorably to Senior PI apps supported by their multi-R01 and BigMech labs.

The story is not over.

Given that I grew up as a scientist in this era, and given that like most of us I was pretty ignorant of longitudinal funding trends, etc, my perception was that a Big Mech was...expected. As in eventually, we were supposed to get to the point where not just the very tippy-top best of us, but basically anyone with maybe top-25% verve and energy could land a BigMech. Maybe a P01 Program Project, maybe a Center. The Late-Boomers felt it too. I saw several of the late Boomers get into this mode right as the badness struck. They were semi-outraged, let me tell you, when the nearly universal Program Officer response was "We're not funding P01s anymore. We suggest you don't submit one.".

AYFK? For people who were used to hearing POs say "We advise you to revise and resubmit" at the drop of a hat and who had never been told by a PO not to try (with a half decent idea) this was quite surprising. Especially when they looked at the lucky ducks who had put their Big Mechs together just a few years before....well there was a lot of screaming about bias and unfairness at first.

P01s are relatively easy for Program to shut down. As always, YMMV when it comes to NIH matters. But in general, I'd say that P01s tended to be a lot more fluid** than Centers (P50/P60). Once a Big Hitter group got a-hold of a Center award, they tended to stay funded. For decades. IME, anyway. or in my perception, more accurately.

Take a look at the history of Program Projects versus Centers in your field / favorite ICs, DearReader and report back, eh?

Don't get me wrong. There is much to like about Program Projects and Centers. Done right, they can be very good at shepherding the careers of transitioning / new scientists. But they are profoundly undemocratic and tend to consolidate NIH funding in the hands of the few elite of the IC in question. Often times they appear to be less productive than those of us not directly in them would calculate "should" happen for the the same expenditure on R01s. Such complaints are both right and wrong and often simultaneously when it comes to the same Center award. It is something that depends on your perspective and what you value and/or predict as outcome.

I can think of precisely one GenX Center Director in the stable of my favorite ICs at the moment. No doubt there are more because I don't do exhaustive review and I don't recognize every name to put to a face right off if I were to go RePORTERing. But still. I can rattle off tons of Boomer and pre-Boomer Center Directors.

It goes back to a point I made in a prior post. Gen X scientists were not just severely filtered. Even the ones that managed to transition to faculty appointments were delayed at every step. Funding came harder and at a delay. Real purchasing power was reduced. Publication expectations went up. We were not ready and able to take up the reins of larger efforts to anywhere near the same extent when we approached mid career. We could not rely upon clockwork schedules of grant renewal. We could not expect that a high percentage of our new proposals would be funded. We did not have as extensive a run of successful individual productivity on which to base a stretch for BigMech science.

And this comes back to a phenomenon ScienceHound identifies. The NIH decided*** to put a disproportionate share of the doubling monies into Centers rather than R01s for the struggling new PIs. This had a very long tail of lasting effects.

__
*I certainly did.

**Note: The P01 is considered an RPG with the R01s, etc, but Centers are not. There is some floofraw about these being "different pots of money" from an appropriation standpoint. They are not directly substitutable in immediate priority, the way I hear it.

***Any NIH insiders that start in on how Congress tied their hands can stop before starting. Appropriations language involved back and forth with NIH, believe me.

18 responses so far

Projected NRSA salary scale for FY2017

NOT-OD-16-131 indicates the projected salary changes for postdoctoral fellows supported under NRSA awards.

Being the visual person that I am...
NRSAFY16-17chart

As anticipated, the first two years were elevated to meet the third year of the prior scale (plus a bit) with a much flatter line across the first three years of postdoctoral experience.

What think you o postdocs and PIs? Is this a fair* response to the Obama overtime rules?

Will we see** institutions (or PIs) where they just extend that shallow slope out for Years 3-7+?

h/t Odyssey and correction of my initial misread from @neuroecology
__
*As a reminder, $47,484 in 2016 dollars equals $39,715 in 2006 dollars, $30,909 in 1996 dollars and $21,590 in 1986 dollars. Also, the NRSA Yr 0 for postdocs was $20,292 for FY1997 and $36,996 for FY2006.

**I bet yes***.

***Will this be the same old jerks that already flatlined postdoc salaries? or will PIs who used to apply yearly bumps now be in a position where they just flatline since year 1 has increased so much?

