Archive for the 'NIH Careerism' category

It's coming from inside the room

Several recent experiences have brought me to ponder a question this week. And in one of the several formulations in my mind it reads: Is it more effective to drive change of large systems from a position inside of the room or from a position outside of the room?

In one way of defining this, I am wondering if change happens with large institutions (the US government/polity, Universities, NIH extramural granting activities, you know, the usual targets) most rapidly and assuredly if it is driven by the barbarians at the gate or by the insiders.

To a first approximation this also means something about the tone and the approach to change. We are more likely to get inside the room if we align ourselves with the powers that be. We are more likely to get inside the room with an approach and a tone and a personality that is compatible with (read: similar to) the already-empowered folks.

I exist in what I think of as a duality that does a half-assed job of being inside the room and a half-assed job of being outside of the room. To a certain view, I’m a NIH extramural funding insider. I was trained in at least one stop around people who were very successful grant getting folks. I started my faculty position around folks that were not only good at getting grants but were themselves more than usually powerful. Leaders of societies, editors of journals, people that went on National Advisory Council of NIH ICs. People who were able to just phone up an IC director at will and have that person take their call. I have been awarded NIH grants as a PI on more than one occasion. I have served an appointed stint on study section and still get invited to review with enough regularity for me to maintain continual-submission privileges most of the time. My institutional affiliation commands respect in some quarters although of course that is down to all the other folks who do and have worked for it, not to me.

Particularly when it comes to NIH granting matters, I am often inside the room. Or, at least one of the anterooms. This gives me the opportunity to influence things. I have a direct role in review of proposals and in voting for scores of proposals. I can contribute to the discussion of grants, potentially affecting not just the outcome of that grant but the way other reviewers approach review*. My comments reach the ears of Program Officers, giving them (my words) the opportunity to effect change**.

The reach of these opportunities is limited in scope. I only reach so many folks.

I also have the opportunity to rant from outside the room in several ways, most pointedly through this blog and the online academic community. As you know, I do so. But in addition, in real life, there are many scenarios in which I am not in the room. As you ascend the ranks of the NIH ICs to where the RealPower lies, I’m definitely an outsider. I have maybe one Director that would take my call but it is not the the most useful IC for me, under most circumstances. My work is not good enough to command attention all the way to the top. I am not empowered within academic societies or journals. My institution has never really liked me much.

Many of us exist in these diverse roles with respect to the insider/outsider status. It is on a spectrum and it is highly fluid. And, as we know from broader discussions of privilege, it is nigh on impossible for real humans in academia to see their own insider-ness for what it is. And, more specifically, for how it appears to everyone who is just outside that particular door of power.

What is more effective? I don’t know. Take the example of careers that are shaped in large part by the success of the individual under the NIH grant scheme. If I’m on study section I can fight hard for good applications that are submitted by African-American PIs. I can even choose to review as much as I possibly can, such that my fighting has the chance to reach as many applications from black PIs as possible. That’s nice and sober insider guy behavior. I can, if I choose, make occasional oblique or pointed comments that refer to the Ginther report finding on discrimination and bias. Maybe it will counter an implicit bias here or there. Maybe a reviewer or a PO will start trying to counter such biases themselves. Slightly more shouty, but still insider-dude stuff.

Or I could rant and rave and bring Gither up at the slightest excuse. I don’t tend to do this inside the room. I think that would be less*** effective…but I really don’t know.

From outside the room in my social media life, as you know Dear Reader, I cast a few more stones and shout louder. I keep Ginther refreshed, seven years later, in the minds of my fellow travelers. (I have other issues as well). I hope my ranting reaches new audiences, since we have new people finding the online science community daily. I yell at the NIH Director’s twitter account but that’s mostly street theatre for the crowd, I know ol’ Francis Collins isn’t really paying any attention.

By this point you are getting the feeling that I think that the best thing to do is to pursue both avenues. And you would be right. I do think that the best and most assured way to effect maximal change of ponderous systems is to both gain insider power and to continue to shout and rave from outside the gates.

The example I used is one person on an agenda but most typically this involves different people pursing the same agenda.

