Archive for the 'NIH Careerism' category


Oct 26 2016 Published by under Careerism, NIH Careerism


Lorsch says that he knows first-hand that Generation X scientists are not whiners: “I do not hear complaining from the people who are trying to get their first grant or renew their first grant, the people trying to get a lab running,” he says. “It’s the really well-funded people who’ve lost one of their grants — that’s who call me and scream.”

15 responses so far

Today in NIHGrant Special Flower Pleading

Oct 24 2016 Published by under Mentoring, NIH, NIH Careerism

It started off with a tweet suggesting the NIH game is rigged (bigly) against a "solo theoretician"...

interesting. Then there was a perfectly valid observation about the way "productivity" is assessed without the all-important denominators of either people or grant funding:

good point. Then there was the reveal:

"It's her first NIH application".

HAHHAHHHAAA. AYFK? Are you new here? Yes. Noobs get hammered occasionally. They even get hammered with stock critique type of comments. But for goodness sake we cannot possible draw conclusions about whether "NIH grant review can handle a solo theoretician" from one bloody review!

This guy doubled down:

Right? A disappointing first grant review is going to "drive a talented theoretical physicist out of biology". You can't make this stuff up if you tried.

and tripled down:

See, it's really, really special, this flower. And a given "line of critique" (aka, StockCritique of subfieldX or situationY) is totes only a problem in this one situation.

News friggin flash. The NIH grant getting game is not for the dilettante or the faint of heart. It takes work and it takes stamina. It takes a thick hide.

If you happen to get lucky with your first proposal, or if you bat higher than average in success rate, hey, bully for you. But this is not the average expected value across the breadth of the NIH.

And going around acting like you (or your buddies or mentees or departmentmates or collaborators) are special, and acting as though is a particular outrage and evidence of a broken system if you are not immediately awarded a grant on first try, is kind of dickish.

There is a more important issue here and it is the mentoring of people that you wish to help become successful at winning NIH grant support. Especially when you know that what they do is perhaps a little outside of the mainstream for a given IC or any IC. Or for any study section that you are aware of.

In my opinion it is mentoring malpractice to stomp about agreeing that this shows the system is awful and that it will never fund them. Such a response actually encourages them to drop out because it makes the future seem hopeless. My opinion is that proper mentoring involves giving the noobs a realistic view of the system and a realistic view of how hard it is going to be to secure funding. And my view is that proper mentoring is encouraging them to take the right steps forward to enhance their chances. Read between the summary statement lines. Don't get distracted with the StockCritiques that so infuriate you. Don't use this one exemplar to go all nonlinear about the ErrorZ OF FACT and INCompETENtz reviewers and whatnot. Show the newcomer how to search RePORTER to find the closest funded stuff. Talk about study sections and FOA and Program Officers. Work the dang steps!

Potnia Theron was a lot nicer about this than I was.

That post also got me wandering back to an older post by boehninglab about being a Working Class Scientist. Which is an excellent read.

28 responses so far

NINDS tweaks their approach to the F32 / NRSA

NOT-NS-17-002 indicates that NINDS will no longer participate in the NIH-wide parent F32/NRSA funding opportunity because they will be customizing their approach.


As previously described in NOT-NS-16-012 and NOT-NS-16-013, NINDS is restructuring its funding support for postdoctoral researchers.  Beginning with the December 8, 2016 due date, research training support for postdoctoral fellows under the F32 activity code will be available through NINDS using PAR-16-458 "NINDS Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award (NRSA) for Training of Postdoctoral Fellows (F32)."  This NINDS F32 will support postdocs who are within the first 3 years of research training in the sponsor's laboratory, and includes several other key differences from the parent F32. Most notably, applicants are only eligible for the NINDS F32 prior to starting, or within the first 12 months of starting, their postdoctoral training in the sponsor's laboratory or research environment. Because of the very early application, no preliminary data are expected.  It is anticipated that another Funding Opportunity Announcement for postdocs, which utilizes the K01 activity code, will be published in time for the February 12, 2017 initial receipt date. This will be available to applicants in their second through fourth year of cumulative postdoctoral research experience (see NOT-NS-16-013). 

I remember the initial troll on this but managed to overlook the part where they were going to have a new K01 announcement focused on later-stage postdocs.

