Principal investigators (PIs) occasionally tell us they don’t plan to apply for the Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) program because their institutions expect them to have multiple R01 grants and thus they need to stick with R01 funding. To address this issue, we thought it would be useful to examine the likelihood of getting more than one NIGMS R01.
Figure 1 shows the percentage of PIs who held more than one NIGMS R01 between fiscal years 2014 and 2024 (FY14 and FY24). The first MIRA grants were awarded in FY16, so FY14 and FY15 represent years prior to the beginning of the program. In FY14 and FY15, only 16% of PIs had more than one NIGMS R01. This percentage hovered around 14-15% until 2019, when it began declining. The decline was likely the result of an increasing number of PIs converting their R01s to MIRAs and an Institute policy that PIs could not have more than two NIGMS R01s. Importantly, even before the MIRA program started, only a small fraction of PIs had more than one NIGMS R01. These data are consistent with an analysis we performed previously of how many early stage investigators (ESIs) who were awarded NIGMS R01s between FY04 and FY15 obtained a second NIGMS R01.
Percent of NIGMS R01 PIs With More Than One R01 By Fiscal Year
Figure 1. The percentage of PIs who have more than one NIGMS R01 by fiscal year. While the percentage of PIs with more than one NIGMS R01 was approximately 16% in FY14, it dropped to approximately 8% in FY24.
We next examined how long PIs who had more than one NIGMS R01 were able to maintain that level of funding. Figure 2 shows PIs who had two or more NIGMS R01s in FY14 and follows their funding levels each year for the subsequent 10 years. We excluded from the analysis investigators who received MIRA grants during this time period. By year 2, only 40% of this group still had two or more R01s, and this percentage dropped over the following years until only 8% of the original pool had more than two R01s in year 9. Thus, of the small fraction of PIs who had two or more NIGMS R01s in 2014, most only stayed at that level of funding for a short period of time, even when those who converted to MIRA are excluded.
Figure 2. Distribution of PIs Who Had More Than One NIGMS R01 in FY14 Who Still Had More Than One R01 in the Subsequent 10 Fiscal Years
Figure 2. The number of PIs who had two or more NIGMS R01s in FY14 who still had two or more R01s in each of the following 10 years (black solid lines). PIs who received MIRA grants in this time period were excluded from the analysis. The percentage of PIs who had two or more NIGMS R01s in FY14 who still had two or more R01s in each of the subsequent years is shown above the bars. The number of R01s held is indicated by the bar color: black, two or more; light blue dashes, one.
Another concern we often receive from PIs is that their institutional leaders want them to apply for R01s instead of MIRA grants because they think they can get higher budgets through R01s. Figure 3 shows the distribution of NIGMS R01 and MIRA budgets for established investigators (that is, not ESIs) from FY14-FY24 for both new and renewal awards. Median MIRA budgets are consistently higher than those for R01s for both new and renewal grants.
Figure 3. Box plots showing the distribution of direct cost amounts for NIGMS R01 (black) and R35 (MIRA, blue) new and renewal grants for established investigators in FY14-FY24.Multi-PI R01 award budgets were adjusted for the number of PIs on the award. FY21 was the first year MIRA renewal awards were made. The boxes represent the 25th(Q1) to 75th(Q3) percentiles and the solid horizontal bars are the median values. The lower whisker is Q1-1.5*(Q3-Q1) and the upper whisker is Q3+1.5*(Q3-Q1).
Almost all ESIs funded by MIRAs have received the maximum direct cost budget of $250,000 per year, which is significantly higher than the median budget for NIGMS ESI R01s of $210,000 per year. We recently published a Guide notice raising the maximum direct cost budget for ESI MIRAs to $275,000 per year for applications submitted for the October 3, 2024, due date and beyond.