I call it the Martin and Malcolm scenario, if you will permit. This requires a certain cartoonized view of the Civil Rights era in this country but I think it suffices even if it polarizes the two men (and their movements) in a way that is historically less than accurate. We lionize Martin Luther King, Jr. as the personification of the pacifist approach that worked within the system in sober and solid ways. His movement essentially shamed the powers that be into doing better. Or argued the powers that be into doing better. And this was much more effective than the aggressive, even violent, approach of Malcolm X and his movement.

Or so goes the tale of the insider crowd. The more educated ones even try to point out how Malcolm X moderated his position and became more conciliatory later on.

My view is that the Martin approach only gained traction as a more palatable alternative to the scenario raised by the Malcolm X type approach.

And I think you can see this interplay reflected in countless historical struggles in which political solutions to imbalances of power were reached. Quite often history credits progress to the sober efforts of working the levers of the insiders. It may be work done by actual insiders or by people patiently and quietly trying to move the insiders. It may be people working slowly to become insiders. But my reading of history says that structures of power only relent and start to negotiate with the sober, insider crowd because they are in existential fear of the barbarians at the gate.

This analysis, however, doesn’t answer the question in any sort of fine-grained manner. On any given issue, at any given time, are we more in need of anger? Or are we in need of a greater emphasis on sober, staid, insider-club efforts? When has the ground been sufficiently prepared to suggest now is the time for sowing and nurturing seedlings?

To this very month I struggle with how shouty versus sober I should be in trying to improve the way institutions behave. To return to the above example, anytime I am on a study section I have to moderate my behavior. When do I speak up and what do I say? When do I have an opportunity to help advance what I think is the best thing to do and when are my goals best served by shutting up? And given that DM is such a poorly kept secret at this point, to what extent do my opinions expressed on social media compromise my efforts inside the room?

And, to bring it to a fine point, I see my colleagues and friends out there who are trying to effect change in science, academics and professional life grappling with these issues daily.

It is not always comfortable. I’ve been trying to describe my own duality here, this is the easy version. I think I’m a pretty good dude and I respect what I’m trying to do. So shouty-me isn’t too mad when insider-club me misses a trick, soft-pedals when I might kick more tail, acts diplomatically and accepts slow and incremental over the dramatic. Insider-club me understand whole heartedly why shouty-me is angry and totally supports it. Insider-me might tell shouty-me to tone it down a bit and wring the hands a bit over efficacy (see above) but in general is on board. Outsider-me understands the while insider-me has a certain standing inside the club, this is tenuous and hard won and does not convey the power that it may appear to convey to other outsiders.

This isn’t so easy when the insider and the outsider are not the same person.

Outsiders are quick to view the insider who is putatively on their side as a quisling if they do not slay all the dragons right now with extreme prejudice.

Insiders are quick to castigate the outsider as a counter-productive, self-aggrandizing egotist who is hurting the shared cause more than helping it.

We see this in Democratic party politics. Bernie supporters versus Hillary supporters expressed some of this dynamic. We see this in intersectional feminism.

We also see this, I think, in solving the Real Problems of the NIH. And of Open / Paywall publishing. And of career trajectories of trainees.

And we see this in the fight to reduce sexual harassment, sexual assault and sex-based discrimination that occurs in and around academic science careers.

I think we need both voices. We need people inside the clubs. We need people who are really, really angry shouting loudly from outside of the room (and sometimes inside of the room). I do not support confidence that either position, quisling apologist versus enraged pure soul, is obviously correct, right or most productive. I don't think that history supports such a conclusion on either side.

We need both.
__
*Just this month a friend was recollecting something I had said at a study section meeting when we first met, something over 10 years ago.
**Which may not be in the direction I would desire, of course.
***I’m already enough of “that guy” who people roll their eyes at. I don’t need more of that baggage, I suspect.

12 responses so far

Science trainees and the NIH Doubling

Oct 14 2018 Published by under NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

Most of my Readers are aware that the NIH budget allocation from Congress plays a big role in our careers and how they have unfolded over years or even decades.

One of the touchstone events is the "doubling interval" in which the Congress committed to double the size of the NIH budget over the course of 10 years. This resulted in large year-over-year increases from 1994 to 2003 after which the NIH budget was essentially flatlined for the next dozen years. This is in current dollars so, as we've discussed on this blog, inflation means that the NIH budget shrunk in purchasing power over the post-doubling interval. ARRA stimulus funding in Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010 were mere blips, which alleviated acute pain but did little for the longer term issues.

