Archive for the 'NIH' category

NIH pilots special scrutiny of PIs with $1.5 M in total costs.

May 18 2012 Published by under NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics

Thoughts on NOT-OD-12-110:

The threshold of $1.5 million total costs. How's that break down? Well if you are in a consensus ~50% overhead state university, let's see...Thats FOUR full-modular awards. But let's be clear, odds are you got cut by at least a module per award so that's only $900K direct..you get to be in a University with about 70% overhead and you are still clear. What bout the much-rumored 100% overhead small institutions? well, you get three R01s before you go under strict scrutiny.

I do wonder if this will satisfy all the "kill the rich" voices? Will they see this as the NIH taking them seriously or as a meaningless sop?

Next question, this is just identifying special Council level review...No guarantee that any grant will ever be blocked because the PI has too much $$. No guarantee that negotiations wouldn't be made either. "Say, PI Jones, would you please put some more junior colleague on as titular head to one of your other awards so we can give you this one"?

new MultiPI awards won't trigger the scrutiny unless all PIs trigger the threshold. Hello courtesy "multi"PIship!!!

It may possibly change some people's strategy so that they work harder to distribute effort around to other people's awards in small percentages. Like junior PI is going to screw BigCheeze over on the agreed upon part of the direct costs? No worries there.

How are study sections going to respond to this. Will they take this as the NIH saying "This is our threshold for being worried about too much money. Now shut up about this for anything below this amount."? Or will they take this as encouragement to think about lab size even more when they are reviewing the grant in front of them?

Share

6 responses so far

The NIH options for dealing with the budget stagnation are missing one...

May 18 2012 Published by under NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics, NIH Careerism

The AAAS has a summary up which deals with NIH's head of the Office of Extramural Research Sally Rockey's comments on the FY13 budget for the NIH.

Sally J. Rockey, deputy director for extramural research at NIH, said that some changes in grants management already have been proposed as part of the president’s budget submission for the 2013 fiscal year.

and those solutions will be familiar to those following along at the RockTalk blog. It boils down to "kill the rich!!!". If you already have it, or have too much of it, they are gunning for you.

These include an across-the-board funding cut of 1% for continuing grants; negotiating the budgets for new competitive grants to avoid growth in the average size of award; eliminating increases for inflation in multi-year grants; giving additional scrutiny to researchers who already receive in excess of $1.5 million a year; and continuing to fund early-stage investigators at the same rate as established investigators for new grant applications.

The alternative posed by Rockey is "Darwinian".

“Many people thought we should keep the current system,” Rockey said. “Just keep the Darwinian approach. Don’t try to go in there and socially engineer anything.” Others weighed in on the merits of the various options for change, including some approaches beyond those discussed by Rockey. These could include limiting payment for indirect costs associated with grants, limiting large project grants, and providing more support to small labs and individuals by limiting grants to large labs.

Well it sure looks like this depiction to me.
Just about the only person who is not under potential attack under this scenario is the small town grocer. Otherwise known as Noonan. I have been reluctant*, I will admit, to even think very much about something that has been raised (identified?) by PhysioProf on numerous blog posts. It boils down to the suggestion that it is the Small Town Grocer scientists that are precisely who the NIH should be dropping from the system. Actually, PP tends to phrase this as a suspicion that this is just what the NIH is up to, rather than a suggestion that they should do so.

Since he's been making this comment I've gradually noticed that this option is never raised. Rockey maybe touched on it a teensy bit in the AAAS piece.

Institutions also could help manage the demand for grant money by reducing the number of applications submitted by their faculty, Rockey said. And NIH can examine its research priorities, seeking to reduce support for less innovative ideas and eliminating some of the duplication of effort.

Oh yeah. You do it for us, University of State. Right. Like that is in their interest. Sorry but we're in tragedy of the commons territory Dr. Rockey and you are going to have to do this yourself if you want it to happen. Take a hard run at the smaller, lesser and slower producing laboratories. Stop saving them with bridge funding, stop taking pity on your "long term funded investigators" and the like.

It is indubitably the case that we have too many investigators seeking too few grant dollars. All of the main solutions on the table are going to squeeze the most productive, best funded laboratories (not to mention the noobs who finally managed to land their first grant to find a cut that oblates a warm body). Just so that more awards can be made. To, presumably, the small timers.

