Archive for the 'NIH Careerism' category

Tenure expectations and PI dropout from NIH funding

Oct 31 2014 Published by under Careerism, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

Rockey's post on PI survival also had a graph on the persistence of PIs in submitting applications.

IMG_1135.JPG

She noted that the 1989 first-R01-equivalent folks dropped off in their grant submitting persistence around years 3-5 more than the younger cohorts.

A comment by qaz on the prior post of mine triggered a thought.

What about people who otherwise didn't really want or need a NIH R01 grant but it was a requirement for (or strongly supportive of) a tenure case?

If department expectations/preferences (for tenure or in who they hired in the first place) have changed since the late 80s, this could explain the difference in early drop-out, one-and-done rates across cohort.

11 responses so far

One-and-done NIH Grants: A bug or a feature?

Oct 29 2014 Published by under Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Careerism

There is an interesting new survival analysis for PIs that have been awarded at least one R01 posted at RockTalk.

Briefly, what you are looking at is as follows:


We chose three cohorts of first-time R01-equivalent awardees — those who received their first R01-equivalent award in 1989, 1997, or 2003....We used data on these three cohorts for a Kaplan-Meier analysis to look at rates of retention. ...So we used this to analyzing the number of years between the first year of R01-equivalent funding, and the last time an individual receives any additional research project grant (RPG) funding – whether it be from the non-competing continuation of their 1st R01 or another RPG award.

The bulk of Sally Rockey's analytical comments focus on the sharp dropout associated with the first (presumed) interval of support, i.e., 3-5 years after the very first R01-equivalent award. And her conclusion seems to be that this is a problem that needs fixing.

These data seem to support the concept that if there is an intervention needed in retaining scientists in research, it would need to come at the renewal stage of the first award, or as some call it the “second” award. Indeed, we are giving increased focus to this stage through some of our new award mechanisms, such as the National Cancer Institute’s Outstanding Investigator award, and will continue to seek ways of keeping our talent from leaking out of the pipeline.

I am not sure that I agree with this general conclusion from the data presented.

Remember, we are talking system-wide statistics here, not the fate of your five closest colleagues, your training mentor or yourself.

The extreme case would be that once anyone manages to land an R01-equivalent award as a PI, that the NIH should move heaven and earth to keep them funded for the duration of their career. That is an arguable position, but I think it is wrong.

It is wrong for two reasons, which are related to each other. The first reason is that if we re-adjust the system to keep everyone in once they have entered, this will sharply reduce the entrants. It will reduce the number of people who get a chance to prove themselves. This may seem fine and dandy once you have passed the first-R01 hurdle yourself, but this is mind bogglingly forgetful of the position one was in before this and mind bogglingly arrogant in assuming you would have been one of the lucky few.

From a system perspective, this cuts down on scientific diversity. It cuts down on the ability to try out a range of scientific ideas and approaches to see which ones stick. It substitutes the limitations of advance prediction for the virtues of empirical testing.

This would also increase stagnation and slow progress. It would. When you have sinecure funding, I'm sorry but the pressures are not as high to be creative, productive and to diversity your scientific thinking. Yes, from our current vantage point of the amount of time spent securing funds versus doing the science, this may look better than the usual. But take the longer view here. Our competitive system has its virtues in terms of clearing out the dead wood and encouraging better efforts from those who are actively participating.

I think the real question here is the appropriate balance. The desired survival rate.

And we should be very clear that we expect there to be some amount of PI dropout.

Personally, I think that having the major reduction in PIs after the first interval of funding makes a lot of sense. Better than at year 11 or 16, for example. A given PI has had a chance to try out her ideas. He has been given the opportunity to show what he can do. Again, on a system-wide basis, some of these individuals are going to fail so badly that they are never funded again. Do recognize that many will suffer intervals of no-R01 and then come back. Datahound addressed that in a post earlier this year. But many will disappear. Wouldn't it make more sense to have it happen before the NIH has wasted another 5 year interval on them?