38 responses so far

Columbia University busted for taking too much overhead on NIH grants

Jul 15 2016 Published by under NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics

From the Manhattan branch of the US Attorney's Office charged:

The United States’ Complaint-In-Intervention (the “Complaint”) alleges that from July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2015, COLUMBIA impermissibly applied its “on-campus” indirect cost rate – instead of the much lower “off-campus” indirect cost rate – when seeking federal reimbursement for 423 NIH grants where the research was primarily performed at off-campus facilities owned and operated by the State of New York and New York City. The Complaint further alleges that COLUMBIA failed to disclose to NIH that it did not own or operate these facilities and that COLUMBIA did not pay for use of the space for most of the relevant period.

...and Columbia University admitted:

COLUMBIA has admitted that it applied the on-campus indirect cost rate to the 423 NIH grants even though the research was primarily performed in space not owned or operated by Columbia, and that it submitted to NIH certified reports that used the on-campus indirect cost rate to calculate the indirect cost amounts claimed by the university.

Ah, those tricky accountants.

Oh. cool. paging down on the complaint we get some specifics:

From July 1, 2003, through June 30, 2015, COLUMBIA’s On-Campus F&A Rate was approximately 61 percent, its Off-Campus F&A Rate was 26 percent, and its Modified Off-Campus F&A Rate was 29.4 percent. The Modified Off-Campus F&A Rate was to be applied to research conducted off-campus but within a certain proximity of the COLUMBIA campus.

Y'know. When I first read this my first thought was that I know some Columbia folks that work off campus at.... oh shit. It's them. It's the drug abuse folks.

COLUMBIA has a collaborative relationship with the New York State Psychiatric Institute (“NYSPI”), a clinical research facility administered by the New York State Office of Mental Health. COLUMBIA faculty perform research in two off-campus buildings owned by the State of New York and operated by NYSPI (the “NYSPI Buildings”). COLUMBIA faculty also perform research in another off-campus building owned and operated by the City of New York (the “City Building”).

For most of the relevant period, COLUMBIA did not pay the State of New York for use of the NYSPI Buildings, and therefore did not incur indirect “facilities-related” costs with respect to the medical research performed in these buildings. Similarly, COLUMBIA did not pay the City of New York for use of the City Building.

Presumably my friends who are the PIs on these grants had no idea. I have no idea what my institution actually charges the NIH as overhead on my grants, all I look at is my direct cost expenditures and balances. But still, sorry to see that it was their research grants that were involved. If nothing else it means that NIDA [Update: I found some details and 22/423 total grants were driect listings from NIDA, although there are what look like subaward identifiers (that may or may not involve other NIDA grants.)] was the entity being ripped off. The settlement was for $9.5 million. It doesn't say how much of this is direct recovery for the fraud and how much is court costs or punishment.

oh, wait. Damn. This looks bad.

COLUMBIA did not state on the applications for the NIH Grants that the research would be primarily performed off-campus, as required. Instead, Columbia frequently included the main address for the College of Physicians & Surgeons in the section of the application that was supposed to list the primary performance location. Even where the NYSPI Buildings or the City Building were listed in that section of the grant application, or mentioned elsewhere in the application, COLUMBIA failed to disclose that these buildings were not owned and operated by the university.

Starting in fiscal year 2009, in lieu of paying rent for use of one of the NYSPI Buildings, the Department of Neuroscience paid NYSPI a portion of the inflated indirect cost recoveries it received from NIH for research projects performed in that building.

This smells a lot more like highly intentional fraud and less like a mistake that someone should have caught. In the pre-award review of the grant, if you ask me. Especially when CU was clearly negotiating the rental arrangements with NYSPI. Someone pretty high up in the office of grants and contracts had to be doing this whole charade intentionally and with planning. There are a handful of other regulatory issues that I don't want to get into which very likely pointed a spotlight on the "performance location" too. This had to be intentional.

Turns out that this was a whistleblower case.

In connection with the filing of the lawsuit and settlement, the Government joined a private whistleblower lawsuit that had previously been filed under seal pursuant to the False Claims Act.

Good for that brave person for bringing this to light.

__
Final thought: I bet you that Columbia University is not the only NIH funded University out there that pulls some shenanigans like this. Now, you would think that there would be some sort of broad and universal alert sent to the Signing Officials of each University that has an on- and off-campus rate. Telling them to get their act together on this or any future investigation that busts them will automatically have the fines tripled. But going by at least one narrow similar area that I've followed over the past couple of decades (the anti-lobbying / grant writing thing) apparently this does not happen. So keep your eyes peeled for the next decade. I bet there will be more of these and that in each case it will again be figured out only via whistleblower.