And those more productive labs are going to fight back as best they can. Submit even MORE grant to make up for the cut funds. Work deals with their friends and junior colleagues to be collaborating investigators so to hide the amount of direct funds going into the laboratory. Pursue training grants, beg for supplements....whatever it takes. They are not going to go "hum, well, I'm just going to be happy with less".

And, sad but true, these are likely going to be the people on study section stepping down hard on, guess who? Investigators who are not like them.

You want Darwinian, Deputy Director Rockey?

If a better-funded, more-active reviewer is really thinking, s/he is best off bashing the crap out of one-trick-pony PI's grants. Why? Because you might just put them out of the game permanently! If you can do that, you've reduced the competition in a real way. Conversely if you stamp on a reasonably well funded and reasonably active PI, you haven't put them out of business at all. Just ensured they will put in yet more grants.

Look, I'm still not sure I know the best path. I love the democratic nature of the ideal of the NIH pure Investigator Initiated system. Anyone with a good idea should be able to get funding.

But I also believe that little gets done on one full modular, cut to $200/yr, maybe reduced to 4 yr grant anymore**. Research programs may not be efficient after 5 grants but they sure as heck aren't in the sweet spot with one either.

And I know for damn sure the insecurity and grant churning of the past 5-8 years has been hugely detrimental to the conduct of science.

Sadly, I don't see that any of the proposals of the NIH do anything to decrease churning.

UPDATE: see NOT-OD-12-110, just published today:

This Notice announces NIH’s intent to pilot procedures for investigator-initiated grants and cooperative agreements in consideration of managing resources during austere times. During May 2012 NIH Institute and Center (IC) Advisory Council meetings, Councils will discuss and pilot-test procedures for the additional review of grant and cooperative agreement applications from Program Director(s)/Principal Investigator(s) [PD(s)/PI(s)] who already receive in excess of $1.5 million per year in total costs to determine if additional funds should be provided to already well-supported investigators. The feedback from this pilot will help NIH further refine policies for managing limited grant resources.

__
The cartoon, btw, is stolen with apologies from Dent. I, uh, altered it.

*anyone who thinks their relative position in the NIH world is predictable or static needs their head examined. I could be calling for an option that will end my lab's viability here.

**Read this. It is short.

Share

21 responses so far

This I know: NIH Grants

May 11 2012 Published by under NIH Careerism, NIH funding

Nobody really "knows what they are talking about" when it comes to #NIHGrants.

We all muddle along as best we can and persuade ourselves we have a partial clue.

That part is just to keep from going insane, though.

Share

5 responses so far

NCI publishes their grant funding outcome for FY2011

May 04 2012 Published by under NIH, NIH funding

This is huge. Previously the only IC that, to my knowledge, made their funding data available was the NIGMS. We grant geeks were big fans, even those of us who don't seek funding from that particular Institute of the NIH.

Well, apparently NCI has joined the party....I do hope this is a sign of things to come at other ICs. Do note that this comes in the wake of some announced policy changes from NCI head Varmus which caused some consternation. Check the comments over at writedit's pad. I concluded that this was just business as usual (i.e., as already practiced by numerous other ICs).

meh. he's actually talking normal stuff here. I read him as saying the payline is 7%ile (he says priority score but I suspect he means percentile) and then, as is totally normal business as usual for many ICs, he's talking about the gray zone wherein they violate the strict order of review for various Programmatic reasons.

Nothing to see here, save 7%ile is the lowest payline I've heard mentioned as such...

Given such practices, however, we are all intensely curious about the mysterious grey zone behavior. I have asserted in the past that I think the NIGMS data very likely stand as proxy for most, if not all, other ICs in the broad strokes. (The reason is that they dovetail nicely with the tiny bits of info that sneak out around the corners for the other ICs, if one is inclined to follow the breadcrumbs.) Importantly, the grey zone pickups are not randomly distributed. They are more likely the closer the score is to the payline. Well, now I have another data point..

First up, the Experienced Investigator graph:

yep. looks very familiar.

ok, how about the New Investigators?

hmm, notice that percentile skew? Now let's see about the ESI folks:

Yep.

Okay, so what? Well I think this should continue to motivate people to keep the heat on whatever NIH representative happens to be listening. POs or those poor, poor higher-ups that have to get up in front of a room of agitated PIs and put a happy face on things.

