We’ve been examining the benefits and challenges of team science and considering approaches to support this mode of research.
We use a variety of mechanisms to fund collaborative and team-based science, including program project grants (P01s) and different types of center grants (e.g., P50s and U54s). At our recent Advisory Council meeting, we heard a report on P01 outcomes compared to those of other mechanisms. We also heard a report from an external review panel on the National Centers for Systems Biology program.
To explore team science approaches, we have set up an internal NIGMS committee that includes representatives from across the Institute. Our goal is to develop better ways to identify and support research teams that will produce scientific advances not attainable by single individuals or by standard collaborative efforts.
One of the committee’s first efforts was issuing a request for information (RFI) on approaches for supporting team science in the biomedical research community. We’re soliciting input on a number of topics, including:
- Interest in team science.
- Management and advisory structures in team science.
- Team composition.
- Resources and infrastructure.
- Assessment of team science.
- Past or current NIGMS team-based programs and funding mechanisms.
RFI responses should be sent to TeamScience@mail.nih.gov by June 17, 2016. We also welcome comments here.
NIGMS is considering how best to support two important activities: the development of biomedical technologies and access to those technologies as they become research resources. These topics are closely related, but there are aspects of each that should be explored independently.
Last summer, the Institute issued a request for information (RFI) on the support of biomedical technology development. The responses we received contributed significantly to initiatives for exploratory and focused technology development to be launched later this year. We now request your input in response to a new RFI on the need for and support of research resources (NOT-GM-16-103).
We’d like to know your thoughts on a number of topics, including:
- The appropriateness and usefulness of existing research resources to the biomedical research community.
- Examples of unmet needs for research resources.
- The relative value of resources that serve many investigators versus specialized resources used by fewer investigators.
- The value and manner of coupling technology development to research resources.
- The review of research resource applications and the evaluation of funded projects.
- The role of academia, other biomedical institutions and industry in developing and providing access to research resources.
- The role of investigators and user fees in supporting institutional, regional and national resources.
- The role of NIGMS in supporting research resources and technology development at various levels.
We also welcome any other comments that you feel are relevant to supporting research resources.
To respond to this RFI, send an email to email@example.com by June 3, 2016.
If you have any questions about the RFI, please let us know.
This is the 500th Feedback Loop post. We’ve made numerous changes since the blog launched in 2009, but one of the things that’s stayed the same is the importance of your input. Your responses to our posts have given us valuable information and insights on our policies and plans. They’ve also helped us identify topics that interest you or that we could clarify.
If there’s a topic you’d like us to write about—or if you have any other feedback for us—please leave your suggestions in the comment section below or email me.
UPDATE: The response deadline has been extended to November 13.
On July 29, 2015, the White House issued an Executive Order establishing the National Strategic Computing Initiative as a government-wide effort to create a coordinated, cohesive, multi-agency strategy to maximize the benefits of High Performance Computing (HPC) for the United States. In support of this initiative, the Department of Energy, National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health are seeking your input to identify scientific research that would benefit from a greatly enhanced new generation of HPC computing technologies and architectures. The request for information (RFI) asks for responses in scientific domains including the biomedical and physical sciences, mathematics, geosciences, energy sciences and engineering research.
We hope to hear from our research communities on topics that include:
- Research challenges that would need the projected 100-fold increase in application performance.
- Specific barriers in current HPC systems that limit scientific research.
- Capabilities needed for the data-intensive sciences.
- Additional barriers in such areas as training, workforce development or collaborative environments.
While this RFI invites comments on several specific topics, we would also welcome any comments that you feel are relevant to this initiative.
To respond to this RFI, send an email to NIGMS_exascale@nigms.nih.gov by
If you have any specific questions about the RFI, please let me know.
UPDATE: The proposed rulemaking comment period has been extended to January 6, 2016.
I would like to draw your attention to proposed revisions to the federal policy for the protection of human subjects , often referred to as the Common Rule. Even if you’re not currently involved in human subjects research activities, your research might be affected by the proposed changes.
The modifications are intended to enhance the ability of individuals to make informed decisions about participating in clinical research and also to modernize and streamline the regulatory approval process. One of the major reforms would expand the definition of human subjects research to include the secondary use of human biospecimens, regardless of identifiability. Some of the other proposed changes would affect the processes for obtaining informed consent and for determining the exemption status of human subjects research activities.
I encourage you to review the notice of proposed rulemaking and submit comments by the December 7, 2015, deadline. Please note that each proposed change described in the document includes specific questions for public comment.
NIGMS is in the process of considering how best to support two important activities: the development of biomedical technologies and access to those technologies as they become research resources. These topics are strongly related, but there are aspects of each that should be explored independently. An important part of this process is getting input from the community, so we’ve issued a request for information (RFI) focused on technology development. A subsequent RFI will extend the discussion to the support of research resources.
There are two main issues that we’re thinking hard about right now as we consider how our technology development programs should be structured:
- The relationship between technology development and question-based biomedical research. We’re particularly interested in whether and how technology development and question-driven research should be coupled in different circumstances. Coupling technology development with addressing biomedical research problems can help ensure the relevance of the tools that emerge, but it may not always be necessary or appropriate.
- Supporting the full range of biomedical technology development. We’re interested in the effective support of all aspects of technology development, from the exploration of emerging concepts to the conversion of fragile technologies into standard tools.
Membrane proteins and large macromolecular assemblies are important targets for understanding cell function and for drug discovery, but their characterization presents unique technical challenges. We’re considering how best to help researchers meet these challenges.
To give the biomedical research community the opportunity to offer comments on this topic, we have just issued a request for information (RFI). We want your opinion on the most effective methods for the determination of membrane protein and large macromolecular assembly structures and/or the need for new tools to aid in structure determination of these proteins or protein complexes.
We support a variety of resources for biomedical research, and we’re considering a new addition: one or more facilities for protein expression. These resources would offer protein expression expertise and high-throughput expression capability for the benefit of the entire research community.
We just issued a request for information (RFI) seeking input on the needs within the biomedical research community for such resources and the types of protein expression services that would be most beneficial. Examples might include the expression of proteins from a large number of sequences, orthologs and homologs; prokaryotic and eukaryotic protein expression; and expression for special needs, such as for large numbers of mutants, proteins requiring anaerobic expression, and the incorporation of nonproteogenic amino acids like seleno-methionine.