Posts

Posted on

Nation’s Top Science Honor to Benkovic, Lindquist, Others

by
0 comments

Last week, President Obama announced the 2010 recipients of the National Medal of Science and the National Medal of Technology and Innovation. The 10 winners of the National Medal of Science include long-time NIGMS grantees Steve Benkovic from Pennsylvania State University and Susan Lindquist from the Whitehead Institute, MIT. As always, I am pleased when our grantees are among the outstanding scientists and innovators recognized by the President in this significant way.

Posted on

Changes in NIH Application Policies

by
0 comments

Here are several new NIH Guide notices regarding applications:

New Time Limit for NIH Resubmission Applications
Revised applications must be submitted no later than 37 months after submission of the preceding version. In most cases, the clock will start at the original receipt date. For special cases, please refer to NOT-OD-10-140.

NIH to Require Use of Updated Electronic Application Forms in 2011
Submissions for deadlines after May 7, 2011, must use an updated forms package (ADOBE-FORMS-B1). For deadlines before then, applicants may use either the new forms package or the current one, ADOBE-FORMS-B. There are some exceptions: K, T, D or F series applications submitted for deadlines on or after January 25, 2011, must use the new forms package. For more information, see NOT-OD-11-008 and NOT-OD-11-007.

Posted on

Nobel News

by
0 comments
Purdue University Nobel Prize for Chemistry News Conference 

(Download the free Windows Media Player Link to external web site to view)

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences announced today that long-time NIGMS grantee Ei-ichi Negishi from Purdue University will share the Nobel Prize in chemistry with Richard Heck from the University of Delaware and Akiri Suzuki from Hokkaido University in Japan for “palladium-catalyzed cross couplings in organic synthesis.” All of us at NIGMS congratulate them on this outstanding recognition of their accomplishments.

Carbon-carbon bond-forming reactions are the cornerstone of organic synthesis, and the reactions developed by these Nobelists are widely used to produce a range of substances, from medicines and other biologically active compounds to plastics and electronic components. NIGMS supports a substantial portfolio of grants directed toward the development of new synthetic methods precisely because of the large impact these methods can have.

I have personal experience with similar methods. I am a synthetic inorganic chemist by training, and a key step during my Ph.D. training was getting a carbon-carbon bond-forming reaction to work (using a reaction not directly related to today’s Nobel Prize announcement). I spent many months trying various reaction schemes, and my eventual success was really the “transition state” for my Ph.D. thesis: Within a month of getting this reaction to work, it was clear that I would be Dr. Berg sooner rather than later!

I’d also like to note that this year’s Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine to Robert Edwards “for the development of in vitro fertilization” also appears to have an NIGMS connection. Roger Donahue sent me a paper he coauthored with Edwards, Theodore Baramki and Howard Jones titled “Preliminary attempts to fertilize human oocytes matured in vitro.” This paper stemmed from a short fellowship that Edwards did at Johns Hopkins in 1964. Referencing the paper in an account of the development of IVF, Jones notes that, “No fertilization was claimed but, in retrospect looking at some of the photographs published in that journal (referring to the paper above), it is indeed likely that human fertilization was achieved at Johns Hopkins Hospital in the summer of 1964.” The paper cites NIGMS support for this work through grants to Victor McKusick.

In all, NIGMS has supported the prizewinning work of 74 grantees, 36 of whom are Nobel laureates in chemistry.

Posted on

Nominate Your Outstanding Graduate Students to Meet Nobel Laureates

by
2 comments

Graduate Student Awards for the Lindau Meeting of Nobel Laureates and Students in Lindau, GermanyIt’s the 1st of October, and there’s a Nobel buzz in the air. We’re eagerly awaiting next week’s prize announcements and hoping to see more of our grantees added to the list.

But we’re also feeling the Nobel excitement in another way: the opening of the nomination process for your graduate students to attend the next Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting. Nominations are due from your universities on November 1.

Through this extraordinary opportunity, the most exceptional young researchers go to Lindau, Germany, to engage with Nobel Laureates and meet their peers from around the globe. The upcoming meeting takes place June 26-July 1, 2011, and will feature Nobel prizewinners from physiology or medicine.

A student from last year’s meeting said, “Lindau is much more than a meeting. It is an experience that will change how you look at science and inspire your career.” Other students have told us that it’s “amazing” and “life-changing,” giving them extensive opportunities to network and have focused discussions with the Nobelists. John Schwab and Ravi Basavappa, NIGMS program directors who accompanied the students in past years, came back from the meeting equally charged up.

You can get a sense of what the excitement is all about by viewing a video about the meeting Link to external web site.

If you would like to nominate one of your students, visit http://www.orau.org/lindau/ Link to external web site for details, instructions and forms. Your universities must submit the applications via this Web site by the November 1 deadline.

