What percentage of K99 should fail to transition to the R00 phase in a healthy system?
What percentage of those that go to R00 should fail to ever gain major independent funding as a PI?
Archive for the 'NIH' category
What percentage of K99 should fail to transition to the R00 phase in a healthy system?
"We're focused on the pipeline" === "We're focused on molding people into white dudes instead of combating our bias" https://t.co/KBYn2MPixr
— Sarah Mei (@sarahmei) June 28, 2015
Self-interested nepotistic shittebagges constantly assert this parade of horribles that if we don’t fund the right subset of scientists in today’s tight scientific funding environment (coincidentally them, their friends, their trainees, and their family members), then we are going to destroy scientific progress. This is because they are delusional......
It is relatively easy to kill grant applications because the reviewer knows the applicant can always apply again.
Same thing for hiring decisions because surely some lesser University will hire the three other candidates on the short list.
In many tenure cases, the Department knows that this person will get a professorial rank job elsewhere*.
Germain's scheme is going to require peers in the field to pass a death sentence on the career. And to make the numbers add up, there will be a LOT of this.
Those peers know that they themselves will be up for chopping in the next 5-7 years.
I do not foresee much enthusiasm for scoring progress as deficient and this will only grow more intense with each successive 5 year review interval.
*and anyway these are so personal at this point that it is a different matter.
— Drug Monkey (@drugmonkeyblog) June 25, 2015
One of the biggest whoppers told by Ronald Germain in his manifesto on fixing the NIH is this:
it is widely accepted that past performance, not a detailed research plan, is the best predictor of future success. So why stay with the fiction that R01 grant proposals are the best method for determining support of the individual scientist,
As I often say there is nothing so a-scientific and illogical as a scientist on the business of science.
The way he states this plays the usual sleight of hand with the all-important, unmentioned variable.
Namely, the means to do the research. Grant funding.
There is no bigger predictor for the success of a given research plan submitted to the NIH than whether or not the PI receives the funding to do the work. Funnily enough, Germain actually recognizes this and totally undercuts his argument in one of his caveats:
with 5–7 years of support per round and 1–2 years of bridge funding available, I think it is unlikely that a highly competent investigator will fail to produce enough during 6–9 years of research to warrant a “passing grade” without further extensions, except in extenuating circumstances.
Right? He sees right here that all that matters is funding. Most competent investigators will succeed if they but have the funding! Which makes his idea that this will cut down on competition and the "stochastic" nature of getting the grant funding look as silly as it is.
It's just another way to say "We'll pick our favored winners in advance of any independent accomplishment based on who they trained with (i.e., us!) They will keep right on winning because they will be the only ones with the means to accomplish anything. All others can stay the heck away from our effortless stream of moola, no matter how good their ideas might be".
This is important and it is why basing funding on accomplishment, rather than great ideas and the capacity to fulfill them is recipe for a death spiral of the Extramural NIH productivity as a whole.
This plan will self-reinforce and harden a silo around a limited set of brains, doing science in the way they see fit. Good ideas from outside this silo will not be given a chance to compete....unless they happen to occur to someone inside the silo. And on the whole, that person will not represent a diversity of ideas, approaches and interests. This will, across the enterprise of NIH-funded science, reduce the rate of discovery.
Those who manage to accomplish will continue to have a stranglehold on the means to accomplish. Means leads to accomplishment leads to more means in the Germain scheme.
So what gets accomplished will be narrowed, iteratively, with each 5-7 year review. Only to be refreshed, minimally, with each squeezed down cohort of new hires who manage to make it into his starter, block-grant scenario. Those, of course, will be selected by Universities on the basis of seeming like the people who are already most successful since the review will be anticipated to be on the basis of the person. Naturally, the trainees of the insider club will be most highly sought after. (Take a look at the way HHMIers, espcially the Early Career ones have been trained folks. ...talk about the past predicting the future and all, right?)
So when you hear someone talking about "the best predictor of future performance is past performance", make sure to ask whether that is with or without the funding and how they know this.
The second truthy whopper Germain tells follows soon after.
true creativity is often cause for lower scores?
Personally I have yet to see a well-prepared truly creative grant get killed just for being creative and new. Maybe wackaloon geniuses who have great ideas but simply refuse to write an actual grant proposal struggle in some sections. I guess. But here's a secret for Germain. (A "secret" known to just about anyone who has served on 2-3 traditional standing study sections.) People that he is talking about, those who have demonstrated a high level of accomplishment in the past 5-7 years, get away with utterly crappy proposals and still get their funding based on their record of accomplishment.
