Archive for the 'NIH' category

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

Sometimes CSR just kills me

Oct 01 2014 Published by under Fixing the NIH, Grant Review, NIH

The Peer Review Notes for September 2014 contains a list of things you should never write when reviewing grants.

Some of them are what we might refer to as Stock Critique type of statements. Meaning that they don't just appear occasionally during review. They are seen constantly. A case in point:

7. “This R21 application does not have pilot data, which should be provided to ensure the success of the project.”

Which CSR answers with:

R21s are exploratory projects to collect pilot data. Preliminary data are not required, although they can be evaluated if provided.

What kind of namby-pamby response is this? They know that the problem with R21s is that reviewers insist they should have preliminary data or, at the least only give good scores to the applications that have strong preliminary data. They bother to put this up on their monthly notes but do NOTHING that will have any effect. Here's my proposed response: "We have noticed reviewers simply cannot refrain from prioritizing preliminary data on R21s so we will be forbiding applicants from including it". Feel free to borrow that, Dr. Nakamura.

Another one:

“This is a fishing expedition.”

CSR:

It would be better if you said the research plan is exploratory in nature, which may be a great thing to do if there are compelling reasons to explore a specific area. Well-designed exploratory or discovery research can provide a wealth of knowledge.

This is another area of classic stock criticism of the type that may, depending on your viewpoint, interfere with getting the desired result. As indicated by the answer, CSR (and therefore NIH) disagrees with this anti-discovery criticism as a general position. Given how prevalent it is, again, I'd like to see something stronger here instead of an anemic little tut-tut.

One of these is really good and a key reminder.

“The human subject protection section does not spell out the specifics, but they already got the IRB approval, and therefore, it is ok.”

Response:


IRB approval is not required at this stage, and it should not be considered to replace evaluation of the protection plans.

And we can put IACUC in there too. Absolutely. There is a two tiered process here which should be independent. Grant reviewers take a whack at the proposed subject protections and then the local IACUC takes a whack at the protocol associated with any funded research activities. It should be a semi-independent process in which neither assumes that the approval from the other side of the review relieves it of responsibility.

Another one is a little odd and may need some discussion.

“This application is not in my area of expertise . . . “

I find that reviewers say this in discussion but have never seen it in a written critique (even during read phase before SRO edits eliminate such statements).

The response is not incorrect...

If you’re assigned an application you feel uncomfortable reviewing, you should tell your Scientific Review Officer as soon as possible before the meeting.

...but I think there is wiggle room here. Sometimes, reviewers are specifying that they are only addressing the application in a particular way. This is OKAY! In my experience it is rare that a given application has three reviewers who are stone cold experts in every single aspect of the proposal. The idea is that they can be primary experts in some part or another. And, interestingly given the recent statements we discussed from Dr. McKnight, it is also okay if someone is going at the application from a generalist perspective as well. So I think for the most part reviewers say this sort of thing as a preamble to boxing off their areas of expertise. Which is important for the other panel members who were not assigned to the application to understand.

4 responses so far

Sometimes the good guys win

Sep 30 2014 Published by under Neuroscience, NIH

I've mentioned a time or two that I think the DREADD approach is infinitely more useful than optogenetics for anything that matters.

So congrats to the team for this new award.

DREADD2.0: AN ENHANCED CHEMOGENETIC TOOLKIT

DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The Brain Research through Advancing Innovative Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative has the ambitious goal of elucidating how neuronal ensembles interactively encode higher brain processes. To accomplish this goal, new and improved methods for both recording and manipulating neuronal activity will be needed. In this application, we focus on technologies for manipulating neuronal activity. The major significance of this application is that we will provide an enhanced chemogenetic toolbox that allows non-invasive, multiplexed spatiotemporal control of neuronal activity in domains ranging from single synapses to ensembles of neurons. To achieve this, we will provide: Chemical actuators with improved pharmacokinetics and pharmacodyamics suited for use with current DREADDs in eukaryotes ranging from Drosophila to primates (Specific Aim #1) Photo-caged CNO and other chemical actuators to provide millisecond-scale control (Specific Aim #1) Novel DREADDs and 'split-DREADDs' targeted to distinct neuronal pathways to enable multiplexed interrogation of neuronal circuits (Specific Aims #2 and 3) Chemogenetic platforms with minimized desensitization and down-regulation (Specific Aim #3)

I am excited to see where this leads.

More awards under The BRAIN Initiative.

27 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

Question of the Day

Sep 29 2014 Published by under Fixing the NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics

The NIH funds grants at "foreign applicant institutions", meaning a University in another country.

In these times should we be continuing this practice or is scientific grant protectionism a good idea?

