From the Administration’s FY14 budget comments for HHS: Read the rest of this entry »
CSR Scoring Recalibration
NIGMS has kindly publicly confirmed that CSR is recalibrating percentiles, having pushed SRGs to enforce the spreading of scores when reviewing Cycle III applications this past February and March. Read the rest of this entry »
Findings of Research Misconduct
Notice is hereby given that ORI has taken final action in the following case: Read the rest of this entry »
For Those of You Celebrating Sequester Day by Looking for a New Job …
why not be part of the team that works out to the sixth decimal place just how bad success rates will be in the coming FYs? Read the rest of this entry »
Plan B in Case of Sequestration
Days before a 5.1% cut may or may not occur, the NIH released its agency-wide “Operation Plan in the Event of a Sequestration“. Read the rest of this entry »
Findings of Research Misconduct
Another dual billing … Read the rest of this entry »
4-Year R01s at NHLBI
Although a Congressional mandate has been in place for many years to keep the “average” length of RPG awards issued at 4 years, most ICs manage this by letting 2-year R03 and R21 awards offset some of the 5-year R01 awards. This is trickier at an IC such as NIGMS, since they do not participate in the short-term mechanisms, so often they “adjust” R01s to 4 years, as do other ICs (e.g., NIBIB) – including NHLBI in past years. At the November 2012 Council meeting, the NHLBAC learned about NHLBI’s new fiscal policy on R01 project length:
The Institute’s longstanding practice was to adjust duration of R01s to achieve a 4 year average for research project grants. Applications that received the very best percentiles and those from Early Stage Investigators (ESIs) received awards for the full length of their Council-recommended project periods. The Institute has made a decision that beginning in FY 2014, it will fund competing, investigator-initiated R01s for 4years. Exceptions include ESIs, applications with timelines that cannot be accomplished within 4 years, and AIDS projects (which have a separate appropriation). Researchers are encouraged to submit for review only applications with a project period of 4 years or less.
NHLBI dropped out of the R21 parent announcement and does not participate in the R03 parent announcement either, so this is not entirely a surprise, but the explicit request that PIs submit proposals limited to 4 or fewer years in duration is new.
A2 Nevermore …
Although Nature News Blog reported in October that the NIH was still reconsidering its elimination of A2 applications, today Sally Rockey posted data in support of the sunset policy and ended speculation that a second amended application might again be welcomed at CSR.
In addition to funding a higher proportion of A0 applications (compared with A1), “the average time to award from submission of A0 applications has been reduced from 93 weeks to 56 weeks.”
She also goes on to address the possibility of limited A2 submission for those A1s that scored just outside the payline (whatever that means …):
We looked at this issue using data from fiscal year (FY) 2011. If A1 applications with percentile scores below 25% were allowed to submit an A2 application in FY2011, it would have resulted in 764 unsolicited A2 R01 applications. 165 of the new applications were from new investigators. In addition, only a small minority of eligible applications (37 of 218 renewals) were from investigators trying to renew a previous new investigator award.
Assuming the most extreme case – that all 764 of these A2 applications would have been funded, NIH would have been able to fund 21% fewer A0 applications and 19% fewer A1 applications in FY2011 (figure 3). These displaced A0 and A1 applications would be highly likely to come back as A1s and A2s (as most displaced A1s would become eligible under the modified policy) and the average time to award would increase.
In the end, she notes,
Overall, these data indicate that the policy to sunset A2 applications continues to achieve the stated goals of enabling NIH to fund as much meritorious science as possible in as short a time period as possible. Any revision to the policy to allow additional resubmissions of all or a subset of A2 applications will displace equally meritorious A0 and A1 applications, and increase the time to award for many applications. For these reasons, we have decided to continue the policy in its current form.
NIMH Adjusts K-mechanism Policies
NIMH has announced some modifications to eligibility for applicants to the parent K01, K08, and K23 mechanisms. The parent announcements only disqualify those who have received (as PI) R01, P01 or center grant project, or other K award funding. Starting with the February 12, 2013 submission deadline, NIMH only accept applications from
individuals with no more than 6 years of postdoctoral experience at the time of application (either the initial or resubmission application). The NIMH will generally not consider applications requesting more than 4 years of K01, K08, or K23 support. See http://www.nimh.nih.gov/research-funding/training/career-development-programs-k-series.shtml for further details.
For the same submission deadline, NIMH will increase its K99-phase salary cap from $50,000 to $75,000.
Action Plan for those Frustrated by Chaotic Funding of Biomedical Research
Today’s issue of Cell includes a commentary by Thomas Pollard (Yale) entitled, The Obligation for Biologists to Commit to Political Advocacy, in which he reviews why and how scientists “must take responsibility to convince politicians that funding biomedical research will benefit not only human health, but also our economic well being.” If nothing else, you will find a nice summary of how the sausage is made. Hopefully you will be inspired to act on what you learn.
In addition to the guidance given in the commentary, you might consider FASEB’s advocacy tools and advice to help you register your concerns with elected officials.
To improve your own funding situation, NEJM offers the advice to eat more chocolate as a path to Nobel laureateness.
Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship 
