Category: Director’s Messages

Funding Allocation for Research Project Grants in Fiscal Year 2012

10 comments

In this 200th Feedback Loop post, I’d like to share budget slides I presented earlier this month during the open session of our National Advisory General Medical Sciences Council meeting. The session also included updates on several of our initiatives as well concept clearances for two new ones, which are briefly described in the meeting summary.

As part of my acting director’s report, I presented our Fiscal Year 2012 funding plan and focused specifically on our budget for research project grants (RPGs), which includes mostly R01s. The figures below are based on a budget estimate for Fiscal Year 2012, which begins on October 1. Since NIH has not yet received an appropriation for the next fiscal year, the estimate assumes that the budget will be at approximately the Fiscal Year 2011 level.

Figure 1 breaks down the total NIGMS budget of about $2.034 billion into its major components and shows that 67% of the budget will support RPGs. Of that portion, we will use around 76% to pay noncompeting grants (commitments on grants already awarded). This leaves about 23% for competing grants and 1% for supplements.

Figure 1. Fiscal Year 2012 Breakdown

 

Figure 1. Fiscal Year 2012 breakdown of the estimated NIGMS budget into its major components. About 67% of the budget will support research project grants (RPGs), and of that, 76% will be used to pay noncompeting grants, 23% to pay competing grants and 1% to pay supplements.

Figure 2 breaks down the competing RPG budget. It shows that 93% will be used to pay investigator-initiated research and that the remaining 7% will fund mainly R01 grants submitted in response to requests for applications (RFAs), which have been carefully considered by NIGMS staff in consultation with the scientific community and have been approved by our Advisory Council during the concept clearance process.

Figure 2: NIGMS FY 2012 Breakdown of Estimated Competing RPG Budget

 

Figure 2. Fiscal Year 2012 breakdown of the estimated competing RPG budget. About 93% of the budget will be used to pay investigator-initiated research, and the remainder will fund R01 grants submitted in response to RFAs.

The final figure shows that the portion of the competing RPG budget spent on investigator-initiated research during the last 8 years has varied between 87% and 94%, further indicating that NIGMS commits a relatively small amount of RPG funds to grants that are not investigator-initiated.

Figure 3. Comparison of RPG Budgets in Fiscal Years 2004-2011

 

Figure 3. Comparison of RPG budgets in Fiscal Years 2004-2011 for investigator-initiated research versus set-asides for grants in response to specific RFAs. During this period, the portion spent on investigator-initiated research has varied between 87% and 94%.

Lasker Award Highlights Protein Folding Discoveries

0 comments

The Lasker Awards recognize major contributions to understanding and treating, curing or preventing disease. The 2011 prizes were announced yesterday, and we’re proud that two former NIGMS grantees, Franz-Ulrich Hartl of the Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry and Arthur L. Horwich of the Yale School of Medicine, are being honored with the Basic Medical Research Award.

Hartl and Horwich are cited for their discoveries about the cell’s protein-folding machinery, particularly the identification of chaperonin, which shifted the paradigm of how proteins fold. The field of protein folding is a great example of the importance of the basic research that NIGMS funds and how it lays the foundation for medical advances—in this case, shedding light on diseases linked to misfolding or aggregation, such as Alzheimer’s and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

We’re also delighted that the NIH Clinical Center was selected to receive the Lasker-Bloomberg Public Service Award.

We congratulate all of the recipients on these well-deserved honors.

Nominate Outstanding Mentors for Presidential Awards

0 comments

Mentoring is a core value at NIGMS, and we emphasize it in our training, career development and other programs. Among the mentoring activities we encourage in our Strategic Plan for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Training are the use of individual development plans and the adoption of evidence-based practices to grow trainees’ career skills.

Another reflection of the importance of mentoring—the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Mentoring—recognizes outstanding efforts that enhance the participation and retention of those who might not otherwise have pursued careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics. A number of scientists and programs we fund have been recognized with past national mentoring awards, including three earlier this year.

You now have the opportunity to nominate a great mentor (including yourself) or organization for outstanding and sustained efforts at the K-12, undergraduate or graduate level over at least 5 years. Nominations are due by October 5. See the program solicitation for details.

Training and Biomedical Workforce Update

4 comments

Request for Information (RFI) screenshotAs you know from a previous post, in April we issued Investing in the Future: NIGMS Strategic Plan for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Training. Since then, several NIGMS working groups have been very busy devising practical ways to implement the plan’s 15 action items. Last month, we brought together about 25 stakeholders—training grant directors, other university researchers, deans, department chairs and others—to give us a reality check on some of our proposals. We were gratified to see that we are on course to implement most of the measures the plan calls for by early 2012.

