Archive for the 'NIH' category

Rockey looking to leave the NIH

Nov 03 2014 Published by under NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

It looks like Sally Rockey, Deputy Director in charge of NIH's Office of Extramural Research since 2005, is looking to depart the NIH.

and

show that she is on the short-list to become the next President of the University (system) of Nebraska. Other shortlist candidates are a state level commissioner of higher education, a State University President and a State University (system) chancellor.

In the US some State University systems (i.e., multiple campuses which act as semi-autonomous Universities) call their campus heads President and the System-wide leader the Chancellor whereas other systems reverse these titles. This job appears to be the system-wide leadership position. This explains why there are two system-level leaders in the hunt.

It also may influence your opinion on the appropriateness of someone who has been a research administrator her whole career being in the running for such a position. Obviously she is being looked at as some sort of Federal grant rainmaker/expert to upgrade the amount of money that enters the University of Nebraska system from the Federal government and possibly other sources. I cannot imagine why else such a person, with no related experience heading a University or University system would be on the shortlist otherwise.

The main point of this news can be summed up in this handy figure from Jimmy Margulies, New Jersey Record, who was commenting on a different topic. The point remains, however.
The NIH is a sinking ship. I suspect that the folks at NIH realize this and the ones who have opportunity to cash in on their authoritah! by finding a nice top level administrative gig at one of the supplicant Universities will do so. The have-not Universities which find themselves in the most difficulty obtaining NIH funding will be desperate to land a rain-maker and even the "have" Universities may see this as a good investment. Especially if you have an IC Deputy Director or better, you can argue that they have significant administrative experience within an organization not entirely unrelated to academics. It should be an easy sell for a search committee to make the argument for NIH insiders to be considered for University President positions, Deans of Research and the like.

Is it a smart move? Well yes, if you think that their will be some benefit to their insider status. If you think that the replacement figures and holdovers will take the calls of these NIH emigres and listen to the concerns of their new University.

UPDATE: This news account explains that an attempt to close a Nebraska open-records law was made when the previous President of the UN system resigned.

As the law stands now, candidates may be kept private until the search for a president is narrowed to a pool of at least four applicants, all of whom must be disclosed. The bill would have allowed search committees to keep confidential presidential, vice presidential and chancellor candidates until they’ve narrowed the pool to one finalist.

Proponents of the bill say a closed search would allow for a better pool of applicants, including those who may otherwise be hesitant to apply and jeopardize their current position by publicly seeking another one. Opponents say the current law allows for students, faculty, the general public and the media to meet, investigate and learn about the candidates.

Hadley introduced the bill on behalf of the University of Nebraska’s Board of Regents after President James Milliken announced last month that he would be leaving Nebraska to become chancellor of the City University of New York.

51 responses so far

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.

19 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.

74 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.

59 responses so far

NIH's rapid growth has let in a bunch of riff-raff!

I am sure Dr. McKnight realizes that when he asserts that "Biomedical research in the 1960s and 1970s was a spartan game" and "Biomedical research is a huge enterprise now; it attracts riff-raff who never would have survived as scientists in the 1960s and 1970s" he is in fact lauding the very scientists "When I joined the molecular cytology study section in the 1980s.. all kinds of superb scientists" who were the riff-raff the prior generation complained about.

From a very prestigious general Science journal in 1962:

Some of [this change] arises from expressions of concern within the scientific community itself over whether the NIH's rapid growth has sacrificed quality to achieve quantity.

The astute reader will also pick up on another familiar theme we are currently discussing.

And some of it reflects nothing more than the know-nothing ramblings of scientific illiterates, who conclude that if the title of a research project is not readily comprehensible to them, some effort to swindle the government must be involved.

1962, people. 1962.
__
Greenberg DS. NIH Grants: Policies Revised, but Critics Not Likely To Turn Away. Science. 1962 Dec 28;138(3548):1379-80.

3 responses so far

The Origami Condom and NIH Ebola funding

One of the NIH funded research projects that has been bandied about with much glee from the right wing, in the wake of Francis Collins' unfortunate assertion about Ebola research and the flatlined NIH budget, is the "Origami Condom". It shows why NIH Director Collins should have known better. The Origami Condom sounds trivial and ridiculous, right? "Origami". hahah. Oooh, "condom". Wait, what are we, 12 year olds?

Rand Paul provides a convenient example.
Continue Reading »

18 responses so far

Eisen Nails Down Why Collins Was Wrong on Ebola Assertion

Oct 13 2014 Published by under NIH, NIH funding, Public Health

Endorse. Go read:

But what really bothers me the most about this is that, rather than trying to exploit the current hysteria about Ebola by offering a quid-pro-quo “Give me more money and I’ll deliver and Ebola vaccine”, Collins should be out there pointing out that the reason we’re even in a position to develop an Ebola vaccine is because of our long-standing investment in basic research, and that the real threat we face is not Ebola, but the fact that, by having slashed the NIH budget and made it increasingly difficult to have a stable career in science, we’re making it less and less likely that we’ll be equipped to handle all of the future challenges to public health that we’re going to be face in the future.

46 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

« Newer posts Older posts »