I like this, actually. We've gotten into a situation where F32s are stuck in the escalating-expectations holding pattern of endless revisions and resubmissions lately. I just don't see the point of a 3rd year postdoc writing for "training" support that will only arrive in year 4 or 5. Particularly when at that point the postdocs who are gunning hard for a faculty research type job should be focusing on the K99/R01. This has been a waste of time, let the awardees languish for extra time so that they get at least a year or two on the F32 and make a mockery of the idea of the F32.

I am likewise encouraged that instead of leaving the 2+ year postdocs at the tender mercies of the K99/R00 process, NINDS has a fill-in with a K01. I note that their warning notice on this looks good.

The NINDS K01 is intended for candidates with a Ph.D. or equivalent research doctoral degree. Candidates will be eligible to apply for the K01 anytime within the second through fourth year of cumulative mentored, postdoctoral research experience, and may be supported by the NINDS K01 within the first 6 years of cumulative postdoctoral research experience. Successful K01 applications will be designed to facilitate the continuation of outstanding, innovative projects, combined with career development activities that will prepare outstanding postdoctoral, mentored investigators for an independent research career. The K01 application will describe a project that, as demonstrated by preliminary data collected by the applicant, holds promise to result in highly significant results and future discoveries. The K01 candidate will continue to be guided by a postdoctoral mentor, but will be primarily responsible for oversight and conduct of the research project. By the end of the proposed K01 award period, the candidate will be poised to begin an independent research career and will have a well-developed, highly significant project that he/she can take with him/her to an independent research position.

The devil, of course, is in the details. In my most frequent experience, the K01 tends to be won by people already in quasi-faculty positions. People who have been promoted to "Instructor" or "Assistant Research Project Quasi-faculty but not really Scientist" or whatever word salad title your University prefers. I do not see this being favored for award to any old run of the mill year 2 postdoc. Maybe your frame of reference differs, DearReader?

It will be interesting to see how this is used in practice. Will it only be for the people who just-miss on the K99/R00? Or will it occupy the place currently occupied by the F32 with successful applicants having 2-3 years of postdoc work under their belt before applying? [Mayhap these are the same thing these days?]

But I digress.

The most pressing issue of the day is whether the NINDS will succeed in funding 1) a substantial number of F32s from applicants who are finishing their graduate studies and 2) from first year postdocs without much Preliminary Data in the application.

In my estimation if they don't get to at least 50% of awards on #1, this isn't working.

I also predict that the #2 scenario is going to produce a lot of applications with lots of Preliminary Data, just stuff that wasn't completed directly by the applicant herself.

Thoughts folks? Would you like to see this extended to your favorite ICs?

29 responses so far

Reminder: The purpose of NIH grant review is not to fix the application

Oct 07 2016 Published by under Grant Review, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

A question on my prior post wanted to know if my assertions were official and written or not.

DM, how do you know that this is the case? I mean, I don't doubt that this is the case, but is it explicitly articulated somewhere?

This was in response to the following statements from me.

They are not charged with trying to help the PI improve his or her grantspersonship*. They are not charged with helping the PI get this particular grant funded on revision. They are not charged with being kind or nice to the PI. They are not charged with saving someone's career.

They are not charged with deciding what grants to fund!

The fact that we are not supposed to so much as mention the "f-word", i.e., "funding", has been communicated verbally by every single SRO I have ever reviewed under. They tend to do this at the opening of the meeting and sometimes in the pre-meeting introductory phone call. Many SROs of my acquaintance also spit this out like a reflex during the course of the meeting if they ever hear a reviewer mention it.

The rest of my statements are best evaluated as I wrote them. I.e., by looking at the the NIH review guidance material to see what the reviewers are instructed to do. There is a complete absence of any statements suggesting the job is to help out the applicant. There is a complete absence of any statement suggesting the job is to decide what to fund. The task is described assertively to:

Make recommendations concerning the scientific and technical merit of applications under review, in the form of final written comments and numerical scores.

As far as more positive assertions on the "fixing applications" front go, the most direct thing I can find at present is in the instruction on the "Additional Comments to Applicant" section of the critique template (take a look at that template if you've never reviwed). This document says:

As an NIH reviewer, your written critique should focus on evaluating the scientific and technical merit of an application and not on helping the applicant rewrite the application. But what if you desire to provide some information or tips to the applicant? The Additional Comments to Applicant box is designed just for that purpose.

