Challenges amp Concerns The Investigators Perspective NIH Funding Priorities Investigators are confused Commitment to Basic Science Decrease in basic science grants in NIH portfolio What messages are applicants receiving from NIH from their institutions from peer reviewers ID: 628095
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "IMMUNOLOGY 2016 TM NIH Funding & Res..." is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
IMMUNOLOGY 2016TMNIH Funding & Research policy
Challenges & Concerns:
The Investigator’s PerspectiveSlide2
NIH Funding PrioritiesInvestigators are confusedSlide3
Commitment to Basic ScienceDecrease in basic science grants in NIH portfolioWhat messages are applicants receiving – from NIH, from their institutions, from peer reviewers?
Posted comments on recent article by Mike Lauer strongly suggest that this commitment is not reflected in ‘the trenches’ – do study sections need explicit educating?
How does the increase in larger, multi-investigator awards impact funding of basic science?Slide4
Disease-earmarked fundingChanges in HIV/AIDS-focused fundingNew mandated Alzheimer’s Disease fundingEarmarked funding for antibiotic-R bacterial infections
How best to balance funding by disease burden with minimizing Congressional micro-management?Slide5
Application LogisticsInvestigators are confusedSlide6
Grant funding mechanismsIndividual investigator awards with extended periods of support and budgetsGoal of this mechanism seems to differ between institutes
Will this lead to smaller total numbers of funded investigators?
Will all NIH institutes develop this mechanism?
“Emeritus award” – dead?
Inconsistency in award mechanisms and prioritization of types of awards between institutesSlide7
New & increasing requirementsEstablishment of ‘rigorous & reproducible research’What exactly does this mean?
What assurances and documentation are expected?
How will this new section be reviewed and scored?
How will the requirement be enforced?
Gender parity in animal studies
What exceptions are allowed?
What will be the impact on costs and size of experiments?Slide8
Transparency & equity in grant budgetsGuidelines for modular vs. non-modular budgetsConsistency in across-the-board budget cuts, both within and between institutes
Clear messages to applicant institutions about their support responsibilitiesSlide9
Grant reviewInvestigators are frustrated; so are many reviewersSlide10
Challenges to obtaining the best reviewsDisincentives to serve as a reviewerReviewer baggage
Limited disincentives for being a poor reviewer
Inconsistency in matching reviewer expertise with applications
Inconsistency in panel composition and sequential reviews of A0 vs. revised applicationsSlide11
Outcome of the review processHow to detect and avoid reviewer bias, both conscious and unconscious?How to evaluate and act upon information about association between application scores and ultimate project impact?
What is the cost/benefit of large, expensive, multi-investigator projects vs. smaller projects?
What is the cost/benefit of >2 R01s or larger projects per PI vs. fewer projects/PI but more PIs funded?Slide12
Action on GRAMP proposals?10 recommendations made to improve grant process released in July 2015, including –Speeding award process
Pre-applications? Continuous submission?
Improve administrative efficiency, seek greater feedback on new ideas to improve process
Deepen and diversify peer review pool
Will any be implemented, or at least tested?Slide13
Preparing for the future of scienceHow to ensure a robust biomedical science enterprise for future generations? Slide14
What is NIH’s commitment to training?Age of PIs is increasingDisproportionate number of
early to mid-career
investigators are leaving research
Future of T32 awards is uncertain, and their priority varies between institutes
Suggestion that labs operate mostly with permanent staff scientists is not compatible with current R grant budgetsSlide15
How will NIH ensure a robust future poolof investigators & scientific ideas?
After the first R01, but before a PI becomes a well-established investigator, he/she can encounter a career “Death Valley” – how to prevent these ‘career deaths’ of the next generation of scientists?
Health of biomedical research depends upon a wide diversity of voices & ideas, as does bi-partisan, nationwide support of NIH – how to preserve this?Slide16
What do investigators want?Clear, transparent, consistent policies that allow them to plan for success in obtaining support and conducting the best researchOpportunity for meaningful feedback and participation in policy creation
Timely and thoughtful evaluation of current policies and their outcomes, and revision when neededSlide17
Thank you, RICHARD(s)For your excellent work on our behalf