Optimizing the Research Training Partnership

10 comments

Strategic Plan for Biomedical and Behavioral Research TrainingIt’s been nearly a year since we posted our Strategic Plan for Biomedical and Behavioral Research Training. In August, I announced that we were on course to implement most of the plan in early 2012. I’m very pleased to tell you that our Blueprint for Implementation is now available. As you’ll see, it’s truly a blueprint, and in the months ahead we’ll be posting more details and guidance about each of the action items.

One of the most important messages in the blueprint is that research training is a partnership between NIH and the academic community. We recognize that addressing many of the action items depends on those of you in the front line of training. We also know that many of you already do an excellent job of training and mentoring students and postdocs. Nevertheless, training outcomes can always be improved, and our blueprint aims to provide our view of what excellent training is, along with encouragement and resources to adopt and improve certain practices to achieve the goals of the action items. These ideas are based on the broad input we received over the course of our strategic planning and implementation process.

I encourage you to read the blueprint and the other documents that we post on our new training partnership Web page and send us your comments, questions, suggestions and examples.

NIGMS 50th Anniversary Sessions at Scientific Society Meetings

0 comments
NIGMS 50th Anniversary Logo

As we told you in an earlier post, NIGMS turns 50 this year. One of the ways we’re marking this milestone is by sponsoring speakers or symposia at a number of scientific society meetings.

We’ve already been to the Society for Glycobiology and the American Society for Cell Biology meetings, and in the coming months, we’re headed to these additional venues:

  • Biophysical Society
  • United Mitochondrial Disease Foundation
  • Genetics Society of America
  • International Society for Computational Biology
  • American Chemical Society
  • Society for Advancement of Chicanos and Native Americans in Science
  • Annual Biomedical Research Conference for Minority Students

If you’ll be at one of these meetings, please come to our sponsored session to hear from our grantees and meet some of our staff. Also, please acknowledge NIGMS funding support during your meeting talks and poster presentations, and feel free to use one of our 50th anniversary logos for this purpose.

To highlight our commitment to training, we’re also sponsoring student or postdoctoral fellow poster awards at a number of these events. We’ll invite poster award winners to present their work at the NIGMS 50th anniversary symposium at NIH on October 17. Stay tuned for details about that event in a future post.

Remarkable Ruth Kirschstein: New Biography of an NIGMS Director

1 comment

As the director of NIGMS from 1974 to 1993, Ruth L. Kirschstein molded the Institute’s agenda for basic science, research training and promoting diversity. She also set a tone for the Institute that remains to this day. After leaving NIGMS, Ruth went on to serve as the deputy director of NIH, and, for two periods, she was NIH’s acting director.

From the time she recruited me to NIGMS in 1981 until her death in 2009, Ruth was also my mentor and friend, as she was to many others who worked for or interacted with her.

A new biography by science writer Alison Davis, Always There: The Remarkable Life of Ruth Lillian Kirschstein, M.D., tells the inspiring story of a scientist, physician, administrator, leader, humanitarian, classical pianist, lover of music and art, and devoted wife and mother. This amazing, multitasking woman really was “always there.”

I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in reading about an extraordinary woman and her dedication and many contributions to NIH and beyond. The book is available for free in several digital formats.

Why Overall Impact Scores Are Not the Average of Criterion Scores

10 comments

One of the most common questions that applicants ask after a review is why the overall impact score is not the average of the individual review criterion scores. I’ll try to explain the reasons in this post.

What is the purpose of criterion scores?

Criterion scores assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of an application in each of five core areas. For most applications, the core areas are significance, investigator(s), innovation, approach and environment. The purpose of the scores is to give useful feedback to PIs, especially those whose applications were not discussed by the review group. Because only the assigned reviewers give criterion scores, they cannot be used to calculate a priority score, which requires the vote of all eligible reviewers on the committee.

How do the assigned reviewers determine their overall scores?

The impact score is intended to reflect an assessment of the “likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research
field(s) involved.” In determining their preliminary impact scores, assigned reviewers are expected to consider the relative importance of each scored review criterion, along with any additional review criteria (e.g., progress for a renewal), to the likely impact of the proposed research.

The reviewers are specifically instructed not to use the average of the criterion scores as the overall impact score because individual criterion scores may not be of equal importance to the overall impact of the research. For example, an application having more than one strong criterion score but a weak score for a criterion critical to the success of the research may be judged unlikely to have a major scientific impact. Conversely, an application with more than one weak criterion score but an exceptionally strong critical criterion score might be judged to have a significant scientific impact. Moreover, additional review criteria, although not individually scored, may have a substantial effect as they are factored into the overall impact score.

How is the final overall score calculated?

The final impact score is the average of the impact scores from all eligible reviewers multiplied by 10 and then rounded to the nearest whole number. Reviewers base their impact scores on the presentations of the assigned reviewers and the discussion involving all reviewers. The basis for the final score should be apparent from the resume and summary of discussion, which is prepared by the scientific review officer following the review.

Why might an impact score be inconsistent with the critiques?