My emphasis added. In case this isn't clear enough, the following can be taken in the context of the other guidance document comments about reviewing the scientific and technical merit.

Your comments in this box should not be about the scientific or technical merit of an application; do not factor into the final impact score; are not binding; and do not represent a consensus by the review panel. But this type of information may be useful to an applicant.

Clear. Right? The rest of the review is not about being helpful. Comments designed to be helpful to the applicant are not to contribute to the scientific and technical merit review.

Now the comment also asked this:

What fraction of reviewers do you think understand it like you say?

I haven't the foggiest idea. Obviously I think that there is no way anyone who is paying the slightest bit of attention could fail to grasp these simple assertions. And I think that probably, if challenged, the vast majority of reviewers would at least ruefully admit that they understand that helping the applicant is not the job.

But we are mostly professors and academics who have a pronounced native or professionally acquired desire to help people out. As I've said repeatedly on this blog, the vast majority of grant applications have at least something to like about them. And if academic scientists get a little tinge of "gee that sounds interesting", their next instinct is usually "how would I make this better". It's default behavior, in my opinion.

So of course SROs are fighting an uphill battle to keep reviewers focused on what the task is supposed to be.

10 responses so far

Reminder: The purpose of NIH grant review is not to help out the applicant with kindness

Oct 06 2016 Published by under Grant Review, NIH, NIH Careerism

The reviewers of NIH grant applications are charged with helping the Program staff of the relevant Institute or Center of the NIH decide on relative merits of applications as they, the Program staff, consider which ones to select for funding.


They are not charged with trying to help the PI improve his or her grantspersonship*. They are not charged with helping the PI get this particular grant funded on revision. They are not charged with being kind or nice to the PI. They are not charged with saving someone's career.

They are not charged with deciding what grants to fund!

If they can also be kind, help the PI improve her grant for next time, help her improve her grantsmithing in general and/or in passing save someone's career, hey great. Bonus. Perfectly acceptable outcome of the process.

But if the desire to accomplish any of these things compromise the assessment of merit** in a way that serves the needs of the Program staff**, that reviewer is screwing up.

*Maybe start a blog if this is your compulsion? I've heard that works for some people who have such urges.

**"merit" in this context is not necessarily what any given reviewer happens to think it is a priori, either. For example, there could be a highly targeted funding opportunity with stated goals that a given reviewer doesn't really agree with. IMV, that reviewer is screwing up if she substitutes her goals for the goals expressed by the I or C in the funding opportunity announcement.

14 responses so far

NIH always jukes the stats in their favor

Oct 04 2016 Published by under Gender, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

DataHound requested information on submissions and awards for the baby MIRA program from NIGMS. His first post noted what he considered to be a surprising number of applications rejected prior to review. The second post identifies what appears to be a disparity in success for applicants who identify as Asian* compared with those who identify white.

The differences between the White and Asian results are striking. The difference between the success rates (33.8% versus. 18.4%) is statistically significant with a p value of 0.006. The difference between the the all applications success rate (29.4% versus 13.2%) is also statistically significant with a p value of 0.0008. Finally, the difference between the probabilities of administrative rejection (15.4% versus 28.1%) is statistically significant with p = 0.007.

There was also a potential sign of a disparity for applicants that identify as female versus male.

Male: Success rate = 28.9%, Probability of administrative rejection = 21.0%, All applications success rate = 22.8%

Female: Success rate = 23.2%, Probability of administrative rejection = 21.1%, All applications success rate = 18.3%

Although these results are not statistically significant, the first two parameters trend in favor of males over females. If these percentages persisted in larger sample sizes, they could become significant.

Same old, same old. Right? No matter what aspect of the NIH grant award we are talking about, men and white people always do better than women and non-white people.

The man-bites-dog part of the tale involves what NIGMS published on their blog about this.