46 responses so far

Where the NIGMS argument doesn't add up

Jul 08 2016 Published by under Fixing the NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics

The NIGMS continues its ongoing argument for funding more labs with ever decreasing amounts of grant funding in a new Feedback Loop post.

This one focuses, yet again, on "productivity" as assessed by publication counts and (this time) citations of those publications. It is, as always, significantly flawed by ignoring the effects of Glamour publications. I've done that before and it is starting to bore me. In short, you cannot compare apples to oranges because of the immense difference in the cost of generating your average Nature paper versus a Brain Research paper. And citations don't help because getting into a Glam journal does not mean your paper will get any particular number of citations. Furthermore, there is very little chance that papers that cost 10 or 20 times more will generate ten or twenty times the citations, on average, given the skew in citation distributions and the fact that Glam journals are only hitting means in the 30-40 range. Finally, their "efficiency" measures completely ignore the tremendous inefficiencies of interrupted funding, which is a reality under the current system and also not necessarily fixed with their spread-the-wealth schemes.

The real issue of the day is the opinion of the fans of NIGMS's "conclusion*", which reads:

Overall, however, the data suggest that supporting a greater number of investigators at moderate funding levels is a better investment strategy than concentrating high amounts of funding in a smaller number of researchers.

The Sally Rockey blog entry on "mythbusting" is relevant here. As of FY2009 about 72% of NIH funded investigators had one RPG. Another 20% had two and maybe 5% had three.

That's all.

The NIGMS data analyses are big on fitting productivity lines to about the single R01 level of direct costs (~$200K per year) and showing how the productivity/cost drops off as the grant funding increases. Take a good look at the most recent analysis. Linear productivity up to $300K direct costs with the 75%ile sustained all the way to $500K. The famous original 2010 analysis by Jeremy Berg at NIGMS is pretty similar in the sense that you don't get much change in the line fit to mean publications until you get to the $600-$700K direct costs range.

There is a critical point in lining up these two bits of information which is that the NIGMS policy intent is not supported by their analysis and it can't be. One or two RPG level from Rockey's post should be interpreted in full modular R01 terms ($250K direct, usually cut to $200K, $225K direct and in NIGMS' case to 4 years by default) with a little bit of float upwards for the rare cases. Consequently, it is obvious that most NIH awardees operate in the ~$200-250K part of NIGMS' dataset. Another 20% operate in the $400-$500K direct range. In other words, well within the linear part of the productivity/cost curve.

Mean publications as represented by the 2010 Berg analysis are increasing linearly well up to the three to four grant level of $750K direct costs.

In either case, the "inefficient" grant levels are being obtained by a vanishingly small number of investigators.

Fine, screw them, right?

Sure....but this does nothing to address either the stated goal of NIGMS in hedging their bets across many labs or the goal of the unfunded, i.e., to increase their chances substantially.

A recent Mike Lauer Blog post showed that about a third of those PI's who seek RPG funding over a rolling 5 year interval achieve funding. Obviously if you take all the multi-grant PIs and cut them down to one tomorrow, you'd be able to bump funded investigators up by 15-20%, assuming the FY2009 numbers are relatively good still**. It isn't precise because if you limit the big guys to one award then these are going to drift up to $499K direct at a minimum and a lot more will have special permission to crest the $500K threshold.

There will be a temporary sigh of relief and some folks will get funded at 26%ile. Sure. And then there will be even more PIs in the game seeking funding and it will continue to be a dogfight to retain that single grant award. And the next round of newbies will face the same steep odds of entry. Maybe even steeper.

So the ONLY way for NIGMS' plan to work is to cut per-PI awards way, way down into the front part of their productivity curves. Well below the point of inflection($300-500K or even $750K depending on measure) where papers-per-grant dollar drops off the linear trend. Even the lowest estimate of $300K direct is more than one full-modular grant. It will take a limit substantially below this level*** to improve perceptions of funding ease or to significantly increase the number of funded labs.

Which makes their argument based on those trends a lie, if they truly intend it to support their "better investment strategy". Changing the number of investigators they support in any fundamental way means limiting per-PI awards to the current full modular limit (with typical reductions) at the least, and very likely substantially below this level to produce anything like a phase change.