One interesting thing about being me is that my NIH geekery has limits and I don't always appreciate everything fully the first time I see it. Sometimes it is because I am, like many of us, blinded by a sort of confirmation bias. I am by no means alone in seeing confirmation of my positions in data and statistics about the NIH that others view entirely differently. Sometimes it is because an earlier trend gets fixed in my minds and I don't always see the way five or ten additional years worth of data may change my thinking.

One of these issues is related to the data showing the production of PhDs each year by US domestic degree granting institutions. Our good blog friend Michael Hendricks posted this graph on the Twitters today. He, as I usually do, interprets this to show the evils of the doubling interval when it comes to regulating the size of the workforce. The first half of the doubling interval did indeed correlate with a steep increase in the rate of annual biomedical PhD generation without a similar trend for doctoral production in other areas. I typically use this steep increase in PhD production as part of my argument that our current stress in staying funded is related to too many mouths at the trough. We generated all these PhDs during the late 90s onward and gee, shocker, lots of these people want faculty level jobs competing for a fixed amount of NIH funding. Retirement and death of the existing pool of NIH PIs has not kept pace with this production, from what I can tell.

My usual eye tends to skip over a couple of key facts. The steep increase in PhD production started several years before the doubling even started. It was in full swing during a time just prior to the doubling passing Congress when the faculty were crying loudly about how horrible the NIH grant getting had become. I know because I was in graduate school in there somewhere.

The year-over-year PhD production actually stabilized during the latter half of the doubling interval. This was followed after the NIH budget flatlined by another increase in the rate of year-over-year PhD production!

So I think Michael Hendricks' current view, and my prior view, on the meaning of the PhD production numbers and how it relates to major changes in the NIH budget allocation cannot be true.

Sustained increase in the NIH budget actually produced stability in PhD numbers. It was the stressful times in which NIH grant getting was perceived to be ruinous and terrible that led to increased numbers of PhDs being generated by the US doctoral institutions.

There are probably many reasons for this relationship. I would not be surprised in the least if bad general economic times led more people to want to go to grad school and booming economic times led to fewer. These general trends are very likely related to the willingness of the Congress to give NIH more or less money.

But I would also not be surprised in the least if stressful grant funding conditions led the professors who participate in graduate training to be even more fond of this source of cut rate labor than they are in flush times.

11 responses so far

The R01 Doesn't Even Pay for Revisions

Sep 11 2018 Published by under Academics, Careerism, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

Hard charging early career Glam neuroscientist Kay Tye had an interesting claim on the twitters recently.

The message she was replying to indicated that a recent request for manuscript revisions was going to amount to $1,000, making Kay's costs anywhere from $100,000 to $10,000,000. Big range. Luckily she got more specific.

One Million Dollars.

For manuscript revisions.

Let us recap.

The bog standard NIH "major award" is the R01, offered most generically in the 5-year, $250,000 direct cost per year version. $1,250,000 for a five year major (whoa, congrats dude, you got an R01! You have it made!) award.

Dr. Tye has just informed us that it is routine for reviewers to ask for manuscript (one. single. manuscript.) revisions that amount to $1,000,000 in cost.

Ex-NIGMS Director Jeremy Berg cheer-led (and possibly initiated) a series of NIH analyses and data dumps showing that something on the order of 7 (+/- 2) published papers were expected from each R01 award's full interval of funding. This launched a thousand ships of opinionating on "efficiency" of NIH grant award and how it proves that one grant for everyone is the best use of NIH money. It isn't.

I have frequently hit the productivity zone identified in NIGMS data...and had my competing revisions criticized severely for lack of productivity. I have tripled this on at least one interval of R01 funding and received essentially no extra kudos for good productivity. I would be highly curious to hear from anyone who has had a 5 year interval of R01 support described as even reasonably productive with one paper published.

Because even if Dr. Tye is describing a situation in which you barely invest in the original submission (doubtful), it has to be at least $250,000, right? That plus $1,000,000 in revisions and you end up with at best 1 paper per interval of R01 funding. And it takes you five years to do it.

The Office of Extramural Research showed that the vast majority of NIH-funded PIs hold 1 (>70%) or at most 2 (cumulative >90%) major awards at a time.