Now before I get too far down the path, I will recognize that this is only the start of the data analysis. We want to know a few more things about who is shelled out of the system, never to return, who is able to fight back in after a gap and who is able to sail along with continual funding. This will allow us to see what may be undesired effects or categories of PI/applications that we wish to specifically protect. Is this part of the perfect storm that hits women particularly hard? Human subjects research? Physician-scientist PIs? Ecology or sociology?

Nevertheless, when I look at these initial survival curves, I just don't see the problem that seems so obvious to Dr. Rockey. I don't see how this is the next problem that requires special fixes from the highest offices at NIH.

63 responses so far

Your Grant in Review: Follow the Reviewers' Style Guide

Oct 27 2014 Published by under Grant Review, Grantsmanship, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

The NIH grant application has a tremendous amount of room for stylistic choice. No, I'm not talking about Georgia font again, nor your points-leaving choice to cite your references with numbers instead of author-date.

Within the dictated structure of Aims, Significance, Innovation, etc, there is a lot of freedom.

Where do I put the Preliminary Data now that there is no defined section? What comes first in the Approach- Aim 1? The Timeline? A bunch of additional rationale/background? Do you start every Aim with a brief Rationale and then list a bunch of Experiments? Which methods are "general" enough to put them at the end of Aim 3?

Do I include Future Directions?

What about discussion of Possible Pitfalls and Alternate Considerations and all that jazz?

Is the "Interpretation" for each Aim supposed to be an extensive tretise on results that you don't even have yet?

In all of this there is one certainty.

Ideally you are submitting multiple applications to a single study section over time. If not that, then you are likely submitting a revised version of an application that was not funded to the same study section that reviewed it in the first place. Study sections tend to have an evolved and transmissible culture that changes only slowly. There is a tendency for review to focus (overfocus, but there you have it) on certain structural expectations, in part as a way to be fair* to all the applications. There is a tendency for the study section to be the most comfortable with certain of these optional, stylistic features of a grant application included in juuuust the way that they expect.

So, and here is the certainty, if a summary statement suggests your application is deficient in one of these stylistic manners just suck it up and change your applications to that particular study section accordingly.

Is a Timeline silly when you've laid out a very simple and time-estimated set of experiments in a linear organization throughout the Aims? Perhaps. Is it idiotic to talk about alternatives when you conduct rapid, vertically ascending eleventy science and everything you propose right now is obsolete by the time Year 2 funds? Likely. Why do you need to lead the reviewers by the hand when your Rationale and experimental descriptions make it clear how the hypothesis will be tested and what it would mean? Because.

So when your summary statement suggests a stylistic variant that you wouldn't otherwise prefer...just do it.
__
Additional Your Grant in Review posts.

*If the section has beaten up several apps because they did not appropriately discuss the Possible Pitfalls, or include Future Directions, well, they have to do it for all the apps. So the tendency goes anyway.

54 responses so far

Should we continue long-funded NIH grant programs under younger PIs?

Oct 13 2014 Published by under Careerism, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

In the course of discussing the infamous graph showing the longitudinal increase in the median age of first-R01 award, and the other infamous slide deck showing the aging of the distribution of all NIH-funded PIs there is something that eventually comes up.

To wit, how do we ease the older investigators out of the system, at least to the extent of cutting down how many grants they submit and are awarded?
Continue Reading »

13 responses so far

Supporting postdoctoral training activities on research grants

Oct 10 2014 Published by under NIH, NIH Careerism, Postdoctoral Training

Jeepers.

This has to be the longest winded and most indirect way of putting it.

My interpretation (I could be wrong) is that yes, you can use R-mech research grant funds to send your postdocs to meetings, give seminars and do other postdoctoral training activities that are not directly related to the goals of the research grant.
Continue Reading »

15 responses so far

A pants leg can only accommodate so many Jack Russells

Oct 07 2014 Published by under #FWDAOTI, Careerism, NIH, NIH Careerism

Some DAOTI asked a silly question

got the simple answer of "no", demanded data and was summarily mocked. For this he got all fronty.

because of course he already knew the answer he wanted to hear in response to his question.

This all arose in the wake of an article in the Boston Globe about the postdoc glut that contained this hilariosity.