That's fine if they want to just assert "we think everyone should only have X amount of direct costs" but it is not so fine if they argue that they have some objective, productivity-based data analysis to support their plans. Because it does not.

__
*This is actually their long standing assertion that all of these seemingly objective analyses are designed to support.

**should be ballpark, given the way Program has been preserving unfunded labs at the expense of extra awards to funded labs these days.

***I think many people arguing in favor of the NIGMS type of "small grants for all" strategy operate from the position that they personally deserve funding. Furthermore that some grant award of full modular level or slightly below is sufficient for them. Any dishonest throwaway nod to other types of research that are more expensive (as NIGMS did "We recognize that some science is inherently more expensive, for example because of the costs associated with human and animal subjects.") is not really meant or considered. This is somewhat narrow and self-involved. Try assuming that all of the two-granters in Rockey's distribution really need that amount of funding (remember the erosion of purchasing power?) and that puts it at more like 92% of awardees that enjoy basic funding at present. Therefore the squeeze should be proportional. Maybe the bench jockeys should be limited to $100K or even $50K in this scenario? Doesn't seem so attractive if you consider taking the same proportional hit, does it?

22 responses so far

Postdoc salaries and reinforcer value

One issue I've heard raised is that some PIs like to use salary differentials to reward the "good postdocs" with bonus pay.

Given the behaviorist education that lurks in my background, I am theoretically* in support of this notion.

The new salary rules may minimize such flexibility in the future.

Are you aware of labs in which merit of postdocs as interpreted by the PI leads to salary differentials?

Is this a legitimate complaint about the overtime rules?

Will PIs use the permission to work overtime (and be paid for it) as a workaround for merit pay?
__
*Given my distaste for workplace bias and desire to be a fair manager, I have never used merit to decide postdoc pay. I stick to NRSA schedules and to institutional adjustments as appropriate.

40 responses so far

Never Ever Trust a Dec 1 NIH Grant Start Date: The Sickening

Mar 09 2016 Published by under NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics, NIH Careerism

As I noted in a prior post, the Cycle I NIH Grant awards (submitted in Feb-Mar, Reviewed Jun-July, Council Aug) with a first possible funding date of December 1 hardly ever are funded on time. This is due to Congress never passing a budget for the Fiscal Year that starts in October on time. The Congress sometimes goes into a stop-gap measure, like Continuing Resolution, which theoretically permits Federal agencies to spend along the parameters of the past year's budget. I find that NIH ICs of my greatest interest are highly conservative and never* fund new grants in December. The ICs that I follow almost inevitably wait until late Jan when Congress returns from their winter recess to see if they will do something more permanent.

New Cycle I grants then start trickling out in Feb, again, typically.

This year one of my favorite ICs, namely NIDA, has only just issued new Cycle I grants** this week, they hit RePORTER today.

March friggin 9th.

Six new R01 awards. Three K01, three K99s, one R15, one "planning grant" and three SBIR.

Even this is just a trickle, compared to what they should be funding for one of their major Cycles. I anticipate there will be a lot more coming out over the next couple of weeks so that they can (hopefully?) clear the decks for the Cycle II awards that are supposed to fund April 1.

I pity all those poor PIs out their waiting, just waiting, for their awards to fund. I cannot imagine why NIDA chooses to do this instead of at least trickling out the best score awards and the stuff they KNOW they are going to fund, way back in December***.
__
*Statistically undifferentiable from never

**You can tell by clicking on the individual awards and you'll see that they (R01s anyway) end Nov 30 or Dec 31 for the initial round of funding. These are Cycle I, not upjumped Cycle II.

***Some ICs do tend to fund a few new awards in December, no matter what the status of Congress' activity on a budget.

7 responses so far

Congress let the NIH drop the HIV/AIDS set-aside: Implications for NIDA?

Dec 15 2015 Published by under Drug Abuse Science, NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics

Jocelyn Kaiser reported in Science Insider:

the National Institutes of Health (NIH) today announced it will no longer support setting aside a fixed 10% of its budget—or $3 billion this year—to fund research on the disease. The agency also plans to reprogram $65 million of its AIDS research grant funding this year to focus more sharply on ending the epidemic.