NIGMS (and some of my fellow NIH-watchers) have been exceptionally dishonest about interpreting the the efficiency data they produce and slippery as otters about resulting policy on per-PI dollar limitations. Nevertheless, one interpretation of their data is that $750,000 in direct costs per year is maximally efficient. Merely mentioning that an honest interpretation of their data ends up here (and reminding that the NIGMS policy for greybeard insiders was in fact to be about $750,000 per year) usually results in the the sound of sharpening stone on steel farm implements and the smell of burning pitch.

Even that level of grant largesse ("largesse") does not pay for the single manuscript revisions that Professor Tye describes within a single year.

I have zero reason to doubt Professor Tye's characterization, I will note. I am familiar with how Glam labs operate. I am familiar with the circle jerk of escalating high-cost "necessary" experimental demands they gratify each other with in manuscript review. I am familiar with the way extremely well funded labs use this bullshit as a gatekeeping function to eliminate the intellectual competition. I am perhaps overly familiar with Glam science labs in which postdocs blowing $40,000 on single fucked up experiments (because they don't bother to think things through, are sloppy or are plain wasteful) is entirely routine.

The R01 does not pay for itself. It does not pay for the expected productivity necessary to look merely minimally productive, particularly when "high impact publications" are the standard.

But even that isn't the point.

We have this exact same problem, albeit at less cost, all down the biomedical NIH-funded research ranks.

I have noted more than once on this blog that I experience a complete disconnect between what is demanded in peer review of manuscripts at a very pedestrian level of journal, the costs involved and the way R01s that pay for those experiments are perceived come time for competitive renewal. Actually, we can generalize this to any new grant as well, because very often grant reviewers are looking at the productivity on entirely unrelated awards to determine the PI's fitness for the next proposal. There is a growing disconnect, I claim, between what is proposed in the average R01 these days and what it can actually pay to accomplish.

And this situation is being created by the exact same super-group of peers. The people who review my grants also review my papers. And each others'. And I review their grants and their manuscripts.

And we are being ridiculous.

We need to restore normalcy and decency in the conduct of this profession. We need to hold the NIH accountable for its fantasy policy that has reduced the spending capability of the normal average grant award to half of what it was a mere twenty years ago. And for policies that seek to limit productive labs so that we can have more and more funded labs who are crippled in what they can accomplish.

We need to hold each other accountable for fantasy thinking about how much science costs. R01 review should return to the days when "overambitious" meant something and was used to keep proposed scope of work minimally related to the necessary costs and the available funds. And we need to stop demanding an amount of work in each and every manuscript that is incompatible with the way the resulting productivity will be viewed in subsequent grant review.

We cannot do anything about the Glam folks, they are lost to all decency. But we can save the core of the NIH-funded biomedical research enterprise.

If you will only join me in a retreat from the abyss.

32 responses so far

The NIH Director Talked to Congress About Scientific Inspiration

The Director of the NIH went to testify before Congress today and one of the tweets from the @NIH account summarized a point he was making thusly:

In case there is any trouble with the auto post of the tweet, it reads in part:

And, now, on to my favorite: Scientific Inspiration. I can assure you that researchers funded by #NIH come to work every day full of innovative ideas and the wherewithal to see those ideas through.

It is, of course, very likely true that on any given day of the year there are at least two researchers (he did use the plural) who come to work full of innovative ideas and the wherewithal to see those idea through. Given the size and scope of the NIH funding mission (let us assume he meant extramural, not just intramural, funding) this is statistically obvious.

What is not true, however, is the broader implication that all or even most researchers who are funded by NIH extramural grants have the wherewithal to see their many innovative ideas through. If this is what he conveyed, intentional or not, he misled Congress. I was going to say "lied to" but I really have no idea whether Francis Collins legitimately believes this false notion to be true or not.

The @NIH twitter also pointed out that Director Collins bragged how they were focusing on, and increasing, the number of funded young investigators:

In an environment where the NIH budget has been essentially flatlined since 2004 (with a resulting decrement in purchasing power, due to inflation) you cannot increase the number of funded investigators without decreasing the amount of grant funding each of the investigators enjoys, on average. As we know, the purchasing power of the full modular R01 (the workhorse award) has declined substantially, it is now something like 61% of what it was in 2000.

Ever increasing numbers of applications resulted in decreasing per-application success rates all through the 2000s. Data from the NIH website show that success rates of under 20% have been the reality for the past 7 years.