Overall, the data presented above make clear that even before the MIRA program started, few PIs had more than one NIGMS R01, and those who did rarely maintained that level of support for long. Institutions might want to revisit policies that expect PIs to have multiple R01 grants with this information in mind. To reflect the current budget situation and the Institute’s priority for funding MIRA grants, we recently updated our funding policies webpage to indicate that NIGMS is unlikely to award more than one R01 to a PI.
In addition to being a year longer, MIRA grants generally have higher budgets than NIGMS R01s, which, coupled with the increased scientific flexibility and higher renewal rates, should make applying for a MIRA instead of an R01 the best choice for most eligible PIs. If you are eligible for MIRA but have been told by a department chair or other senior leader at your institution that you should apply for an NIGMS R01 instead, please feel free to have them contact us so we can explain why this probably isn’t the best strategy.
These trends for the R35 are good to see. However the requirement to have 51% of a P.I.’s salary on an R35, compared to the lower percent effort allowed on an R01, cut into gains in increased funding compared to the R01. It would be good for NIGMS to cut back on the 51% requirement and allow investigators to have more of their grant dollars go to their lab’s research.
Thanks for your feedback. NIGMS recently reduced the percent research effort required for established and new investigators on MIRA grants to 45%, as described in NOT-GM-24-054. Please note that the required effort on MIRA grants is research effort rather than total effort and does not include time spent on non-research activities such as teaching, university administration, and clinical duties. Therefore, a PI’s total effort on a MIRA grant will be less than their research effort. Also, please note that, although a PI cannot take salary from a grant beyond the level of their total effort on that grant, NIH does not require PIs to take any particular amount and the amount taken could be less than their total effort. Any rules requiring PIs to take an amount of salary from their grants equal to their total effort on the grants are set by their institutions rather than the NIH.
I’m not sure whether I misunderstood you or you misunderstand common practices at Universities, particularly Universities in which faculty are required to teach. At our University we are required to declare a certain part of our time for teaching and administration/service. Only the remaining time out of 100% total effort time available is what we have available for research, even if we do not request a salary for this effort. So if I have allocated let’s say 25% of my time to teaching and even just 5% of my time to service, I only have 70% of my time for research. The 45% now required for a MIRA means that I would have only 25% time left for research effort on other grants- basically allowing one other non-GM R01 and perhaps a low percent effort on a collaborative grant. When I was a department head, I had to declare an additional chunk of time for administration, reducing available effort time available to a second grant even more limited.
As described in the MIRA FAQs, the required 45% research effort on an EI/NI MIRA does not include time spent on teaching, non-research-related administrative service, or clinical duties. In the example you provided, for a PI who spends 30% of their time on non-research duties and has 70% total time for research, 45% research effort is 45% of the 70% total effort available for research, or 31.5% of the PI’s total effort. In this scenario, the PI has 38.5% total effort (55% of their research effort) still available to work on other research projects.
Director Lorsch,
Potentially this could be an opportunity to correct or clarify what I was told by a colleague (but I or they might be mistaken). It was communicated (I was told) from a Program Officer that NIGMS has a policy in place that *two* GM R01s are only being supported for a PI if both are renewals and if an R01 is a new application and that PI already has an R01, the new one would not be considered. Can you indicate if such a policy is in place and if so how it would affect the numbers above?
A second thought conveyed by another colleague was that investigators with MIRAs of vastly different budgets are discussed in the same study sections and that young investigators no longer have the ability to potentially grow their program and then step down to a MIRA that is at the level of those of established investigators that entered the program at its inception or shortly thereafter. For these investigators, they no longer have opportunity to grow their programs to a certain size (within GM) that previous generations were able to if two R01s are not possible. Given the great pressures of inflation and cost of science, the younger cohort of MIRA awardees (if their science is constrained to GM) will not have the same opportunities of their senior colleagues.
