Archive for the 'NIH' category

The NIH Cull and the K99/R00 cohorts

May 28 2015 Published by under Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Careerism

DataHound posted two key analyses on the state of the NIH-funded extramural work force. In the first one he presents the number of unique PIs from 1985-2014. It looks to me, roughly, that there are about 18% fewer PIs than the peak and approximately 10% fewer PIs if we ignore the ARRA interval.

Most of the real drop (i.e., not postARRA) occurred between FY2011 and FY2012 but there has been a downward trend from 2012 to 2014 so this looks to be the new reality.

The Cull is in full view now.

Has it seemed like grants are getting funded slightly more easily lately? If so, you can thank the Cull. (No doubt the pressure is more about applications than funded awards to unique PIs. But if the applications are seeing similar drops, this explains the feeling of relief, if you have it.)

The second post at DataHound presents several graphs on the K99/R00 awardees by original award year.

Transition to the R00 phase did not vary much up through the 2010 cohort and the cohorts are on the same trajectory, given the time function. Importantly the 2007-2009 cohorts follow the exact same trajectory, 2010 cohorts have a little bit of drop-off at the far end, due to less time since original award. Six years after the K99 award is the hard ceiling on transition to R00 in the first three cohorts and 2010 K99ers aren't quite there yet.

Where the K99 awardee cohorts are not on the same trajectory is the transition to R01. DataHound's plots show a clear plateau for the 2007-2010 cohorts. The 2007 awardees topped out at about 58% transitioning to R01 funding and subsequent cohort success rates are lower, year over year. Success in gaining an R01 for the 2009 cohort is about 70% that of the 2008 grouup and about half that of the 2007 cohort. The 2010 cohort is at least 20% less-successful than the 2009 K99 awardees.

It is pretty clear the Cull described in the first linked post is falling harder on the K99/R00 awardees than on the general pool of NIH-funded PIs. Depending on whether you take the ARRA high water mark for unique PIs or something lower that adheres to the normal trend, the Cull is only about a 10-20% as of FY2014.

This is BACKWARDS!

All this talk about getting more new scientists over the hump to faculty level career status. All this whinging and moaning about eating our seed corn. All the handwringing over ESIs.

And the program that is the crown jewel in doing something about transition is....not working.

If history is any guide, it would have taken official NIHdom about 15 years to "suddenly realize" this is the case and to try something new.

Thank goodness for DataHound. I anticipate he has accelerated this process by posting these two key analyses.

75 responses so far

Thought on the Ginther report on NIH funding disparity

May 24 2015 Published by under Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

I had a thought about Ginther just after hearing a radio piece on the Asian-Americans that are suing Harvard over entrance discrimination. 

The charge is that Asian-American students need to have better grades and scores  than white students to receive an admissions bid. 

The discussion of the Ginther study revolved around the finding that African-American applicant PIs were less likely than PIs of other groups to receive NIH grant funding. This is because Asian-Americans, for example, did as well as white PIs. Our default stance, I assume, is that being a white PI is the best that it gets. So if another group does as well, this is evidence of a lack of bias. 

But what if Asian-American PIs submit higher quality applications as a group? 
How would we ever know if there was discrination against them in NIH grant award?

20 responses so far

Thoughts on NIH grant strategy from Associate Professor H. Solo

We spend a fair amount of time talking about grant strategy on this blog. Presumably, this is a reflection of an internal process many of us go through trying to decide how to distribute our grant writing effort so as to maximize our chances of getting funded. After all we have better things to do than to write grants.

So we scrutinize success rates for various ICs, various mechanisms, FOAs, etc as best we are able. We flog RePORTER for evidence of which study sections will be most sympathetic to our proposals and how to cast our applications so as to be attractive. We worry about how to construct our Biosketch and who to include as consultants or collaborators. We obsess over how much preliminary data is enough (and too much*).

This is all well and good and maybe, maybe....perhaps....it helps.