Sometimes, issues brought up during the discussion will result in a reviewer giving a final score that is different from his/her preliminary score. If this occurs, reviewers are expected to revise their critiques and criterion scores to reflect such changes. Nevertheless, an applicant should refer to the resume and summary of discussion for any indication that the committee’s discussion might have changed the evaluation even though the criterion scores and reviewer’s narrative may not have been updated. Recognizing the importance of this section to the interpretation of the overall summary statement, NIH has developed a set of guidelines to assist review staff in writing the resume and summary of discussion, and implementation is under way.

If you have related questions, see the Enhancing Peer Review Frequently Asked Questions.

Editor’s Note: In the third section, we deleted “up” for clarity.

Funding Opportunities, Requests for Information Issued

0 comments

You may be interested in the following funding opportunity announcements and NIH requests for information:

Funding Opportunity Announcements

NIH Requests for Information

Funding Opportunity Announcements

Modeling Social Behavior (R01)
(RFA-GM-13-006)

Purpose: Develop and test innovative theories and computational, mathematical or engineering approaches to deepen understanding of complex social behavior
Letter of intent due date: March 3, 2012
Application due date: April 3, 2012
NIGMS contact: Stephen Marcus, 301-451-6446

Competing Revisions for Macromolecular Interactions in Cells (R01)
(RFA-GM-13-003)

Purpose: Extend the scope and capabilities of currently funded investigations on macromolecular interactions and their relationship to function in cells
Letter of intent due dates: February 26, 2012; September 18, 2012
Application due dates: March 26, 2012; October 18, 2012
NIGMS contact: James Deatherage, 301-594-0828

Jointly Sponsored Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Award Institutional Predoctoral Training Program in the Neurosciences (T32)
(PAR-12-084)

Purpose: Prepare predoctoral students for independent research careers in the neurosciences
Letter of intent due dates: April 25, 2012; April 25, 2013; April 25, 2014
Application due dates: May 25, 2012; May 25, 2013; May 25, 2014
NIGMS contact: Alison Cole, 301-594-3827

PHS 2012-02 Omnibus Solicitation of the NIH, CDC, FDA and ACF for Small Business Innovation Research Grant Applications (Parent SBIR [R43/R44])
(PA-12-088)

Purpose: Submit Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Phase I, Phase II, Fast-Track and Phase IIB competing renewal grant applications
Application due dates: Standard dates apply
NIGMS contact: Scott Somers, 301-594-3827

PHS 2012-02 Omnibus Solicitation of the NIH for Small Business Technology Transfer Grant Applications (Parent STTR [R41/R42])
(PA-12-089)

Purpose: Submit Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) Phase I, Phase II, Fast-Track and Phase II competing renewal grant applications
Application due dates: Standard dates apply
NIGMS contact: Scott Somers, 301-594-3827

Resource Access for the Bridging Interventional Development Gaps Program (X01)
(PAR-12-092)

Purpose: Acquire access to government-funded contract resources needed for the preclinical development of therapeutic agents
Application due date: April 3, 2012
NIH contact: Tony Jackson, 301-594-4660

NIH Requests for Information

Request for Information (RFI): Input into the Deliberations of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director Working Group on Diversity in the Biomedical Research Workforce
(NOT-OD-12-031)

Purpose: Provide input to a working group charged with examining diversity in the biomedical research workforce and providing recommendations on ways to enhance diversity throughout various research career stages, particularly with regard to underrepresented minorities, persons with disabilities and persons from disadvantaged backgrounds
Response due date: February 24, 2012

Request for Information (RFI): Input into the Deliberations of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director Working Group on Data and Informatics
(NOT-OD-12-032)

Purpose: Provide input to a working group charged with investigating the management, integration and analysis of large biomedical datasets
Response due date: March 12, 2012

Addressing Additional Review Criteria Questions for AREA Applications

1 comment

Of all the institutes and centers at NIH, NIGMS receives the most Academic Research Enhancement Award (AREA, R15) applications and funds the most AREA grants. This is probably because the faculty and students at eligible institutions, which have not been major recipients of NIH research grant funds, typically focus on basic research using model organisms and systems.

As Sally Rockey of the NIH Office of Extramural Research has noted, the new AREA funding opportunity announcement includes additional questions reviewers are expected to address that are related to the program’s goals of supporting meritorious research, strengthening the research environment of eligible institutions and exposing students to significant research.

With the next AREA application deadline coming up on February 25, I’d like to point out how and where applicants might address the new review considerations.

SIGNIFICANCE: If funded, will the AREA award have a substantial effect on the school/academic component in terms of strengthening the research environment and exposing students to research? Include a summary discussion at the end of the Research Plan, but provide most of the information on lab space, required equipment and facilities, and the availability of students to participate in the proposed research in the Resource page of the application. You and your institution should also include a description of the current research environment and of students who have continued in the biomedical sciences. In the Significance section as well as at the end of the Research Plan, discuss how the potential R15 support would enhance the research environment and increase the number of students exposed to meritorious research. Please remember that the research proposed should be significant, have an impact on the field and be well justified.