At last report from the NIH, most investigators held one or two major awards from the NIH at any one time. The reality of poor success rates has meant that maintaining consistent funding with one or two awards across time is very uncertain. Even the ability to competitively continue an existing award given reasonable progress has essentially disappeared. PIs have to put in competing continuations early and many of us realize that we have to have overlapping "new" awards on the same topic in order to have any decent chance of continuity of a research program.

The loss of funding can have dire consequences. It means technicians, students or postdocs may have to be let go. New staff cannot be brought on board until funding is re-acquired. There will be a significant delay until postdocs and graduate students can be recruited (up to 12 months is not unusual). And as Datahound analyzed, the cumulative probability of a lab regaining funding after a gap was 20% within 2 years (in 2012) and reached an asymptote of about 40% within 5-6 years in prior Fiscal Year data.

I have been around approximately continuously NIH grant funded PIs for about two decades now. I have engaged similar folks in online discussion for over a decade, broadening my experiences beyond my department and subfield.

It is simply not true that the majority of NIH funded scientists enjoy some sort of halcyon period where we all "come to work full of innovative ideas and the wherewithal to see those idea through". Most of the time, we come to work fearful that we cannot maintain the wherewithal to keep the laboratory functioning in a minimally healthy way with reasonably good expectations for a continuously funded future for the duration of our careers. And we spend too much time strategizing about how to maintain the wherewithal.

Admittedly, it isn't all terrible all the time. I would estimate something on the order of 20-25%ish of my time as a grant funded PI has indeed been great. I have had extended intervals of time in which I did have the wherewithal to come to work focused only on the scientific ideas I wanted to pursue. It is AWESOME to have these intervals. Really. I totally get it. I appreciate it. I love(d) these times.

But it is not the constant reality of the vast majority of NIH funded PIs that I talk to. It has not been my consistent reality.

The fact that the very head of the NIH does not seem to understand this is dismaying. It means that nothing will change. And, in fact, given his glee at creating yet more mouths at the trough this aspect of NIH funded science will continue to get worse under his Directorship.

6 responses so far

GAO report shows the continued NIH grant funding disparity for underrepresented PIs

Aug 15 2018 Published by under NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding, Underrepresented Groups

A comment from pielcanelaphd on a prior post tips us off to a new report (PDF) from the General Accountability Office, described as a report to Congressional Committees.

The part of the report that deals with racial and ethnic disparities is mostly recitation of the supposed steps NIH has been taking in the wake of the Ginther report in 2011. But what is most important is the inclusion of Figure 2, an updated depiction of the funding rate disparity.
GAO-18-545:NIH RESEARCH Action Needed to Ensure Workforce Diversity Strategic Goals Are Achieved

These data are described mostly as the applicant funding rate or similar. The Ginther data focused on the success rate of applications from PIs of various groups. So if these data are by applicant PI and not by applications, there will be some small differences. Nevertheless, the point remains that things have not improved and PIs from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups experience a disparity relative to white PIs.

No responses yet

Senator Murray and Representative DeLauro Want to Know What NIH Is Doing About Sexual Harassment

Readers of this blog will not need too much reminder that sexual harassment and sex-based workplace discrimination are very much a problem in academic science. We have seen numerous cases of this sort of academic misconduct reach the national and sometimes international press in the past several years. Indeed, recent discussions on this blog have mentioned the cases of Thomas Jessell and Inder Verma as well as three cases at Dartmouth College.

In these cases, and ones of scientific fraud, I and others have expressed frustration that the NIH does not appear to use what we see as its considerable power of the purse and bully pulpit to discourage future misconduct. My view is that since NIH award is a privilege and not a right, the NIH could do a lot to help their recipient institutions see that taking cases of misconduct more seriously is in their (the recipient institution's) best interest. They could pull the grants associated with any PI who has been convicted of misconduct, instead of allowing the University to appoint a replacement PI. They could refuse to make any new awards or, less dramatically, make any exception pickups if they aren't happy with the way the University has been dealing with misconduct. They could focus on training grants or F-mech fellowships if they see a particular problem in the treatment of trainees. Etc. Lots of room to work since the NIH decides all the time to fund this grant and not that grant for reasons other than the strict order of review.