But at some level, you have to follow your gut, too. Even when the odds seem overwhelmingly bad, there are going to be times when dang it, you just feel like this is the right thing to do.

Submitting an R01 on very thin preliminary data because it just doesn't work as an R21 perhaps.

Proposing an R03 scope project even if the relevant study section has only one** of them funded on the RePORTER books.

Submitting your proposal when the PO who will likely be handling it has already told you she hates your Aims***.

Revising that application that has been triaged twice**** and sending it back in as a A2asA0 proposal.

I would just advise that you take a balanced approach. Make your riskier attempts, sure, but balance those with some less risky applications too.

I view it as....experimenting.

__
*Just got a question about presenting too much preliminary data the other day.

**of course you want to make sure there is not a structural issue at work, such as the section stopped reviewing this mechanism two years ago.

***1-2%ile scores have a way of softening the stony cold heart of a Program Officer. Within-payline skips are very, very rare beasts.

****one of my least strategic behaviors may be in revising grants that have been triaged. Not sure I've ever had one funded after initial triage and yet I persist. Less so now than I used to but.....I have a tendency. Hard headed and stupid, maybe.

13 responses so far

NIH Program Officers do not understand what happens during review

May 22 2015 Published by under Grant Review, Grantsmanship, NIH, NIH Careerism

It is one of the most perplexing things of my career and I still don't completely understand why this is the case. But it is important for PIs, especially those who have not yet experienced study section, to understand a simple fact of life.

The NIH Program Officers do not completely understand what contributes to the review and scoring of your grant application.

My examples are legion and I have mentioned some of them in prior blog posts over the years.

The recent advice from NIAID on how to get your grant to fit within a modular budget limit.

The advice from a PO that PIs (such as myself) just needed to "write better grants" when I was already through a stint on study section and had read many, many crappy and yet funded grants from more established investigators.

The observation that transitioning investigators "shouldn't take that job" because it was soft money and K grants were figuring heavily in the person's transition/launch plans.

Apparently honest wonder that reviewers do not read their precious Program Announcements and automatically award excellent scores to applications just because they align with the goals of the PA.

Ignorance of the revision queuing that was particularly endemic during the early part of my career (and pretend? ignorance that limiting applications to one revision round made no functional difference in this).

The "sudden discovery" that all of the New Investigator grants during the checkbox era were going to well-established investigators who simply happened not to have NIH funding before, instead of boosting the young / recently appointed investigators.

An almost comically naive belief that study section outcome for grants really is an unbiased reflection of grant merit.

I could go on.

The reason this is so perplexing to me is that this is their job. POs [eta: used to] sit in on study section meetings or listen in on the phone. At least three times a year but probably more often given various special emphasis panels and the assignment of grants that might be reviewed in any of several study sections. They even take notes and are supposed to give feedback to the applicant with respect to the tenor of the discussion. They read any and all summary statements that they care to. They read (or can read) a nearly dizzying array of successful and unsuccessful applications.

And yet they mostly seem so ignorant of dynamics that were apparent to me after one, two or at the most three study section meetings.

It is weird.

The takeaway message for less NIH-experienced applicants is that the PO doesn't know everything. I'm not saying they are never helpful....they are. Occasionally very helpful. Difference between funded and not-funded helpful. So I fully endorse the usual advice to talk to your POs early and often.

Do not take the PO word for gospel, however. Take it under advisement and integrate it with all of your other sources of information to try to decide how to advance your funding strategy.

25 responses so far

Crystal clear grant advice from NIAID

May 21 2015 Published by under Grant Review, Grantsmanship, NIH, NIH Careerism

from this Advice Corner on modular budgeting:

As you design your research proposal, tabulate a rough cost estimate. If you are above but near the $250,000 annual direct cost threshold, consider ways to lessen your expenses. Maybe you have a low-priority Specific Aim that can be dropped or a piece of equipment you could rent rather than buy new.