My point is that this skew shows that study sections are not responding to the clear intents and desire of the NIH. I.e., to treat newb investigators more fairly (or "generously" one might argue). And just like with any other initiative of the NIH with respect to review, I assume that they are serious about it. They've shown this, but changing ESI paylines, making greyzone pickups more frequently, etc. So why not fix the problem at the point of review?

1) First off, you would think that both Program and the reviewers would see that their refusal to treat ESI apps in the mix with the rest decreases their input even further. We all have the experience that the tightest discussion and the most agonized decision making as an assigned reviewer comes at the perceived payline. For the obviously top applications, all we're looking to do is to make an obvious argument. For the ones that are going to get triaged, or nearly triaged, well the tendency is to just hit the high points, slap on a few StockCritiques and assign a score. Even if the app is discussed way down in ~30-40%ile land, there isn't going to be so much argument about the exact score range. The other reviewers aren't going to be so engaged trying to decide which end of the post-discussion score range they should go with. Not like they will with applications that appear to be right around the perceived payline.

2) Next, this is a symptom of a larger problem. I.e., for the NIH trying to get the review panels on board with their broader goals. Take "Innovation". Despite a lot of hoopla in launching a new review approach, the data showed (thanks again, NIGMS) that review outcome was driven mostly by the same old, same old. I.e., Significance and Approach. The same problem applies if the ICs choose to fix this by scrutinizing the grey zone critiques for the ones that seem most "Innovative"....panels haven't discriminated the pool very well on that factor. More variance, more influence of the PO.

3) I think a lot of reviewers have no concept of these broader statistical trends. They are unaware of the data, blind to study section cultural influences and generally just haven't thought things through very well. It may be that some of these people really believe in a different type of outcome for their study section and their subfield. But they have no notion of where the problem lies, nor that it is fixable.

It is most assuredly a fixable problem. I have two themes that I've pursued on the blog. First, education of study section members with respect to what they are doing. The funding data, such as the NCI and NIGMS charts posted and linked above, is the start of this. I'd like to see these outcomes be made available to study section reviewers, right down to the level of their own review panel. Second, the solution of competing biases. Anytime there is human judgement, there is bias. Anytime. The only solution that offers high confidence of having an effect is the competition of biases. This is why the panels are explicitly representative of geography, sex, ethnicity and institution type/size. What they are not representative on is the Newb/Experienced PI axis. (Also, one might argue that the Innovative!!!1111!!/Conservative PI axis has some skew, but that's a chat for another day.)

@boehninglab was skeptical that there was any point in talking about these issues. I, naturally, am of the opinion that the surest way to prevent things you want to see happen is to remain silent. Sure, there are never any guarantees that you position will change anything at the NIH, but if you don't say something then there is a guarantee you won't be heard.

So comment on the NIH sites, in this case the NCI one. Let them know how you see their behavior and why it is good or bad for the science in your subfield.

[h/t: @salsb]
__
ps. check the NCI page for the R21 data, also interesting.
update: pps, PhysioProf noted that the score distribution for Experienced/New Investigators is much more similar for R21s than for R01s. Interesting to consider why that might be so. I would point to the "starter grant" bias....

Share

23 responses so far

Sample R21 grants with Summary Statements from NIAID

Apr 26 2012 Published by under Grant Review, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

As I previously noted (somewhat critically) that the NIAID had posted sample R01 grants and the corresponding summary statements. Well, they've added some R21 applications to the page.

Again, I wonder how useful this really is for most applicants. First thing you notice is that it takes a perfect score to get funded. Three of the four received 10s and the fourth limped home with an 11. Remember, the study section score range starts at 1, which is then multiplied by 10 after the voting of the entire panel is averaged.

Then there's this (emphasis added):
From the Dow summary statement's resume of discussion: "Strengths of the application include the accomplished investigator and research team, strong preliminary data, the direct doable and logical set of experiments, and the likelihood of paradigm shifting insights into meliodosis"

From the resume on the Starnbach app: "Strengths of the application include the innovative use of the novel GPS strategy, compelling preliminary data, an investigator with a strong bacterial pathogenesis research track record, an excellent and appropriate set of collaborators, and a high degree of confidence that import results will emerge from these studies."

Weis, individual critique #2: "Strong and compelling preliminary data is presented that indicate a high likelihood of success"

Well, at least NIAID is telling it like it is with these examples.....