That's right. We ALREADY have a system in place that HUGELY benefits and prioritizes the funding of people with a track record of accomplishment. The "creativity" in their proposal does not prevent them from getting funded. Nor, btw, does diverging substantially from the plan they got the money for hurt them in the next round of evaluation.
Given this, there is no conceivable way that switching to Germain's plan changes the ability to be creative.
Now, for those outsiders or people with a brand new idea absent a track record....yeah, they may take it on the chin under the current NIH system. But they would ALSO fail to gain support under Germain's. It isn't like we're inventing up some new peers to do the reviewing here. No matter if it were McKnight's panel of NAS members or Germain's ideas of the deserving elite or traditional NIH-style panels judging the "track record"....there is no way that we can assume that genius PI behind every PCR or gene knockout technology or whatever Nobel-worthy breakthrough will be immediately recognized as awesome and funded.
I noticed something really weird and totally unnecessary.
When you are asked to review grants for the NIH you are frequently sent a Word document review template that has the Five Criteria nicely outlined and a box for you to start writing your bullet points. At the header to each section it sometimes includes some of the wording about how you are supposed to approach each criterion.
A recent template I received says under Investigator that one is to describe how the
..investigator’s experience and qualifications make him particularly well-suited for his roles in the project?
I know you guys want to talk about this ridiculous commentary because the blog ephone has been ringing off the hook. Unfortunately I really don't have the time for a proper post.
UPDATE: One thing I noticed about the proposal that merits a little more....specific discussion.
I believe the NIH should transition to a system that links getting a first job (faculty appointment) with sufficient funding to support a reasonably sized laboratory (three to five people, including the PI) in terms of staff salaries and supplies
Obviously there is a big range in terms of types of staff and the amounts that they are paid. However, I think we can start with the salaries of a 0 experience postdoc on NRSA scale ($42,840) and a 4 year postdoc (50,112). I am going to use $100,000 as the PI salary.
Benefits can range from 25% to 50% (again, as a rough approximation based on my limited experience with such numbers) which brings us to $241,190 or $289,428 per year for a three person laboratory. That is salary cost only. Obviously types of research vary tremendously but I have heard numbers in the range of 60% to 80% of research grant costs going to support staff salaries. Before we get into that, let's raise the estimates to Germain's upper bound of a lab of 5 individuals, the PI as above and two of each experience level postdocs ($357,380 and $428,856, depending on benefit rate).
With this estimate, if the staff cost is 80%, this brings us to the $357,380-$428,856 per year range. If staff cost is 60% of the research grant expenditure, then $595,633 - $714,760 range.
I invite you to compare these numbers, which Germain is recommending for 5-7 years starting presumably from Day 1, with the funding trajectories of yourself and your peers. At the upper bound, three modular R01s worth of funding for the entire duration of the pre-tenure interval.
This call is for a LOT fewer noob Assistant Professors being allowed to get in the game, by my calculation. Either that, a huge Congressional increase in the NIH budget or a massive retirement of those who are already in the game.
Note that I too would love to see that be possible. It would be fantastic if everyone could get three grants worth of funding to do whatever the heck they wanted, right from the start.
But in the real actual non-fantasy world, that would come with some serious constraints on who can be a scientist.
And I do not like people like Germain's ideas on who those people should be.
The NIH has recently issued the first round of guidance on inclusion of Sex as a Biological Variable in future NIH research grants. I am completely behind the spirit of the initiative but I have concerns about how well this is going to work in practice. I wrote a post in 2008 that detailed some of the reasons that have brought us to the situation where the Director of the NIH felt he had to coauthor an OpEd on this topic. I believe these issues are still present, will not be magically removed with new instructions to reviewers and need to be faced head-on if the NIH is to make any actual progress on ensuring SABV is considered appropriately going forward.
The post originally appeared December 2, 2008.
The title quote came from one of my early, and highly formative, experiences on study section. In the course of discussing a revised application it emerged that the prior version of the application had included a sex comparison. The PI had chosen to delete that part of the design in the revised application, prompting one of the experienced members of the panel to ask, quite rhetorically, "Why do they always drop the females?"
I was reminded of this when reading over Dr. Isis' excellent post [Update: Original Sb post lost, I think the repost can be found here] on the, shall we say less pernicious, ways that the course of science is slanted toward doing male-based research. Really, go read that post before you continue here, it is a fantastic description.