“They really are the canary in the coal mine,” said Marc Kirschner, a professor of systems biology at Harvard Medical School whose lab of 17 scientists includes 12 postdocs. “They decided they’d go ahead and try to understand why a cancer cell is different from a normal cell, and here they are a few years out. They knew it was a competitive situation, and they were going to work very hard, but they didn’t see the whole system was going to sour so quickly.”

I bolded for the slower reader. My initial reaction was:

Right?

On to the point.

The world of "R1, TT" positions in science is incredibly diverse, yes, even within "biomedical" or just plain "biology". I repeatedly urge postdocs who feel helpless about the glut of postdocs to start by doing some research. Find out ALL of the people who have recently been hired all across the US in jobs that are somewhat remotely related to your skillset. Note, not your "interests". Your SKILLSET!

I follow this up with a call to do the same on RePORTER to find out about the vast diversity of grants that are funded by the NIH. Diversity in topic and diversity in geographical region and diversity in University or Department stature.

This is even before I tell people to get their "R1" noses out of the air and look seriously at Universities that are supposedly beneath their notice.

So what makes for a successful "competitor" for all of the jobs that are open? Is it one thing? Such as "vertically ascending eleventy systems buzzword biology science" training? That is published in Nature and derives from a 12+ postdoc lab with everyone busily trying to hump the same pantsleg?

"Everyone" here is, guess what? Your competition. And yes, if you choose to only seek out "R1, TT" jobs that are in a University that boatloads of people want to work in, applying techniques to topic domains that a dozen fellow postdocs are also doing right beside you, chasing CNS "gets" that a few scores of labs worldwide are also chasing...well, yes, you are going to be at a disadvantage if you are not training in one of those labs.

But this doesn't also mean that making all of those choices is not also putting you at a disadvantage for a "R1, TT" job if that is your goal. Because it is putting you at a disadvantage.

Vince Lombardi's famous dictum applies to academic careers.

Run to Daylight.

Seek out ways to decrease the competition, not to increase it, if you want to have an easier career path in academic science. Take your considerable skills to a place where they are not just expected value, but represent near miraculous advance. This can be in topic, in geography, in institution type or in any other dimension. Work in an area where there are fewer of you.

Given this principle, no, a big lab does not automatically confer an advantage to obtaining a tenure-track position at an R1 university. According to Wikipedia the US has 108 Carnegie-approved "Very high research activity" Universities. Another 99 are in the next bin of "high research activity" and this includes places that would be quite reasonable for someone who wants to be an actual teaching + research old school professor. I know many scientists at these institutions and they seem to be productive enough and, I assume*, happy to be actual Professors.

Would coming from a big lab be a help? Maybe. But often enough search committees at R1s (and the next bin) are looking for signs of independent thought and a unique research program. That is hard to establish in a big lab...far easier to demonstrate from a lab with one or two concurrent postdocs. Other times, the "big labs" in a field (say, Drug Abuse) are simply not structured like they are in cannon-fodder, bench-monkey, GlamourHumping, MolecularEleventy labs. Maybe this is because the overall "group" organized around the subject has Assistant Professors where those "big labs" have Nth year "postdocs". Maybe it is because this just isn't the culture of a subfield. If that is the case, then when an R1 is hiring in your domain, they aren't expecting to see a CV that competes with three other ones just like it from people sharing your lab. They are expecting to see a unique flower with easily discernible individual contribution to the last three years of work from that small lab. That type of candidate has an advantage for this particular job search.

So yeah. It is a stupid question to ask if [single unique training environment] confers an "advantage" for some thing as general as a tenure-track job at an R1 University.

I'll close with a tweet from yesterday:

and a followup

This all reminds me of a famous Twitter "independent scientist" jackhole who applied to a few elite Universities, couldn't get an offer and summarily declared all of science to be broken, corrupt, crowded with "diversity" riff raff and all sorts of other externalizing excuses. Make sure you don't fall into this trap if you are serious about succeeding in an academic career.
__
*actually, they say so.

21 responses so far

CSR says that applications are up by 10%

Oct 02 2014 Published by under Grant Review, NIH, NIH Careerism

Again, according to the Peer Review Notes for September 2014, CSR of the NIH says that applications are up by 10%.