In a complementary effort, the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director established a working group to examine and develop a model for the future of the biomedical research workforce in the United States. To inform the working group in its deliberations, NIH has just issued a request for information (RFI). I encourage you to respond to the RFI and send in your input by October 7 to http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/rfi_files/bmw/add.cfm.

NIH Common Fund Input Request

1 comment

NIH Common FundThe NIH Common Fund supports trans-NIH programs in strategic areas to address roadblocks and catalyze progress in biomedical research. Two Common Fund programs are the Pioneer Award and New Innovator Award, which I just posted about.

Each year, NIH asks internal and external scientists and stakeholders to identify new ideas for Common Fund programs. NIH is now seeking broader input on the proposed concepts to help shape them into new programs for 2013. The feedback period is open until September 14.

For more information about the Common Fund and its current programs, read this recent blog post from NIH’s Sally Rockey.

NIH Director’s Award Programs Keep ‘Pioneering’ and ‘Innovating’

0 comments

NIH Director’s Pioneer AwardNIH recently conducted an evaluation of the short-term outcome of the NIH Director Pioneer’s Award program, which started in 2004 and is managed by NIGMS. The report was positive and confirmed that the research supported by the program truly has been pioneering, not only in pursuing highly creative and often unconventional approaches but also in leading to additional “high-risk, high-reward” programs at NIH and other funding agencies.

We hope to see many more highly innovative ideas submitted for the next Pioneer Award application cycle that is now under way. Applications are due October 7, 2011.

NIH Director’s New Innovator Award

The NIH Director’s New Innovator Award program, also managed by NIGMS, is accepting applications until October 14, 2011. This program is designed for early stage investigators at U.S. institutions who have not yet obtained an NIH R01 or similar grant.

For more information and links to the requests for applications, see the Pioneer Award Web site and the New Innovator Award Web site.

As I’ve written before, one of my favorite elements of these programs is the annual symposium, scheduled this year for September 20-21 at the Doubletree Bethesda Hotel near the NIH campus. The meeting is free and doesn’t require registration, so if you’re in the area, I encourage you to join us for talks and poster sessions by Pioneer and New Innovator awardees. If you can’t make it in person, you can view the platform presentations after the meeting on the NIH Videocast site.

Forging Ahead

0 comments

Under Jeremy Berg’s leadership, NIGMS has thrived and continued to support outstanding, cutting-edge research. I hope to maintain this momentum while serving as acting NIGMS director.

Many of you know me from the Division of Genetics and Developmental Biology, the part of NIGMS I’ve directed since 1988. Others know me from the NIH Director’s Pioneer and New Innovator Award programs, which I’ve led for a number of years, or from my role in chairing NIGMS’ strategic planning processes. Some may even recall when I previously served as acting NIGMS director (from May 2002, when Marvin Cassman left, to November 2003, when Jeremy arrived).

In this time of transition, we are managing a challenging budget situation and also pursuing several major activities. One is implementing action items from the training strategic plan. I am excited to see this effort come to fruition, as it will have a significant impact on both students in our training programs and those supported by regular research grants.

In addition, we are looking forward to marking the Institute’s 50th anniversary in 2012. Planning is already under way for activities at scientific meetings and on the NIH campus. We will post more details here in the coming months.

And of course we eagerly anticipate the selection of a new NIGMS director. The search committee is a terrific group of people who know the Institute well. I have a lot of confidence that they will find us a director who will continue NIGMS’ strong tradition of excellent leadership.

Part of Jeremy’s legacy at NIGMS is the Feedback Loop. Keeping open lines of communication has always been really important to us, and I welcome your input at any time.

Farewell

3 comments

Today is my last day as Director of NIGMS. It is hard to believe that almost 8 years have passed since I was first offered this tremendous opportunity to serve the scientific community. It has been a privilege to work with the outstanding staff members at NIGMS and NIH, as well as with so many of you across the country.

As I write my final post, I find myself recalling a statement I heard from then-NIH Director Elias Zerhouni during my first few years here: It is very difficult to translate that which you do not understand. He made this comment in the context of discussions about the balance between basic and applied research, which certainly has applicability in this setting and is relevant in a broader context as well. In some ways, it has also been my mantra for the NIGMS Feedback Loop.

Early in my time at NIH, I was struck by how often even relatively well-informed members of the scientific community did not understand the underlying bases for NIH policies and trends. Information voids were often filled with rumors that were sometimes very far removed from reality. The desire to provide useful information to the scientific community motivated me and others at NIGMS to start the Feedback Loop, first as an electronic newsletter and, for the past 2 years, as a blog. Our goal was–and is–to provide information and data that members of the scientific community can use to take maximal advantage of the opportunities provided across NIH and to understand the rationales behind long-standing and more recent NIH policies and initiatives.