30 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

Federal RePORTER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sep 24 2014 Published by under Grantsmanship, NIH, NIH funding

This is soooo friggin cool.

There is now a tool to search all Federal research grants, i.e. across the various funding agencies.

Federal RePORTER awaits!

13 responses so far

Your Grant in Review: Longitudinal Human Studies

Sep 22 2014 Published by under Grant Review, Grantsmanship, NIH funding

Man.

Reviewing a competing continuation of a longitudinal human subjects study always has a little bit of a whiff of extortion to it. I'm not saying this is intentional but......

 

The sunk cost fallacy is a monster.

3 responses so far

On Paying Postdocs Whatever for Whatevs

Sep 19 2014 Published by under NIH, Postdoctoral Training, Postgraduate Training

There was a discussion on Twitter regarding postdoctoral compensation that veered off into the assertion that it is "easy" for PIs to give a 20% bump to their postdocs if they wanted to. It eventually incorporated some allegation that particular subspecialties (like computer/informatics jockeys) required a bonus bit of pay above normal for postdocs. Eventually it became clear to me that there are both some postdocs and indeed junior faculty that basically think they are able to just pay their postdocs whatever they want if they happen to have sufficient grant or other money to do so.

In one case I tried gently to raise the spectre of unequal treatment, bias and discrimination in wage compensation. I do this not just because of the general observation that in far too many workplaces women just happen to get paid less. I do this also because I have been around training environments where the direct-experience pain of unequal postdoc pay ("because DewdDoc has a family to support and you, WomanDawk do not") was made clear to me. While I have not heard of anybody pulling that crap in my current department...let's just say I'm not the trusting type.

I have tried to adhere to postdoctoral compensation policies that were external to my own (inevitably biased) self in my actions as a lab head. In brief, I have stuck to the NRSA guidelines. At one point that meant that my postdocs were being paid better than the mean in my department. I think we are now all doing better but my sense is that my institution only requires the starting pay to be at NRSA minimum and doesn't enforce the yearly steps.

I tried the subtle way but it is not, apparently, working.

PhysioProf, growing tired of the shenanigans got shouty.

Hint to all of you: THERE ARE FUCKEN FEDERAL COST PRINCIPLES THAT YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW BY FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS. THESE PRINCIPLES DETERMINE THE ANSWER TO DOUCHEMONKEY'S QUESTION.

Head on over to the NIH Grants Policy Statement where it talks about Salaries. Emphasis added for the slower readers.

Allowable. Compensation for personal services covers all amounts, including fringe benefits, paid currently or accrued by the organization for employee services rendered to the grant-supported project. Compensation costs are allowable to the extent that they are reasonable, conform to the established policy of the organization consistently applied regardless of the source of funds, and reasonably reflect the percentage of time actually devoted to the NIH-funded project.

and on "bonuses", a mechanism used to supplement postdocs that I have heard of.

Allowable as part of a total compensation package, provided such payments are reasonable and are made according to a formally established policy of the grantee that is consistently applied regardless of the source of funds.

The grants policy has this to say about Fraud and Waste:

Examples of fraud, waste, and abuse that should be reported include, but are not limited to, embezzlement, misuse, or misappropriation of grant funds or property, and false statements, whether by organizations or individuals. Other examples include theft of grant funds for personal use; using funds for non-grant-related purposes; theft of federally owned property or property acquired or leased under a grant; charging the Federal government for the services of “ghost” individuals; charging inflated building rental fees for a building owned by the grantee; submitting false financial reports; and submitting false financial data in bids submitted to the grantee (for eventual payment under the grant).

The Federal government may pursue administrative, civil, or criminal action under a variety of statutes relating to fraud and making false statement or claims.

It doesn't precisely say that overpaying staff outside of what is "reasonable" and that "conform to the established policy of the organization" is the same as "theft for personal use" and they talk about "inflated...fees" only in the context of building rental. But c'mon.

It doesn't take a neurobrainrocketscientistsurgeon to deduce that an individual NIH-grant-holding PI has some obligation to pay their staff only what is consistent with institutional policies external to their own personal preferences.

I take no position whatever on what institutional postdoc compensation policies should be in various locations in this fair land. Ok, that's a lie, I think NRSA scale should be a minimum. But if there need to be local adjustments, no problem. If there needs to be institutional recognition that some job types (like a informatics / computational biology postdoc) require a consistent bonus to compete with the local killer-app startup, fine.

But it is VERY clear to me that individual PIs do not just get to willy-nilly decide what to pay their trainees without any reference to what is "reasonable" and what has been made "established policy of the organization".

65 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

« Newer posts Older posts »