Basson, Preuss and Lorsch report on the Feedback Loop blog entry dated 9/30/2016 that:

One step in this effort is to make sure that existing skews in the system are not exacerbated during the MIRA selection process. To assess this, we compared the gender, race/ethnicity and age of those MIRA applicants who received an award with those of the applicants who did not receive an award
We did not observe any significant differences in the gender or race/ethnicity distributions of the MIRA grantees as compared to the MIRA applicants who did not receive an award. Both groups were roughly 25% female and included ≤10% of underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. These proportions were also not significantly different from those of the new and early stage R01 grantees. Thus although the MIRA selection process did not yet enhance these aspects of the diversity of the awardee pool relative to the other groups of grantees, it also did not exacerbate the existing skewed distribution.

Hard to reconcile with DataHound's report which comes from data requested under FOIA, so I presume it is accurate. Oh, and despite small numbers of "Others"* DataHound also noted:

The differences between the White and Other category results are less pronounced but also favored White applicants. The difference between the success rates (33.8% versus. 21.1%) is not statistically significant although it is close with a p value of 0.066. The difference between the the all applications success rate (29.4% versus 16.2%) is statistically significant with a p value of 0.004. Finally, the difference between the probabilities of administrative rejection (15.4% versus 28.1%) not statistically significant with p = 0.14 although the trend favors White applicants.

Not sure how NIGMS will choose to weasel out of being caught in a functional falsehood. Perhaps "did not observe" means "we took a cursory look and decided it was close enough for government work". Perhaps they are relying on the fact that the gender effects were not statistically significant, as DataHound noted. Women PIs were 19 out of 82 (23.2%) of the funded and 63/218 (28.9%) of the reviewed-but-rejected apps. This is not the way DataHound calculated success rate, I believe, but because by chance there were 63 female apps reviewed-but-rejected and 63 male apps awarded funding the math works out the same.

There appears to be no excuse whatever for the NIGMS team missing the disparity for Asian PIs.

The probability of administrative rejection really requires some investigation on the part of NIGMS. Because this would appear to be a huge miscommunication, even if we do not know where to place the blame for the breakdown. If I were NIGMS honchodom, I'd be moving mountains to make sure that POs were communicating the goals of various FOA fairly and equivalently to every PI who contacted them.

Related Reading.
*A small number of applications for this program (403 were submitted, per DataHound's first post) means that there were insufficient numbers of applicants from other racial/ethnic categories to get much in the way of specific numbers. The NIH has rules (or possibly these are general FOIA rules) about reporting on cells that contain too few PIs...something about being able to identify them too directly.

19 responses so far

Responding to Targeted NIH Grant Funding Opportunity Announcements

Sep 29 2016 Published by under Careerism, Grant Review, NIH, NIH Careerism

The NIH FOAs come in many flavors of specificity. Some, usually Program Announcements, are very broad and appear to permit a wide range of applications to fit within them. My favorite example of this is NIDA's "Neuroscience Research on Drug Abuse" PA.

They also come in highly specific varieties, generally as RFAs.

The targeted FOA is my topic for the day because they can be frustrating in the extreme. No matter how finely described for the type, these FOA are inevitably too broad to let each and every interested PI know exactly how to craft her application. Or, more importantly, whether to bother. There is always a scientific contact, a Program Officer, listed so the first thing to do is email or call this person. This can also be frustrating. Sometimes one gets great advice, sometimes it is perplexing.

As always, I can only offer up the way I look at these things.

As an applicant PI facing an FOA that seems vaguely of interest to me, I have several variables that are at play. First, despite the fact that Program may have written the FOA in a particular way, this doesn't mean that they really know what they want. The FOA language may be a committee result or it may just not have been thought that a highly specific type of proposal was necessary to satisfy what goals and motivations existed.

Second, even if they do know what they want in Programville, peer review is always the primary driver. If you can't escape triage it is highly unlikely that Program will fund your application, even if it fits their intent to a T. So as the applicant PI, I have to consider how peers are likely to interpret the FOA and how they are likely to apply it to my application. It is not impossible that the advice and perspective given to the prospective PI by the contact PO flies rather severely in the face of that PIs best estimate of what is likely to occur during peer review. This leaves a conundrum.

How to best navigate peer review and also serve up a proposal that is attractive to Program, in case they are looking to reach down out of the order of review for a proposal that matches what they want.