Share

17 responses so far

Keeping in good with the PO? or respect your institution's best interests?

Apr 10 2012 Published by under NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

There's a lot of paranoid insanity over at writedit's blog these days, which is a mixed bag. On the one hand, I'm glad so many folks are finding some place online to ask their questions about the NIH process. It can be maddeningly opaque to the newcomers at times and having been there myself, I sympathize. On the other hand....some of the questions make me really question whether these people can possibly be capable of running a lab with such cluelessness.

Then there are the questions that are initially maddening but on reflection are worth discussing. This may or may not be one of them. One JaneyC asked:

My NIH R15 grant proposal got a score of 20 recently. The payline was 24 in the September 2011 and January 2012. The PO was very positive that I will be awarded the R15 in June. The problem for me is that I have accepted a job offer from a top research one university which is not eligible for R15. My last day of employment is late August at the present institution. I met the grant officer in the current institution, and she suggested me not to inform NIH at this moment. Rather she will contact NIH after the council meeting for funding in June, and try to switch PI for this grant. Should I contact the PO in June and explain my situation? I just want to make good connection with the PO for future funding opportunities. Thanks a lot.

Now let us all remember the mantra....a grant is awarded to the institution, not to the PI. It is their award, not "your" award. And it is most certainly in the interests of the University not to queer the deal in any way. That means, "let's not rock the boat" when the NIH appears ready to fund a given award.

In this case, it would appear that the grant should issue as a July 1 start. So technically the University could accept the award with "JaneyC" as the PI, get it started and one month later say "Whoops, the PI is leaving. We propose elevating the co-PI or co-I (or some other local investigator) to the PI slot on this grant". The thinking here is that a done-deal award is much less likely to be pulled back.

I would make that assumption myself. Always better to let the grant fund and then ask to swap out personnel later, if you ask me. The R15 is a bit weird but if it were an R01, wel I've seen some serious kickback when an institution proposes swapping PIs prior to award. Enough so that if the University can credibly try to let on that they have no idea the PI was leaving when they accepted the award, it's worth doing.

but the original PI has concerns:

I just want to make good connection with the PO for future funding opportunities.

Indeed. Technicalities are all well and good but if you've read my ramblings over the years, you know good relationships with Program Officers can mean a lot. Like, the difference between "sorry" and an out-of-order pickup of your grant application that juuuuuuuust missed the payline. That's important.

The PO could be annoyed at the University under the above strategy for two reasons. One, just a generic annoyance at the lack of courtesy. It seems like better manners to inform the PO about anything major that will affect the award at the earliest possible convenience. A sort of "just in case you wanted to weigh in" kind of thing. Especially given that the R15/AREA mechanism is so focused on the University itself...the risks seem low that the PO would be bothered. The second reason could be if the PO really does have an issue related to the PI of the application. They are (I surmise) well within their rights to complain about University shenanigans expressing the full force of their "rights" with respect to the award. The PO might just block the funding of the award.

Now given that, what are the odds the PO would be annoyed with the PI in a case like this. If s/he doesn't bother to pick up the phone and inform the PO of the imminent departure. Now again, we have to reflect that this is a grant which cannot be transferred to just any other institution, unlike the R mechanisms. So it wouldn't be quite so weird, right? The application's PI might be justified in simply walking away with no further comment. Especially after being told directly by the University contracts and grants people not to call the PO. This gives the original PI a nice little excuse after the fact. After s/he's arrived at NewU and the R15 has been awarded to OldU and all that.

I'm thinking that you, the PI, keep your own counsel in a case like this.

Share

8 responses so far

In NIH Grant Review, "Help" For the Applicant is Incidental

Apr 03 2012 Published by under Grant Review, NIH Careerism

This is my understanding, anyway. The job of the reviewer of the NIH grant application is to discuss the merits and weaknesses for the audience of the Program Staff within the ICs. One is supposed to be helping them to make funding decisions with respect to the current pool of applications.

The job is not to help the applicant improve her chances the next time. Nor is it to help the application be more attractive for the PO/IC.

This is my understanding, anyway.

See ProfLikeSubstance's comment.