Well, two Democratic members of Congress have sent a letter (PDF) to NIH Director Francis Collins gently requesting* information on how NIH is addressing sexual harassment in the workplace. And the overall message is in line with the above belief that NIH can and should play a more active role in addressing sexual misconduct and harassment.

As pointed out in a Mike the Mad Biologist's post on this letter, these two Congresspeople have a lot of potential power if the Democrats return to the majority.

are ranking members of committees that oversee NIH funding–and if the Democrats take back the House or Senate, would be the leaders of those committees.

One presumes that the NIH will be motivated to take this seriously and offer up some significant response. Hopefully they can do this by what seems a rather optimistic deadline of 8/17/2018, given the letter was dated 8/06/2018.

The first 6 listed items to which NIH is being asked to response seem mostly to do with the workings of Intramural NIH, both Program and the IRP. Those are of less interest as a dramatic change, important as they are.

Most importantly, the letter puts the NIH squarely on the hook for the way that it ensures that the extramural awardee institutions are behaving. Perhaps obviously, the power of NIH to oversee issues of harassment at all of the Universities, Institutes and companies that they fund is limited. The main point of justification in this letter is the NOT-OD-15-152: Civil Rights Protections in NIH-Supported Research, Programs, Conferences and Other Activities.

To give you a flavor:

Federal civil rights laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, and age in all programs and activities that receive Federal financial assistance, and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex in educational programs or activities conducted by colleges and universities. These protections apply in all settings where research, educational programs, conferences, and other activities are supported by NIH, and apply to all mechanisms of support (i.e., grant awards, contracts and cooperative agreements). The civil rights laws protect NIH-supported investigators, students, fellows, postdocs, participants in research, and other individuals involved in activities supported by NIH.

The notice then goes on to list several specific statutes, some of which are referenced in footnotes to the letter.
The Murray/DeLauro letter concentrates on the obligation recipient institutions have to file an Assurance of Compliance with the Health and Human Services (NIH's parent organization) Office of Civil Rights and the degree to which NIH exercises oversight on these Assurances.

I think the motivations of Senatory Murray and Rep DeLauro are on full display in this passage (emphasis added).

"It therefore appears that NIH's only role...is confirming...institution has signed, dated, and mailed the compliance document....

This lack of engagement from NIH is particularly unacceptable in light of disturbing news reports that cases of sexual harassment in the academic sciences often involve high profile faculty offenders whose behavior is considered an 'open secret'.

...colleagues may have warned new faculty and students.....but institutions themselves take little to no action."

It is on.

__
*demanding

8 responses so far

When NIH uses affirmative action to fix a bias

Jul 20 2018 Published by under Anger, Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Careerism

We have just learned that in addition to the bias against black PIs when they try to get research funding (Ginther et al., 2011), Asian-American and African-American K99 applicants are also at a disadvantage. These issues trigger my usual remarks about how NIH has handled observed disparities in the past. In the spirit of pictures being worth more than words we can look up the latest update on success rates for RPG (a laundry list of research grant support mechanisms) broken down by two key factors.
First up is the success rate by the gender of the PI. As you can see very clearly, something changed in 2003. All of a sudden a sustained advantage for men disappeared. Actually two things happened. This disparity was "fixed" and the year after success rates went in the tank for everyone. There are a couple of important observations. The NIH didn't suddenly fix whatever was going on in study section, I guaranfrickentee it. I guarantee there were not also any magic changes in the pipeline or female PI pool or anything else. I guarantee you that the NIH decided to equalize success rates by heavy handed top-down affirmative action policies in the nature of "make it so" and "fix this". I do not recall ever seeing anything formal so, hey, I could be way off base. If so, I look forward to any citation of information showing change in the way they do business that coincided directly with the grants submitted for the FY2003 rounds.
The second thing to notice here is that women's success rates never exceeded that for men. Not for fifteen straight Fiscal Years. This further supports my hypothesis that the bias hasn't been fixed in some fundamental way. If it had been fixed, this would be random from year to year, correct? Sometimes the women's rates would sneak above the men's rates. That never happens. Because of course when we redress a bias, it can only ever just barely reach statistically indistinguishable parity and if god forbid the previously privileged class suffers even the tiniest little bit of disadvantage it is an outrage.
Finally, the fact that success rates went in the tanker in 2004 should remind you that men enjoyed the advantage all during the great NIH doubling! The salad days. Lots of money available and STILL it was being disproportionately sucked up by the advantaged group. You might think that when there is an interval of largesse that systems would be more generous. Good time to slip a little extra to women, underrepresented individuals or the youth, right? Ha.