Finally, as I mention now and again there is an advocacy role for the PI when applying for NIH funding. It is part and parcel of the job of the PI to tell Program what they should be funding. By, of course, serving up such a brilliantly argued application that they see that your take on their FOA is the best take. Even if this may not have been what was their intent in the first place. This also, btw, applies to the study section members. Your job is in part to convince them, not to meet whatever their preconceptions or reading of the FOA might be.

Somehow, the PI has to stew all of these considerations together and come up with a plan for the best possible proposal. Unfortunately, you can miss the mark. Not because your application is necessarily weak or your work doesn't fit the FOA in some objective sense. Merely because you have decided to make choices, gambles and interpretations that have led you in a particular direction, which may very well be the "wrong" direction.

Most severely, you might be rejected without review. This can happen. If you do not meet the PO's idea of being within the necessary scope of what they would ever plan to fund, no matter the score, you could have your application prevented from being routed to the study section.

Alternately, you might get triaged by a panel that just doesn't see it your way. That wonders if you, the idiot PI, was reading the same FOA that they are. It happens.

Finally, you might get a good score and Program may decide to skip over it for lack of responsiveness to their intent. Or you may be in the grey zone and fail to get a pickup because other grants scoring below yours are deemed closer to what they want to fund.

My point for today is that I think this is necessary error in the system. It is not evidence of a wholesale problem with the NIH FOA approach if you shoot wide to the left. If you fail to really understand the intent of the FOA as written. Or if you come away from your initial chat with the PO with a misguided understanding. Or even if you run into the buzzsaw of a review panel that rebels against the FOA.

Personally, I think you just have to take your chances. Arrive at your best understanding of what the FOA intends and how the POs are going to interpret various proposals. Sure. And craft your application accordingly. But you have to realize that you may be missing the point entirely. You may fail to convince anyone of your brilliant take on the FOA's stated goals. This doesn't mean the system is broken.

So take your shots. Offer up your best interpretation on how to address the goals. And then bear down and find the next FOA and work on that. In case your first shot sails over the crossbar.

It always fascinates me how fairly wide-flung experiences with NIH funding coalesce around the same issue sometimes. This particular post was motivated by no less than three situations being brought to my attention in the past week. Different ICs, different FOA, different mechanisms and vastly different topics and IC intentions. But to me, the answers are the same.

12 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.

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

NIH sued for promotion bias against women in the Intramural Research Program

Aug 29 2016 Published by under Intramural Research Programs, NIH, NIH Careerism

via Lenny Bernstein at the Washington Post:

What Bielekova doesn’t have, at age 47, is tenure, the coveted guarantee of recognition, job security and freedom to pursue controversial ideas that is critical to long-term success in an academic career. She was not put forward as a candidate for the second time last year, despite a positive recommendation from a panel of outside experts who reviewed her qualifications.

To me the kicker is this part. NIH intramural is weird the way they have big deal lab heads and a lot of career scientists under them that would be standard tenure rank folks elsewhere. So when the big deal head dies or retires it is always a little weird. Do they hand the lab to one of the folks already there? And boot the rest? Or do they spawn off a couple of new jobs? or find homes for people in other big-deal groups?

Bielekova alleges retaliation and discrimination based on gender after what she describes as a “power struggle” following the retirement of her mentor, who was chief of the neuro-immunology branch. She said male scientists were provided numerous advantages in the aftermath and that she has been harmed by groundless accusations from male colleagues of unprofessional conduct. A male colleague from her branch, she said, was nominated for tenure at the same time that she was held back.


Amazingly Story Landis, prior NINDS Director, gave the full reveal quote:

While tenure awards are supposed to be based largely on merit, it is widely acknowledged that personality conflicts, budget constraints, internal politics and other factors affect them.

“Tenure decisions are complicated, and not just about what you’ve published,” Landis said.

In this, the NIH IRPs are no different than anywhere else, eh? It isn't about objective merits but about the subjective views of your colleagues, when it comes right down to it.

And lets in a whole lot o' bias.

Bielekova, ..has filed an Equal Employment Opportunity complaint against her institute’s director and two others,

Twill be interesting to watch this play out.

13 responses so far

Great lens to use on your own grants

Aug 26 2016 Published by under Grant Review, NIH, NIH Careerism

If your NIH grant proposal reads like this, it is not going to do well.

9 responses so far

Older posts »