Share

14 responses so far

This doesn't sound "mean" to me

Mar 27 2012 Published by under Grant Review, Grantsmanship, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

Some commenter at Rock Talk complained about a recent grant review:

I just received the most terrible of reviews, where the reviewer was not only biased but highly inflammatory, prejudicial and aggressive. I must say I was totally taken aback. When you say things like “…terribly convoluted approach”,…”PI has clearly no clue…” how something works, trashes my published work by saying these pubs “are a gross exaggeration”….the list goes on and on. Even as a relatively senior investigator, I was very shocked by the mean-spirited nature of the comments. I cannot imagine how it would destroy a new investigator.

I am having trouble seeing it. I mean sure "no clue" is directed at the applicant rather than the application, but it's pretty tame stuff. If a reviewer thinks your papers exaggerate? Presumably in wild speculative interpretation that runs beyond your data? Seems okay and even obligatory to express this. The "terribly convoluted approach" comment is a pretty inoffensive way to get to the heart of this common failing of grants as well...I'm not seeing how you could put it more "nicely".

Share

43 responses so far

K22

Mar 23 2012 Published by under NIH Careerism, Postdoctoral Training

The NIH K22 mechanism has been around for some time. When I first discovered it I was amazed that the NIH had a genuine, Borroughs-Welcome style transition mech. This predated the K99/R00.

Trouble was, most (all?) ICs that used it were like NHLBI and reserve it for intramural postdocs.

What a crock.

Share

14 responses so far

Francis Collins assures Congress that NCATS won't draw from basic research

Mar 21 2012 Published by under NIH, NIH Budgets and Economics, NIH funding, Politics

via the Nature News Blog we learn that NIH Director Collins has been called upon by Congress to explain NCATS. This is the acronym for his pet project a Center dedicated to "Translational Science" that required axing the venerable National Center for Research Resources.

Collins noted that NIH’s support for basic research has held steady at about 54% of the agency’s budget for decades. “I do not expect that percentage to change,” he said. He added repeatedly that all but 2% of the $575 million funding the translational medicine center this year comes from preexisting NIH programs, and is not “new” money.

Some legislators, understanding quite clearly that money is fungible were keen to press Collins:

Representative Cynthia Lummis, Republican of Wyoming, interrupted Collins to insist that he explain how the $64 million increase proposed for NCATS in 2013 can’t be seen as being largely funded by a cut to the Institutional Development Award (IDEA) program. The NIH in 2013 has proposed cutting $50.5 million from the program, which funds biomedical investigators, trainees and infrastructure in 23 largely rural states that have historically experienced low application success rates for NIH grants.

“I would not want you to see a direction connection between…the IDEA program and NCATS. Those are not the same dollars that just got moved from one box to another,” Collins responded.

“Dollars are dollars,” Lummis replied.

Exactly. And similarly there are plenty of imaginable grants that would be "translational science" that Collins will get to score in the "basic" category as well. Another CongressCritter argued with Collins that a prior boost to the IDEA program was intended to be permanent, something Collins disputed. Yes, keeping track of this slippery customer down the line will be pretty hard for our intrepid Congressional heroes.

There was another bit of testimony that drew my eye because it speaks to the potential upside of NCATS rather than whinging (ahem) about the costs to other programs. NCATS is supposed to somehow do better than the pharma industry. Ok, fine, but it sort of presumes the pharma industry is full of morons*. I've seen this before from academics under various guises of "Rational Drug Design" and the like. I am, shall we say, skeptical. In this particular bit of testimony on the "we're smarter than they are, nyah, nyah" defense for NCATS a BigPharma type observed that FC is full of stuff and nonsense:

That view was challenged later in the hearing by Roy Vagelos, the former CEO of Merck, who said that the pharmaceutical industry spends about $50 billion annually, or roughly 100 times the NCATS budget, without solving the problems, like inadequate toxicology, that cause so many failures in drug development . “Does anyone in the audience believe that there is something that NCATS is going to do that the industry thinks is critical and that they are not doing? That is incredible to think that. If you believe that you believe in fairies.”

Vagelos added that, with success rates for applicants for NIH grants at historic lows, “We would be doing a lot more good for getting important new drugs on the market,” by funding more young investigators.

Word, PharmaDude, word.

__
*unless it addresses things that the profit industry is not really capable of grappling with such as their penchant for huge payoff, block buster, serves everyone type of drugs.

Share

17 responses so far

Older posts »

Bad Behavior has blocked 1168 access attempts in the last 7 days.