INVESTIGATOR: Do the investigators have suitable experience in supervising students in research? Take advantage of the Biosketch Personal Statement to provide specific information about current and former students participating in your research projects. Highlight publications with student co-authors in the Biosketch, and describe the role of students to be supported on the research project and which aim they will help with in the Budget/Personnel Justification and in the timeline at the end of the Research Plan.

APPROACH: Does the application provide sufficient evidence that the project can stimulate the interests of students so that they consider a career in the biomedical or behavioral sciences? As noted above, address this question in the Resource page and the Biosketch Personal Statement with a discussion of students who have previously worked on aspects of the research and who plan to pursue scientific careers. At the end of the Research Plan, I highly recommend including a list of students and a timeline for what each of them would be doing and what research question or approaches they would be exposed to during the R15 support period.

ENVIRONMENT: Does the application demonstrate the likely availability of well-qualified students to participate in the research project? Address this question in both the Resource page and the Biosketch Personal Statement by discussing your record of recruiting interested students who are excited about doing research and helping you accomplish your specific aims. Does the application provide sufficient evidence that students have in the past or are likely to pursue careers in the biomedical or behavioral sciences? As indicated above, with assistance from your institution, use the Resource page to provide a description of students who have majored in the biomedical sciences and who have gone on to graduate or medical school or other biomedical science careers. Use the Biosketch Personal Statement to describe students you have supervised.

Wanted: Program Director, Undergraduate and Predoctoral Training Branch

0 comments

We’re looking for a program director (also known as “program officer” or “health scientist administrator”) to join the Undergraduate and Predoctoral Training Branch of the Division of Training, Workforce Development, and Diversity. This person will administer the Initiative for Maximizing Student Development program in addition to a portfolio of research and training grants. We’re particularly interested in candidates who have a broad spectrum of scientific knowledge and professional experience in the training of research scientists as well as in programs aimed at increasing the diversity of the scientific workforce.

Please see the vacancy announcement for position requirements and detailed application procedures. This recruitment is part of a global recruitment for program officer positions throughout NIH, and the vacancy announcement closes on January 25, 2012.

Apply for a Scientific Review Job in NIGMS

0 comments

We’re advertising for a scientific review officer to oversee the peer review of applications for a broad range of research and training programs, including programs aimed at increasing the diversity of the scientific workforce. We particularly seek someone with expertise in cell biology, biophysics, bioinformatics and/or pharmacology to join our busy and interactive scientific review team, but the job involves setting up and managing review groups across the entire range of biomedical, clinical and behavioral fields NIGMS supports.

For details on the position and application process, see the vacancy announcement, which closes on January 25, 2012.

NIGMS Reorganizes

3 comments

In the first major reorganization of NIGMS since 1994, we have just established two new divisions that bring together existing NIGMS programs with programs transferred to NIGMS from the former National Center for Research Resources (NCRR). These changes give us the opportunity to create synergies and strengthen efforts in areas that are central to our mission.

The Division of Training, Workforce Development, and Diversity (TWD) merges NIGMS research training programs with activities that were previously in the Institute’s Division of Minority Opportunities in Research (MORE). It also houses the Institutional Development Award program from NCRR. Our decision to create this division was informed by input we received from many stakeholders, and it responds to key goals and recommendations of our strategic plans. Its director is Clif Poodry, who formerly directed the MORE Division.

The Division of Biomedical Technology, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology (BBCB) combines programs of our Center for Bioinformatics and Computational Biology (CBCB) with biomedical technology programs from NCRR. Karin Remington, who previously directed CBCB, is the director of this new division.

You might be wondering what the reorganization will mean for your current or future funding. The amount of money allocated to programs in the new divisions will not change as a result of the reorganization or the transfer of NCRR programs to NIGMS. The review of applications will stay the same, too, as will most of the staff who manage the grants and review the applications.

Our current organizational chart shows all six NIGMS divisions, including the two new ones.

I’ve been at NIGMS for many years—first as a program director, then as a division director and twice as acting Institute director. One of the things I like best about all these jobs is having a bird’s-eye view of the rapid evolution of science. The reorganization that is taking place at NIGMS reflects this evolution and, I expect, will enable NIGMS to further enhance the pace of science.

NIGMS Welcomes NCRR Programs, Staff and Grantees

1 comment

About a year ago, NIH proposed creating a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) that would incorporate the Clinical and Translational Science Awards program of the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR). NIH decided to transfer the remaining NCRR programs to other NIH components, with the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) and some Biomedical Technology programs slated to go to NIGMS.

The recent passage of an appropriation for Fiscal Year 2012 allows these plans to be implemented. A number of NCRR staff members will move to NIGMS, including many who have been associated with the IDeA and Biomedical Technology programs. The staff who administer and review these programs will continue to do so, and the resources allocated to the programs will not change as a result of the organizational adjustments.

We have a long history of working with NCRR, and we value and respect its staff and programs, which are also held in high regard by the scientific community. We welcome the infusion of new colleagues, new talents and ideas, and new research areas from NCRR. We also look forward to working with the new institutions, investigators and stakeholder groups associated with the NCRR programs.

As we move forward, we want to continue to engage and learn from the scientific community, and we welcome and value your input and feedback.