Thank you. That's the first time I've seen someone address the reasons behind ongoing gender disparities in health research. I still can't say as it thrills me (or you, obviously), but I understand a bit better now.
Did somebody ring?
As I pointed out explicitly at least once ([Update: Original 2007 post]), research funding has a huge role in what science actually gets conducted. Huge. In my book this means that if one feels that an area of science is being systematically overlooked or minimized, one might want to take a close look at the manner by which science is funded and the way by which science careers are sustained as potential avenues for systematic remedy.
There are a couple of ways in which the generalized problems with NIH grant review lead to the rhetorical comment with which I opened the post. One very common StockCritique of NIH grant review is that of an "over ambitious" research plan. As nicely detailed in Isis' post, the inclusion of a sex comparison doubles the groups right off the bat but even more to the point, it requires the inclusion of various hormonal cycling considerations. This can be as simple as requiring female subjects to be assessed at multiple points of an estrous cycle. It can be considerably more complicated, often requiring gonadectomy (at various developmental timepoints) and hormonal replacement (with dose-response designs, please) including all of the appropriate control groups / observations. Novel hormonal antagonists? Whoops, the model is not "well established" and needs to be "compared to the standard gonadectomy models",
Grant reviewers prefer simplicityKeep in mind, if you will, that there is always a more fundamental comparison or question at the root of the project, such as "does this drug compound ameliorate cocaine addiction?" So all the gender comparisons, designs and groups need to be multiplied against the cocaine addiction/treatment conditions. Suppose it is one of those cocaine models that requires a month or more of training per group? Who is going to run all those animals ? How many operant boxes / hours are available? and at what cost? Trust me, the grant proposal is going to take fire for "scope of the project".
Another StockCritique to blame is "feasibility". Two points here really. First is the question of Preliminary Data- of course if you have to run more experimental conditions to establish that you might have a meritorious hypothesis, you are less likely to do it with a fixed amount of pilot/startup/leftover money. Better to work on preliminary data for two or three distinct applications over just one if you have the funds. Second aspect has to do with a given PIs experience with the models in question. More opportunity to say "The PI has no idea what s/he is doing methodologically" if s/he has no prior background with the experimental conditions, which are almost always the female-related ones. As we all know, it matters little that the hormonal assays or gonadectomy or whatever procedures have been published endlessly if you don't have direct evidence that you can do it. Of course, more latitude is extended to the more-experienced investigator....but then s/he is less likely to jump into gender-comparisons in a sustained way in contrast to a newly minted PI.
Then there are the various things under grantspersonship. You have limited space in a given type of grant application. The more groups and comparisons, the more you have to squeeze in with respect to basic designs, methods and the interpretation/alternative approaches part. So of course you leave big windows for critiques of "hasn't fully considered...." and "it is not entirely clear how the PI will do..." and "how the hypothesis will be evaluated has not been sufficiently detailed...".
Although research funding plays a huge role in career success, it is only part of the puzzle. Another critical factor is what we consider to be "great" or "exciting" science in our respective fields.
The little people can fill in the details. This is basically the approach of GlamourMagz science. (This is a paraphrase of something the most successful GlamourMagz PI I know actually says.) Cool, fast and hot is not compatible with the metastasizing of experimental conditions that is an inevitable feature of gender-comparison science. Trouble is, this approach tends to trickle down in various guises. Lower (than GlamourMag) impact factor journals sometimes try to upgrade by becoming more NS-like (Hi, J Neuro!). Meticulous science and exacting experimental designs are only respected (if at all) after the fact. Late(r) in someone's career they start getting props on their grant reviews for this. Early? Well the person hasn't yet shown the necessity and profit for the exhaustive designs and instead they just look...unproductive. Like they haven't really shown anything yet.
As we all know splashy CNS pubs on the CV trump a sustained area of contribution in lower journals six ways to Sunday. This is not to say that nobody will appreciate the meticulous approach, they will. Just to say that high IF journal pubs will trump. Always.
So the smart young PI is going to stay away from those messy sex-differences studies. Everything tells her she should. If he does dip a toe, he's more likely to pay a nasty career price.
This is why NIH efforts to promote sex-comparison studies are necessary. Promoting special funding opportunities are the only way to tip the equation even slightly more favorable to the sex-differences side. The lure of the RFA is enough to persuade the experienced PI to write in the female groups. To convince the new PI that she might just risk it this one time.
My suspicion is that it is not enough. Beyond the simple need to take a stepwise approach to the science as detailed by Isis, the career and funding pressures are irresistible forces.