Please note that your university president or designee can submit only two candidates to be considered for NIH support. Eligible students can be supported by any NIH institute or center, as long as it funds the research the student is involved in or supports the student through a training award. Universities may also submit up to six additional nominations (two to each of the three other sponsors—DOE, ORAU and Mars, Inc.).

The application process has three phases. First, candidates are selected by their universities for consideration by NIH. Second, NIH selects approximately 40 student nominations, which represents more than half of the U.S. delegation. The last phase is conducted by the Lindau Meeting. Selection is a highly competitive process, and we’re counting on you to identify the best candidates to represent U.S. science next year!

Posted on

New Online Evaluation Resource

by
0 comments

At the recent NIGMS Council meeting, I gave an overview of a new section of the NIGMS Web site called Evaluation: Measuring What Works. In addition to offering tips on planning and conducting evaluations, the section provides links to “how-to” guides, tools and other resources.

I invite you to take a look at the material and send your comments and suggestions via the feedback form link (no longer available).

Why did we develop this new Web site section? Increasingly, the Office of Management and Budget and other entities are calling for the use of formal program evaluation to help determine if programs are operating efficiently and achieving their goals. Some NIGMS research and training grant programs already include an evaluation component. If you’re an applicant or grantee on one of these programs, you may find our new online program evaluation resource useful.

Posted on

NIH-Wide Correlations Between Overall Impact Scores and Criterion Scores

by
5 comments

In a recent post, I presented correlations between the overall impact scores and the five individual criterion scores for sample sets of NIGMS applications. I also noted that the NIH Office of Extramural Research (OER) was performing similar analyses for applications across NIH.

OER’s Division of Information Services has now analyzed 32,608 applications (including research project grant, research center and SBIR/STTR applications) that were discussed and received overall impact scores during the October, January and May Council rounds in Fiscal Year 2010. Here are the results by institute and center:

Correlation coefficients between the overall impact score and the five criterion scores for 32,608 NIH applications from the Fiscal Year 2010 October, January and May Council rounds.

Correlation coefficients between the overall impact score and the five criterion scores for 32,608 NIH applications from the Fiscal Year 2010 October, January and May Council rounds. High-res. image (112KB JPG)

This analysis reveals the same trends in correlation coefficients observed in smaller data sets of NIGMS R01 grant applications. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in the correlation coefficients among the 24 NIH institutes and centers with funding authority.

Posted on

Measuring the Scientific Output and Impact of NIGMS Grants

by
29 comments

A frequent topic of discussion at our Advisory Council meetings—and across NIH—is how to measure scientific output in ways that effectively capture scientific impact. We have been working on such issues with staff of the Division of Information Services in the NIH Office of Extramural Research. As a result of their efforts, as well as those of several individual institutes, we now have tools that link publications to the grants that funded them.

Using these tools, we have compiled three types of data on the pool of investigators who held at least one NIGMS grant in Fiscal Year 2006. We determined each investigator’s total NIH R01 or P01 funding for that year. We also calculated the total number of publications linked to these grants from 2007 to mid-2010 and the average impact factor for the journals in which these papers appeared. We used impact factors in place of citations because the time dependence of citations makes them significantly more complicated to use.

I presented some of the results of our analysis of this data at last week’s Advisory Council meeting. Here are the distributions for the three parameters for the 2,938 investigators in the sample set:

Histograms showing the distributions of total annual direct costs, number of publications linked to those grants from 2007 to mid-2010 and average impact factor for the publication journals for 2,938 investigators who held at least one NIGMS R01 or P01 grant in Fiscal Year 2006.

Histograms showing the distributions of total annual direct costs, number of publications linked to those grants from 2007 to mid-2010 and average impact factor for the publication journals for 2,938 investigators who held at least one NIGMS R01 or P01 grant in Fiscal Year 2006.

For this population, the median annual total direct cost was $220,000, the median number of grant-linked publications was six and the median journal average impact factor was 5.5.

A plot of the median number of grant-linked publications and median journal average impact factors versus grant total annual direct costs is shown below.

A plot of the median number of grant-linked publications from 2007 to mid-2010 (red circles) and median average impact factor for journals in which these papers were published (blue squares) for 2,938 investigators who held at least one NIGMS R01 or P01 grant in Fiscal Year 2006. The shared bars show the interquartile ranges for the number of grant-linked publications (longer red bars) and journal average impact factors (shorter blue bars). The medians are for bins, with the number of investigators in each bin shown below the bars.

A plot of the median number of grant-linked publications from 2007 to mid-2010 (red circles) and median average impact factor for journals in which these papers were published (blue squares) for 2,938 investigators who held at least one NIGMS R01 or P01 grant in Fiscal Year 2006. The shared bars show the interquartile ranges for the number of grant-linked publications (longer red bars) and journal average impact factors (shorter blue bars). The medians are for bins, with the number of investigators in each bin shown below the bars.