Whoa. Big news. This is an old Congressional mandate so presumably it needs Congress to be on board. More from Kaiser:

The changes follow growing pressure in Congress and from some advocacy groups for NIH to reallocate its funding based on the public health burden a disease causes.... some patient groups and members of Congress have recently asked why AIDS receives disproportionately far more than diseases with higher death rates, such as heart disease and Alzheimer’s....Last year, Congress omitted instructions asking NIH to maintain the 10% AIDS set aside.

Emphasis added. An act by omission is good enough for gov'mint work, eh? Congress is on board.

@jocelynkaiser was kind enough to link to relevant NIH budgetary distributions:

As you can see, NIDA devotes about $300M to HIV/AIDS research. The annual NIDA budget allocation is about $1B so you can see that something on the order of 30% of the NIDA budget is (and has been) devoted to this Congressional Mandate.

Wait, whut? What about that 10% mandate above? Yep, the HIV/AIDS money has not been evenly distributed across the ICs.

Now, I don't know exactly when and how all of this shook down. It was FY 1987 when the NIAID budget went up by something like 47% when other similarly sized ICs didn't see such a large percentile increase. Clearly 1986 was when Congress got serious about HIV/AIDS research. We can't assess the meaning of

AIDS has received 10% of NIH’s overall budget since the early 1990s, when Congress and NIH informally agreed it should grow in step with NIH’s overall budget.
...
NIH must treat AIDS dollars as a distinct pot of money within its overall budget. That is because a 1993 law carved out a separate HIV/AIDS budget, Collins says. And undoing that law would take action by Congress.

from this article. It is a little frustrating, to be frank. But...on to the NIDA situation.

NIDA doesn't appear in the NIH tables until FY1993 because it didn't actually join the NIH until 1992. Nevertheless that history page on NIDA notes:

1986: The dual epidemics of drug abuse and HIV/AIDS are recognized by Congress and the Administration, resulting in a quadrupling of NIDA funding for research on both major diseases.

There are many ways of looking at this situation.

Some in the NIDA world who are not all that interested in HIV/AIDS matters complain bitterly about why "A third of our budget is reserved for HIV/AIDS". Our.

Another way of looking at this would be "If Congress mandated NIH devote 10% of its budget to HIV/AIDS but NIH did this by incorporating NIDA with its existing HIV/AIDS funding then the entire rest of NIH is shirking its response to the mandate on the back of NIDA".

And yet a final way of looking at this* would be "Dude, NIDA wouldn't even have this money if not for Congress' interest in funding HIV/AIDS research so it isn't 'our' funding being diverted to HIV/AIDS research."

Is this important? Yes and no.

The news is potentially huge for those who seek to get the HIV/AIDS funding via NIDA grants and for those who seek non-HIV/AIDS funding. It makes matters slightly better for the latter and worse for the former. Right? If there is no special set-aside, the latter folks now have at least a shot at that $300M that had been out of reach for them. This consequently increases the competition for those who have HIV/AIDS relevant proposals. Who are presumably sad right now.

But it all depends on what Collins plans to do with his newly won freedom. Back to Kaiser:

Francis Collins agrees: At a meeting of his Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD) today, he noted that no other disease receives a set proportion of the NIH budget and the argument that AIDS still deserves such a set-aside is “not a defensible one.”

The end of the set-aside has “free[d] us up” to refocus NIH’s AIDs portfolio, Collins says.

However the article only then talks about $65M being reprioritized. What about the rest of the 10% of the ~$30B / yr NIH budget? No idea.

So I want to know a few things. Is the $300M in the NIDA budget that goes to HIV/AIDS part of this 10% overall NIH mandate? If so, will Collins try to claw that back for some other agenda?

If a miracle occurs and it stays within NIDA, will Nora Volkow use this new-found freedom to ease the pressure on the non-HIV/AIDS researchers by letting them (ok, "us") get a shot at that previously-sequestered pool?

Or will Volkow use it to pay for the latest boondoggle initiatives of ABCD and BRAINI?

The way I hear it, this latter is likely to happen because up to this point all other NIDA initiatives are being squeezed** to make ABCD and BRAINI happen.

Obviously I would prefer to see Volkow choose to use this new freedom a little more democratically by spreading the love across all of the portfolio.

__
*this has been my view for some time now.

**this manifests, IME, as profound pessimism on the part of POs that anything in the grey zone (which is robust reality at no-public-payline-NIDA) will be picked up because all spare change is going to the two aforementioned boondoggles.

27 responses so far

Rockey Explains Indirect Costs

Oct 05 2015 Published by under NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics

11 responses so far

Older posts »