Thanks for your comment. As stated in the post “To reflect the current budget situation and the Institute’s priority for funding MIRA grants, we recently updated our funding policies webpage to indicate that NIGMS is unlikely to award more than one R01 to a PI.” To your second point, NIGMS has been working hard to allow appropriate growth in MIRA budgets to account for inflation and enable expansion of research programs in circumstances that warrant it. We recently increased the maximum direct cost budgets for ESI MIRAs from $250,000 to $275,000 to allow for inflation. In addition, for several years we have been working to increase the median and mode direct cost budgets for MIRA renewals to $275,000 and we have procedures in place to allow even larger increases for MIRA renewals in special circumstances. However, as the post makes clear, even before the MIRA program started, only a small fraction of PIs had more than one NIGMS R01 and those who did rarely stayed at that high funding level for long.
It’s good to know that NIGMS has reduced the percent research effort required for MIRA grants to 45%. However, this number still seems too high. MIRA budgets for most established investigators are not sufficient to support more than 45% of their research programs, especially with the ever-increasing costs of conducting research. The rationale for this 45% requirement is unclear, particularly since MIRA holders are no longer eligible to apply for additional NIGMS funding.
I think that the MIRA funding mechanism is great, but there are gaps in eligibility.
As one example, for people who have R01 funding as an MPI there is no mechanism to apply for a MIRA as an established investigator unless you also have a single PI NIGMS R01.
As noted in this Blog post, it is unlikely that an investigator will have two R01s from NIGMS.
I know there has also been a recent NIGMS Blog post about the impact of having a MPI R01 on MIRA eligibility.
But if one goal for NIGMS is to shift funding toward the MIRA mechanism and away from the R01 mechanism, this eligibility issue is an area that it would be great to take a look at.
This is slightly off-topic, but some senior investigators such as myself are not eligible for MIRA because our NIGMS grants are MPI grants. I would prefer to have a MIRA award but I am stuck in the R01 funding mechanism because of a decision that my collaborator and I made several years ago to embrace the MPI philosophy. Has NIGMS considered creating a path for MPI R01 investigators to move into the MIRA program?
I agree with Sarah Bowman’s comment about MIRA eligibility for PIs of MPI R01s.
We recognize the problems associated with PIs on multi-PI R01s who would like to apply for MIRA grants but can’t under the current eligibility rules. Although it is unlikely in the current budget conditions that we will be able to change the eligibility to accommodate MPI grants converting to MIRA grants, we hope to be able to continue to support MPI R01s for teams in cases where it is an appropriate funding approach. If the scope of your multi-PI work is sufficient to warrant it, you might also consider applying for an NIGMS Collaborative Program for Multidisciplinary Teams (RM1) grants to replace your MPI R01(s).
One of the attractions to an academic career had been the prospect of upward mobility limited only by one’s ability. This meritocracy meant that a young person starting out could rapidly grow their lab. I remember very well complaining about a cutback to my proposed budget for my first renewal of a “FIRST” award which transitioned it to a R01. This FIRST award was a type of small starter grant for new investigators. My NIGMS program officer responded that it was about time for me to rather consider applying for a second R01, which I did soon afterwards.
I second the concern for all investigators, but especially junior investigators, concerning the slow rate of growth that MIRA grantees are locked into for basic science research. It means also that regardless of stage, one can not rapidly pivot into an exciting new area of research that was opened up by your preceding research.
My issue with the current NIGMS policy is that it seems to be saying that basic science is a means for getting started in your career but not one that you should continue as you try to launch a successful research trajectory. Much is made of the low number of scientists who maintained two R01s for extended periods of time. The question first is whether this was a self-fulfilling prophecy based on the new policies that NIGMS established. I’d be interested in seeing how the numbers discussed above would have compared retroactively-for instance from the time I started in 1990 until the launch of the MIRA.
The second question revolves around the relative contribution to science of those ~10% of NIGMS investigators who did have two R01s. My guess is that it was disproportionate- if you judged it my landmark research of very high impact (for instance numbers of papers cited a very large number of times) as opposed to research volume (total citations).
My understanding is that there is a push from Biotechnology companies for more basic science funding by NIH that is even now being discussed in Congress.
Does NIGMS no longer believe that basic science is of equal value to translational science?