This plot reveals several important points. The ranges in the number of publications and average impact factors within each total annual direct cost bin are quite large. This partly reflects variations in investigator productivity as measured by these parameters, but it also reflects variations in publication patterns among fields and other factors.

Nonetheless, clear trends are evident in the averages for the binned groups, with both parameters increasing with total annual direct costs until they peak at around $700,000. These observations provide support for our previously developed policy on the support of research in well-funded laboratories. This policy helps us use Institute resources as optimally as possible in supporting the overall biomedical research enterprise.

This is a preliminary analysis, and the results should be viewed with some skepticism given the metrics used, the challenges of capturing publications associated with particular grants, the lack of inclusion of funding from non-NIH sources and other considerations. Even with these caveats, the analysis does provide some insight into the NIGMS grant portfolio and indicates some of the questions that can be addressed with the new tools that NIH is developing.

Posted on

Collaborative Science Supplement Requests Due in January

by
0 comments

Do you have an idea for a great collaboration that will advance your NIGMS-funded research project? If your current award has active funding through at least July 31, 2012, you may be eligible to jump-start your idea with an administrative supplement for collaborative science. The next submission deadline is January 15, 2011.

To be sure that your project is appropriate for this program, please review the funding opportunity announcement. You should also discuss the project idea with your NIGMS program director before preparing an application. For general questions about the program, contact me at hayness@nigms.nih.gov or Marion Zatz at zatzm@nigms.nih.gov.

Posted on

New Funding Opportunity for Stem Cell Researchers

by
0 comments

NIGMS has just issued a call for Program Projects for Collaborative Research on the Basic Biology of Pluripotency and Reprogramming (P01), with an emphasis on human induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells. We are particularly interested in studies that propose comprehensive analyses of the basic biology of pluripotency, the molecular events and mechanisms of reprogramming, and the epigenetics and epigenomics of the pluripotent and reprogrammed states.

These applications have special requirements, so please read the announcement carefully. Letters of intent are due on November 1, and applications are due on December 1.

If your research involves stem cells but isn’t appropriate for this announcement, you may submit an investigator-initiated R01 application that addresses the basic biology of stem cells and/or uses these cells as model systems to study fundamental life processes.

You may contact me at hayness@nigms.nih.gov or Marion Zatz at zatzm@nigms.nih.gov with questions about this new opportunity or about NIGMS support for stem cell research.

Posted on

Scoring Analysis with Funding and Investigator Status

by
17 comments

My previous post generated interest in seeing the results coded to identify new investigators and early stage investigators. Recall that new investigators are defined as individuals who have not previously competed successfully as program director/principal investigator for a substantial NIH independent research award. Early stage investigators are defined as new investigators who are within 10 years of completing the terminal research degree or medical residency (or the equivalent).

Below is a plot for 655 NIGMS R01 applications reviewed during the January 2010 Council round.

A plot of the overall impact score versus the percentile for 655 NIGMS R01 applications reviewed during the January 2010 Council round. Solid symbols show applications for which awards have been made and open symbols show applications for which awards have not been made. Red circles indicate early stage investigators, blue squares indicate new investigators who are not early stage investigators and black diamonds indicate established investigators.

A plot of the overall impact score versus the percentile for 655 NIGMS R01 applications reviewed during the January 2010 Council round. Solid symbols show applications for which awards have been made and open symbols show applications for which awards have not been made. Red circles indicate early stage investigators, blue squares indicate new investigators who are not early stage investigators and black diamonds indicate established investigators.

This plot reveals that many of the awards made for applications with less favorable percentile scores go to early stage and new investigators. This is consistent with recent NIH policies.

The plot also partially reveals the distribution of applications from different classes of applicants. This distribution is more readily seen in the plot below.

A plot of the cumulative fraction of applications for four classes of applications with a pool of 655 NIGMS R01 applications reviewed during the January 2010 Council round. The classes are applications from early stage investigators (red squares), applications from new investigators (blue circles), new (Type 1) applications from established investigators (black diamonds) and competing renewal (Type 2) applications from established investigators (black triangles). N indicates the number in each class of applications within the pool.

A plot of the cumulative fraction of applications for four classes of applications with a pool of 655 NIGMS R01 applications reviewed during the January 2010 Council round. The classes are applications from early stage investigators (red squares), applications from new investigators (blue circles), new (Type 1) applications from established investigators (black diamonds) and competing renewal (Type 2) applications from established investigators (black triangles). N indicates the number in each class of applications within the pool.

This plot shows that competing renewal (Type 2) applications from established investigators represent the largest class in the pool and receive more favorable percentile scores than do applications from other classes of investigators. The plot also shows that applications from early stage investigators have a score distribution that is quite similar to that for established investigators submitting new applications. The curve for new investigators who are not early stage investigators is similar as well, although the new investigator curve is shifted somewhat toward less favorable percentile scores.