Which brings me to the fate of first-time investigators versus established investigators. Oh look, the never-funded were instantly brought up to parity in 2007. In this case a few years after the post-doubling success rates went in the toilet but more or less the same pattern. Including the failure of the statistically indistiguishable success rates for the first timers to ever, in 11 straight years of funding, to exceed the rates for established investigators. Because of affirmative action instead of fixing the bias. As you will recall, the head of the NIH at that time made it very clear that he was using "make it so" top-down heavy handed quota based affirmative action to accomplish this goal.

Zerhouni created special awards for young scientists but concluded that wasn't enough. In 2007, he set a target of funding 1500 new-investigator R01s, based on the previous 5 years' average.

Some program directors grumbled at first, NIH officials say, but came on board when NIH noticed a change in behavior by peer reviewers. Told about the quotas, study sections began “punishing the young investigators with bad scores,” says Zerhouni.

"quotas".

I do not recall much in the way of discussing the "pipelines" and how we couldn't possible do anything to change the bias of study sections until a new, larger and/or better class of female or not-previously-funded investigators could be trained up. The NIH just fixed it. ish. permanently.

For FY2017 there were 16,954 applications with women PIs. 3,186 awards. If you take the ~3% gap from the interval prior to 2003, this means that the NIH is picking up some 508 research project grants from women PIs via their affirmative action process. Per year. If you apply the ~6% deficit enjoyed by first time investigators in the salad days you end up with 586 research project grants picked up by affirmative action. Now there will be some overlap of these populations. Women are PI of about 31% of applications in the data for the first graph and first timers are about 35% for the second. So very roughly women might be 181 of the affirmative action newbie apps and newbies might be 178 of the affirmative action women's apps. The estimates are close. So let's say something like 913 unique grants are picked up by the NIH just for these two overt affirmative action purposes. Each and every Fiscal Year.

Because of the fact that, for example, African-American PIs of research grants or K99 apps represent such tiny percentages of the total (2% in both cases), the number of pickups that would be necessary to equalize success rate disparities is tiny. In the K99 analysis, it was a mere 23 applications across a decade. Two per year. I don't have research grant numbers handy but if we use the data underlying the first graph, this means there were about 1,080 applications with African-American PIs in FY2017. If they hit the 19% success rate this would be about 205 applications. Ginther reported about a 13% success rate deficit, working out to 55% of the success rate enjoyed by white applicants at the time. This would correspond to a 10.5% success rate for black applicants now, or about 113 application. So 92 would be needed to make up the difference for African-American PIs assuming the Ginther disparity still holds. This would be less than one percent of the awards made.

Less than one percent. And keep in mind these are not gifts. These are making up for a screwjob. These are making up for the bias. If any applicants from male, established or white populations go unfunded to redress the bias, they are only losing their unearned advantage. Not being disadvantaged.

28 responses so far

Racial Disparity in K99 Awards and R00 Transitions

Oh, what a shocker.

In the wake of the 2011 Ginther finding [see archives on Ginther if you have been living under a rock] that there was a significant racial bias in NIH grant review, the concrete response of the NIH was to blame the pipeline. Their only real dollar, funded initiatives were to attempt to get more African-American trainees into the science pipeline. The obvious subtext here was that the current PIs, against whom the grant review bias was defined, must be the problem, not the victim. Right? If you spend all your time insisting that since there were not red-fanged, white-hooded peer reviewers overtly proclaiming their hate for black people that peer review can't be the problem, and you put your tepid money initiatives into scraping up more trainees of color, you are saying the current black PIs deserve their fate. Current example: NIGMS trying to transition more underrepresented individuals into faculty ranks, rather than funding the ones that already exist.

Well, we have some news. The Rescuing Biomedical Research blog has a new post up on Examining the distribution of K99/R00 awards by race authored by Chris Pickett.

It reviews success rates of K99 applicants from 2007-2017. Application PI demographics broke down to nearly 2/3 White, ~1/3 Asian, 2% multiracial and 2% black. Success rates: White, 31%, Multiracial, 30.7%, Asian, 26.7%, Black, 16.2%. Conversion to R00 phase rates: White, 80%, Multiracial, 77%, Asian, 76%, Black, 60%.