I chose the name Feedback Loop with the hope that this venue would provide more than just a vehicle for pushing out information. I wanted it to promote two-way communication, with members of the scientific community feeling comfortable sharing their thoughts about the material presented or about other issues of interest to them. In biology, feedback loops serve as important regulatory mechanisms that allow systems to adjust to changes in their environments. I hoped that NIGMS’ “feedback loop” would serve a similar role.

I am pleased with our progress toward this goal, but there is considerable room for further evolution. The emergence and success of similar blogs such as Rock Talk are encouraging signs. I know that NIGMS Acting Director Judith Greenberg shares my enthusiasm for communication with the community, and I hope that the new NIGMS Director will too. I encourage you to continue to play your part, participate in the discussions and engage in the sort of dialogue that will best serve the scientific community.

I plan to continue communicating with many of you in my new position as a member of the extramural scientific community. For the time being, you can reach me at jeremybergtemp@gmail.com.

Acting Director Named

0 comments

As I enter my final few weeks at NIGMS, I’m engaged in a lot of transition planning. One major aspect is the designation of an acting director, and I’m happy to tell you that Judith Greenberg has agreed to serve in this capacity after my departure early next month. She was acting director in 2002 and 2003, after Marvin Cassman left and before I arrived, and I know that she will once again do a fantastic job.

For more about Judith, see the news release we just issued.

Productivity Metrics and Peer Review Scores, Continued

11 comments

In a previous post, I described some initial results from an analysis of the relationships between a range of productivity metrics and peer review scores. The analysis revealed that these productivity metrics do correlate to some extent with peer review scores but that substantial variation occurs across the population of grants.

Here, I explore these relationships in more detail. To facilitate this analysis, I separated the awards into new (Type 1) and competing renewal (Type 2) grants. Some parameters for these two classes are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Selected=

Table 1. Selected parameters for the population of Type 1 (new) and Type 2 (competing renewal) grants funded in Fiscal Year 2006: average numbers of publications, citations and highly cited citations (defined as those being in the top 10% of time-corrected citations for all research publications).

For context, the Fiscal Year 2006 success rate was 26%, and the midpoint on the funding curve was near the 20th percentile.

To better visualize trends in the productivity metrics data in light of the large amounts of variability, I calculated running averages over sets of 100 grants separately for the Type 1 and Type 2 groups of grants, shown in Figures 1-3 below.

Figure 1. Running averages for the number of publications over sets of 100 grants funded in Fiscal Year 2006 for Type 1 (new, solid line) and Type 2 (competing renewal, dotted line) grants as a function of the average percentile for that set of 100 grants.

Figure 1. Running averages for the number of publications over sets of 100 grants funded in Fiscal Year 2006 for Type 1 (new, solid line) and Type 2 (competing renewal, dotted line) grants as a function of the average percentile for that set of 100 grants.

Figure 2. Running averages for the number of citations over sets of 100 grants funded in Fiscal Year 2006 for Type 1 (new, solid line) and Type 2 (competing renewal, dotted line) grants as a function of the average percentile for that set of 100 grants.

Figure 2. Running averages for the number of citations over sets of 100 grants funded in Fiscal Year 2006 for Type 1 (new, solid line) and Type 2 (competing renewal, dotted line) grants as a function of the average percentile for that set of 100 grants.

Figure 3. Running averages for the number of highly cited publications over sets of 100 grants funded in Fiscal Year 2006 for Type 1 (new, solid line) and Type 2 (competing renewal, dotted line) grants as a function of the average percentile for that set of 100 grants.

Figure 3. Running averages for the number of highly cited publications over sets of 100 grants funded in Fiscal Year 2006 for Type 1 (new, solid line) and Type 2 (competing renewal, dotted line) grants as a function of the average percentile for that set of 100 grants.

These graphs show somewhat different behavior for Type 1 and Type 2 grants. For Type 1 grants, the curves are relatively flat, with a small decrease in each metric from the lowest (best) percentile scores that reaches a minimum near the 12th percentile and then increases somewhat. For Type 2 grants, the curves are steeper and somewhat more monotonic.

Note that the curves for the number of highly cited publications for Type 1 and Type 2 grants are nearly superimposable above the 7th percentile. If this metric truly reflects high scientific impact, then the observations that new grants are comparable to competing renewals and that the level of highly cited publications extends through the full range of percentile scores reinforce the need to continue to support new ideas and new investigators.

While these graphs shed light on some of the underlying trends in the productivity metrics and the large amount of variability that is observed, one should be appropriately cautious in interpreting these data given the imperfections in the metrics; the fact that the data reflect only a single year; and the many legitimate sources of variability, such as differences between fields and publishing styles.