H/t: PhysioProf

Related Reading:

NIAID
Sample Grants

26 responses so far

Fighting with the New Biosketch format

I have been flailing around, of and on for a few months, trying to write my Biosketch into the new format [Word doc Instructions and Sample].

 

I am not someone who likes to prance around bragging about "discoveries" and unique contributions and how my lab's work is I am so awesomely unique because, let's face it, I don't do that kind of work. I am much more of a work-a-day type of scientist who likes to demonstrate stuff that has never been shown before. I like to answer what are seemingly obvious questions for which there should be lots of literature but then it turns out that there is not. I like to work on what interests me about the world and I am mostly uninterested in what some gang of screechy monkey GlamourHumpers think is the latest and greatest.

Ahem.

This is getting in the way of my ability to:

Briefly describe up to five of your most significant contributions to science. For each contribution, indicate the historical background that frames the scientific problem; the central finding(s); the influence of the finding(s) on the progress of science or the application of those finding(s) to health or technology; and your specific role in the described work.

Now interestingly, it was someone who works in a way most unlike the way I do that showed me the light. Actually, he gave me the courage to think about ignoring this supposed charge in the sample / instruction document. This person recommended just writing a brief sentence or two about the area of work without trying to contextualize the importance or significance of the "contribution". I believe I actually saw one of the five permitted subheadings on his version that was more or less "And here's some other stuff we work on that wasn't easily categorized with the rest of it."

I am at least starting from this minimalist standpoint. I don't know if I will have the courage to actually submit it like this, but I'm leaning towards doing so.

I have been hearing from quite a number of you that you are struggling with creating this new version of the NIH Biosketch. So I thought I'd open it up to comment and observation. Anyone have any brilliant solutions / approaches to recommend?

UPDATE:
One of the things that has been bothering me most about this is that it takes the focus off of your work that is specific to the particular application in question. In the most recent version of the Biosketch, you selected 15 pubs that were most directly relevant to the topic at hand. These may not be your "most significant contributions" but they are the ones that are most significant for the newly proposed studies.

If one is now to list "your most significant contributions", well, presumably some of these may not have much to do with the current application. And if you take the five sections seriously, it is hard to parse the subset of your work that is relevant to one focal R01 sized project into multiple headings and still show now those particular aspects are a significant contribution.

I still think it is ridiculous that they didn't simply make this an optional way to do the Biosketch so as to accommodate those people that needed to talk about non-published scholarly works.

64 responses so far

The Capstone (Emeritus) Award is Already in Pending Legislation

May 07 2015 Published by under Fixing the NIH, NIH

In case you weren't already cynical enough about NIH's trial balloon at Rockey's Blog and the ensuing RFI (link to the comments is posted at DataHound), now the DataHound casually notes something really scary predictable.

As a further update, as first pointed out to me by @ChrisPickett5, the latest draft of the 21st Century Cures Act currently being developed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee includes a section about a "Capstone Award" (pg. 26-27).  

Which says, in the current version of the Act:

‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may make awards
3 (each of which, hereafter in this section, referred to as
4 a ‘Capstone Award’) to support outstanding scientists who
5 have been funded by the National Institutes of Health.
6 ‘‘(b) PURPOSE.—Capstone Awards shall be made to
7 facilitate the successful transition or conclusion of re

8search programs, or for other purposes, as determined by
9 the Director of NIH, in consultation with the directors
10 of the national research institutes and national centers.
11 ‘‘(c) DURATION AND AMOUNT.—The duration and
12 amount of each Capstone Award shall be determined by
13 the Director of NIH in consultation with the directors of
14 the national research institutes and national centers.
15 ‘‘(d) LIMITATION.—Individuals who have received a
16 Capstone Award shall not be eligible to have principle in

017vestigator status on subsequent awards from the National
18 Institutes of Health.’’.