In terms of Hispanic ethnicity, 26.9% success for K99 and 77% conversion rate, neither significantly different from the nonHispanic rates.

Of course, seeing as how the RBR people are the VerySeriousPeople considering the future of biomedical careers (sorry Jeremy Berg but you hang with these people), the Discussion is the usual throwing up of hands and excuse making.

"The source of this bias is not clear...". " an analysis ...could address". "There are several potential explanations for these data".

and of course
"put the onus on universities"

No. Heeeeeeyyyyyuuullll no. The onus is on the NIH. They are the ones with the problem.

And, as per usual, the fix is extraordinarily simple. As I repeatedly observe in the context of the Ginther finding, the NIH responded to a perception of a disparity in the funding of new investigators with immediate heavy handed top-down quota based affirmative action for many applications from ESI investigators. And now we have Round2 where they are inventing up new quota based affirmative action policies for the second round of funding for these self-same applicants. Note well: the statistical beneficiaries of ESI affirmative action polices are white investigators.

The number of K99 applications from black candidates was 154 over 10 years. 25 of these were funded. To bring this up to the success rate enjoyed by white applicants, the NIH need only have funded 23 more K99s. Across 28 Institutes and Centers. Across 10 years, aka 30 funding cycles. One more per IC per decade to fix the disparity. Fixing the Asian bias would be a little steeper, they'd need to fund another 97, let's round that to 10 per year. Across all 28 ICs.

Now that they know about this, just as with Ginther, the fix is duck soup. The Director pulls each IC Director aside in quiet moment and says 'fix this'. That's it. That's all that would be required. And the Directors just commit to pick up one more Asian application every year or so and one more black application every, checks notes, decade and this is fixed.

This is what makes the NIH response to all of this so damn disturbing. It's rounding error. They pick up grants all the time for reasons way more biased and disturbing than this. Saving a BSD lab that allegedly ran out of funding. Handing out under the table Administrative Supplements for gawd knows what random purpose. Prioritizing the F32 applications from some labs over others. Ditto the K99 apps.

They just need to apply their usual set of glad handing biases to redress this systematic problem with the review and funding of people of color.

And they steadfastly refuse to do so.

For this one specific area of declared Programmatic interest.

When they pick up many, many more grants out of order of review for all their other varied Programmatic interests.

You* have to wonder why.
__
h/t @biochembelle

*and those people you are trying to lure into the pipeline, NIH? They are also wondering why they should join a rigged game like this one.

13 responses so far

Startup Funds That Expire On Grant Award

Jul 11 2018 Published by under Academics, Ask DrugMonkey, NIH Careerism

From the email bag:

My question is: Should institutions pull back start-up funds from new PIs if R01s or equivalents are obtained before funds are burned? Should there be an expiration date for these funds?

Should? Well no, in the best of all possible worlds of course we would wish PIs to retain all possible sources of support to launch their program.

I can, however, see the institutional rationale that startup is for just that, starting. And once in the system by getting a grant award, the thinking goes, a PI should be self-sustaining. Like a primed pump.

And those funds would be better spent on starting up the next lab's pump.

The expiration date version is related, and I assume is viewed as an inducement for the PI to go big or go home. To try. Hard. Instead of eking it out forever to support a lab that is technically in operation but not vigorously enough to land additional extramural funding.

Practically speaking the message from this is to always check the details for a startup package. And if it expires on grant award, or after three years, this makes it important to convert as much of that startup into useful Preliminary Data as possible. Let it prime many pumps.

Thoughts, folks? This person was wondering if this is common. How do your departments handle startup funds?

10 responses so far

Trophy collaborations

Jul 05 2018 Published by under Conduct of Science, NIH, NIH Careerism

Jason Rasgon noted a phenomenon where one is asked to collaborate on a grant proposal but is jettisoned after funding of the award:

I'm sure there are cases where both parties amicably terminate the collaboration but the interesting case is where the PI or PD sheds another investigator without their assent.

Is this common? I can't remember hearing many cases of this. It has happened to me in a fairly minor way once but then again I have not done a whole lot of subs on other people's grants.

17 responses so far

Older posts »