“Total numbers of applications going to CSR study sections have surged about 14 percent," said CSR Director Dr. Richard Nakamura. “The NIH Office of Extramural Research reports about a 10 percent increase in research project grant applications across NIH.”

The difference in the two number is because "CSR is reviewing a slightly larger portion of NIH applications (79%) now than before.", the balance are reviewed in study sections managed by ICs themselves.

Why the bump in applications?

The CSR appears to be blaming this slight increase on the revision of the policy regarding resubmitting previously unfunded applications. As you know, if your revised version (A1) of a proposal is not funded, you may now resubmit it as a "new" application, making no mention whatever of the fact it was previously reviewed.

“It’s clear a large part of this increase is due to NIH removing limits on resubmitting the same research idea,” he said. “The new policy was designed to keep alive worthy ideas that would have been funded had the NIH budget kept up with inflation.”

Obviously, success rates will go down since I see very little chance the budget is going to increase any time soon. The only possible bright spot would be if the recent award of BRAIN Initiative largesse frees up the regular funds within the general framework of neuroscience that would otherwise be won by these folks. I am not holding my breath on that one.

This bump is hitting around the time of the beginning of the fiscal year when there is no appropriation from Congress, as usual. So grants submitted in the summer (first possible after the policy change) will be reviewed this fall and sent to Advisory Councils in January. My assumption is that we will still be under a Continuing Resolution and many ICs will be conservative, per their usual practice.

So anyone who has proposals in for the upcoming Council round has a bit of extra stress ahead. Tougher competition at review and uncertainty of funding all the way through Council. Probably start hearing news about scores on the bubble in March if we're lucky.

The really interesting question is whether this is a sustained trend (and does it really have anything to do with the A2asA0 policy shift).

I bet it will be short lived, IF it has anything to do with that change. Maybe just that one round or at best two rounds and we'll have cleared out that initial exuberance, is my prediction.

20 responses so far

The new ASBMB President has words for the science riff-raff

Sep 29 2014 Published by under Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Careerism

Now honestly, this thing reads like a spoof or some top-quality trolling akin to my Boomer bashing. Albeit without a shred of actual data on which it is based (unlike my Boomer bashing).

However, you will be interested to hear the new ASBMB President's analysis of the real problem in science today.

Two or three decades ago, this system was effective, yet I now judge it to be flawed. What went wrong? I submit that the demise of the review process can be attributed to two changes. First, the quality of scientists participating in CSR study sections two to three decades ago was, on average, superior to the quality of study section participants today. Second, study sections have become highly specialized such that they narrowly define a differentiated club of biomedical research.

Hrm, hrm, I submit to you, hrm hrm, that I and my fellow Great Men of Science used to get our grants funded every time we submitted them. Now things have changed! Clearly there is a problem that is simple to diagnose. Read on.

Among all problems leading to devolution of CSR study sections, the elephantine expansion of the biomedical research complex tops the list. Biomedical research in the 1960s and 1970s was a spartan game.

Wait, what? Does this guy know it is 2014? That would make it three to four decades ago...but who is counting.

First, the average scientist today is not of the quality of our predecessors; it’s a bit analogous to the so-called “greatest generation” of men and women of the United States who fought off fascism in World War II compared with their baby boomer children. Biomedical research is a huge enterprise now; it attracts riff-raff who never would have survived as scientists in the 1960s and 1970s. There is no doubt that highly capable scientists currently participate in the grant-review process. Likewise, unfortunately, study sections are undoubtedly contaminated by riff-raff.

Hmmmm. Okay so let me just think about this. The greatest change in the population of Professor-scientists since the 1070s is....hmmm. Women? Persons underrepresented in the sciences (and academia)? Those from a less-well-off background? All of the bloody above?

Good LORD what a snob.

A second cause of the demise in study section quality can be attributed to the fact that it is a thankless task balanced by few benefits. Three to four decades ago, it was a feather in one’s cap to be appointed to an NIH study section. When I joined the molecular cytology study section in the 1980s, Bruce Alberts was chairman, and the committee included the likes of Tom Pollard and all kinds of superb scientists. To spend three meetings per year with an esteemed group of scientists was both inspirational to me as a young scientist and of tangible value to my maturation as a researcher.