Which, should this pass, totally makes the Emeritus award a done deal despite the many critical comments offered on Rockey's blog and in the RFI responses.

Reading between the lines here it appears that what NIH specifically needed Congress to approve* was the LIMITATION part, i.e., the authority to prevent Capstone Awardees from serving on any subsequent grants as principle [sic] investigator.

I guarantee you that this was not some Congress Critter coming up with this idea out of thin air. The NIH, meaning with the full involvement of Francis Collins, asked for this. Which means they are steaming right ahead, absolutely regardless of any responses they got on the RFI.

 

I'm sure they will trot out some Executive Summary of the responses that is unduly heavy on the "pro" responses and dismissive of the "con" responses. Just you watch.

 

Thanks to the DataHound's FOIA request, we'll all be able to watch their pre-established agenda perfidy in action.

 

Pop your corn, folks, pop your corn.

 

__

*This is evidence of exactly what I mean when I express dismissal of any NIH excuses that they are not authorized to make some change or other. It is as simple as them going to their favorite Congress Critter and getting whatever they want inserted into the next handy bill. So when NIH says "we don't have the authority" the proper interpretation is to hear it as "we don't really want to do that".

 

25 responses so far

That study of peer review perplexes me

Apr 24 2015 Published by under Grant Review, NIH, NIH Careerism, Peer Review

I just can't understand what is valuable about showing that a 1%ile difference in voted score leads to 2% difference in total citations of papers attributed to that grant award. All discussions of whether NIH peer review is working or broken center on the supposed failure to fund meritorious grants and the alleged funding of non-meritorious grants. 

Please show me one PI that is upset that her 4%ile funded grant really deserved a 2%ile and that shows that peer review is horribly broken. 

The real issue, how a grant overlooked by the system would fare *were it to be funded* is actually addressed to some extent by the graph on citations to clearly outlying grants funded by exception.

This is cast as Program rescuing those rare exception brilliant proposal. But again, how do we know the ones that Program fails to rescue wouldn't have performed well?

23 responses so far

Newt Gingrich to the rescue! (Again)

Apr 22 2015 Published by under Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics

Newt has called for substantial increases in the NIH allocation

15 responses so far

Review your own CV. Frequently.

Apr 14 2015 Published by under Careerism, NIH, Peer Review

Yesterday's review of the research publications of a person who had written about closing down his lab due to lack of funding in this "unfair" grant award environment touched a nerve on at least one Reader. I assume it was uncomfortable for many of you to read.

It was uncomfortable for me to write.

You can tell because I felt compelled to slip in the odd caveat about my own record. I can write one of those reviews about my own career that would be equally, if not more, critical and uncomfortable.

No doubt more than one of you got the feeling that if I wrote a similar review of your record you would come up wanting ...or at least PhysioProffe would jump in to tell you how shitasse you are*. Certainly at least one correspondent expressed this feeling.

But that tinge of anxiety, fear and possibly shame that you feel should tell you that it is a good idea to perform this little review of yourself now and again. Good to try to step outside of your usual excuses to yourself and see how your CV looks to the dispassionate observer who doesn't know anything about your career other than the publication and NIH-award (or other grants, as relevant) record.

Do you have obvious weaknesses? Too few publications? Too few first/last author (as appropriate). Too few collaborations? Insufficiently high Journal Impact Factor points? Etc.

What is all of this going to say to grant reviewers, hiring committees or promotions committees?

Then, this allows you to do something about it. You can't change the past but you can alter the course of your future.

In some situations, like crafting the NIH Biosketch Personal Statement, you do actually have the opportunity to alter the past....not the reality but certainly the perception of it. So that is another place where the review of your CV helps. That voice of excuse-making that arises? Leverage that. You DO have reasons for certain weaknesses and perhaps other features of your CV help to overcome that if they are just pointed out properly.

___
*he wouldn't, btw.

32 responses so far

« Newer posts Older posts »