Less than one decade ago I went on study section and it was considered by all of my local peers (and members of my field external to my University) to be quite a feather in my cap. I also had the opportunity to spend three meetings a year with an esteemed group of scientists in my field. It was inspirational to me and of tangible value to my maturation as a scientist.

Wow. It is almost like nothing has changed.

Finally, as study sections have become ever more dedicated to thin slices of the biomedical landscape, participants are exposed to less and less science outside of the narrowly defined disciplines covered by their individual study sections. As such, one rarely learns much of anything new by participating in an NIH study section meeting.

I can't speak to every study section but I did have the good fortune to be appointed to one with a broad mission. Broad across IC assigned for possible funding, broad in study subject population / models and broad in scientific questions being asked. From my perspective, of course. Not sure how Dr. McKnight would see it but I'm willing to argue the merits of that study section on the stats.

let’s consider what might be expected from a grant review committee composed largely of second-tier scientists with limited knowledge of the breadth of biology and medicine. I propose that these committees are equally good at ensuring that the worst and best applications never get funded. They can see a terrible grant wherein the science is flawed and the investigator has no track record of achievement. These committees are, unfortunately, equally good at spotting and excluding the most creative proposals – the grant applications coming from inspired scientists whose research is damned because it is several steps ahead of the curve and damned because it comes from an applicant not blessed with club membership.

as they say on Wikipedia, [citation needed].

Now, to the second of two evils: the evolution of scientific clubs. Back when we used to “walk miles to school,” the scientific meetings we attended had some level of breadth.

Ok. If this is an intentional troll, this is the tell right here. Right? Right?

Fast-forward 30 years, and what do we now have? The typical modern biomedical meeting spends a week on a ridiculously thin slice of biology. There are entire meetings devoted to the hypoxic response pathway, sirtuin proteins, P53, mTor or NFkB. If a scientist studies some aspect of any of these domains, he or she absolutely has to attend these mindless meetings where, at most, some miniscule increment of advancement is all to be learned.

Is it possible that science really has gotten more complex so that low hanging fruit cannot be scooped up by a generalist, gentleman dilettante anymore? I mean, it couldn't be that, could it?

Damn the fool who does not attend these meetings: The consequence is failure to maintain club membership. And why is club membership of such vital importance? Yes, precisely, there is nearly a one-to-one correspondence between these clubs and CSR study sections.

Actually, the study section I spent the most time reviewing for contained LOTS of people that tend to attend meetings that I do not attend. I met many of them for the first time on study section. So the "one-to-one correspondence" simply doesn't square with my experience. Oh, and btw, I have ad-hoc'd on panels that are related but have a more defined focus than the one I served as an appointed member. Guess what? Also a dearth of "one-to-one correspondence" with any particular scientific meetings I or they attend.

So, to wrap up, this guy has zero data for his assertions, they come from the expected direction of unearned privilege of those who got their starts in the 1960s and early 1970s and his claims about modern study section are at considerable odds with my own experiences.

I will be fascinated to see if my readers share his view on the modern study section experience.

ETA: A check of Dr. McKnight's funded grants from the NIH suggests he is no stranger to the Special Emphasis Panel.

UPDATE 10/08/14: A Nature News piece notes that McKnight 'was “saddened” by suggestions that he has any gripe with young researchers or with diversity. He meant to criticize review committees as a whole, not just young scientists, he added.'
__
h/t: Some twitter troll who shall not be identified unless s/he so choses.

100 responses so far

Ask the DM Blog Braintrust: Advice on First Study Section?

Sep 24 2014 Published by under Grant Review, NIH Careerism

A query came it that is best answered by the commentariat before I start stamping around scaring the fish.

I'm a "newbie" heading to study section as an ESR quite soon...
I'd really, really appreciated it if you could do a post on

a) your advice on what to expect and how to ... not put my foot in my mouth

b) what in an ideal world you'd like newbies to achieve as SS members

Thoughts?

32 responses so far

NIH Grant Strategy: Just keep the ball in play

Sep 16 2014 Published by under NIH, NIH Careerism

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 :-)

16 responses so far

Older posts »