NCI Publishes FY11 Funding Data (R01s, R21s)
05.4.12 by Michelle Kienholz
NCI has joined NIGMS in releasing some of its FY11 funding data, which break down applications and awards by percentile and PI status (established, new, ESI). They introduce the charts and table with a concise statement about “the zone”:
Beginning in FY 2011, NCI adopted a new approach to the selection of grant applications for funding that sets a zone within which nearly all applications are selected for funding. In both 2011 and 2012, that zone extended to the 7th percentile. Beyond that point, all applications are considered, resulting in a final success rate of 15% in 2011.
And they are sufficiently stouthearted to accept comments.
Standardized Process for JIT Requests & Electronic Submission
04.2.12 by Michelle Kienholz
I should leave the country more often. Last Friday, the NIH released a notice indicating that to:
reduce application confusion and to minimize requests from NIH staff for JIT submissions, NIH is revising its business processes so applicants will have better information on when JIT submissions are required …
Hallelujah.
Specifically:
Beginning April 20, 2012, applications receiving an impact score of 40 or less will receive a standard notice and request for submitting JIT information … Notices will be sent via e-mail from NIH eRA Commons to the PI 2 weeks after release of the impact score …
They make it clear that this threshold is not intended to reflect the payline of any IC and that they will “review the JIT notification trigger level to determine if additional adjustments are needed to improve the process.” I assume PIs with applications scoring above 40 to be funded by exception will be asked by their PO to submit JIT via the live link available for all applications on eRA Commons, which the notice also takes care to explain does reflect likelihood of funding or any genuine need for JIT submission:
For all applications, the eRA Commons JIT link will be opened and available for submission of JIT information within 24 hours after the impact score has been released. … Since the JIT link will be available for all applications, applicants should not rely on this as an indicator of the need to submit JIT information; instead they should rely on the JIT notification described above and any specific requests from NIH staff.
My thanks to OER for this simple but very helpful adjustment to this process.
As a reminder, JIT information is needed “at least 60 days before the applicant’s proposed project period start date (or sooner if requested by the IC)” and includes:
- Current Other Support: Provide active support information for all individuals designated in an application as senior/key personnel—those devoting measurable effort to a project. Other support includes all financial resources, whether Federal, non-Federal, commercial or institutional, available in direct support of an individual’s research endeavors, including but not limited to research grants, cooperative agreements, contracts, and/or institutional awards. Training awards, prizes or gifts are excluded. Sample format pages are available (Word or PDF), however, there is no specific form provided to report on “Current Other Support.” Effort devoted to projects must be measured in person-months.
- For all senior/key personnel, provide details on how you would adjust any budgetary, scientific, or effort overlap if this application is funded.
- For Career Development Award applications, information on all active support for the candidate, sponsor(s), co-sponsor(s), and Senior/Key Personnel may be requested by the awarding component prior to award.
- IACUC Approval Date: If the proposed project involves research using live vertebrate animals, the verification date of IACUC approval along with any IACUC-imposed changes must be submitted. Pending or out-of-date approvals are not acceptable.
- IRB Approval Date: If the proposed project involves human subjects research, the certification date of IRB review and approval must be submitted. Pending or out-of-date approvals are not acceptable.
- Human Subjects Education: If the proposed project involves human subjects research, certification that any person identified as senior/key personnel involved in human subjects research has completed an education program in the protection of human subjects must be submitted.
- Human Embryonic Stem Cells (hESCs): If the proposed project involves hESCs and the applicant did not identify an hESC line from the NIH Human Embryonic Stem Cell Registry in the application, the line(s) may be submitted as an “Other Upload” file.
- Other Information Requested by the Awarding IC: Additional JIT information (i.e., revised budgets, changes to the human subjects, or vertebrate animal sections of the application) may be requested by ICs on a case-by-case basis. These should be submitted as an “Other Upload” file.
Certifications:
FY13 Budget Discussions Begin
02.15.12 by Michelle Kienholz
The President’s FY13 budget proposal, which Republicans in Congress declared dead on arrival, should generally be of concern to those in biomedical research. The HHS Budget in Brief report euphemistically starts the section on the NIH budget (p 34) with:
The FY 2013 Budget requests $30.9 billion for the NIH, the same level as in FY 2012, reflecting the Administration’s priority to invest in innovative biomedical and behavioral research that spurs economic growth while advancing medical science.
Hmmm. Unless we are projected to have 0% inflation, this translates into a decrease, leaving some head-scratching about actual level of priority given here. Of course, the NIH budget hasn’t kept up with the pace of inflation for the last decade, so why start now.
The flat line does not extend across all ICs either. Only NINDS, NIAMS, NINR, and FIC remain unchanged from FY12 funding levels. NIGMS gives up the bonus $ appropriated to the IDeA program last year with a $48M drop, and the OD (Office of Director) loses $28M (from the National Children’s Study), with perhaps some of this going to NCATS, a clear winner in this budget proposal ($64M, of which $40M will go to CAN, the Cures Acceleration Network). Most other IC increases/decreases are in the $1-3M range, with a few exceptions: NIAID gains $10M, NEI loses $9M, and the NLM bumps up $8M.
Although the budget proposal shows RPG $ going down by $26M ($23M of this shifts to intramural & management budgets), the number of competing awards (Type 1/Type 2) will go up by 672, offset by the removal of 777 noncompeting renewals from the books. Guess not all these folks are among the happy competing renewal crowd. The allocation for research centers drops by $64M and for research training by $2M (but a 2% stipend increase for pre/postdocs). R&D contracts would see a $108M boost.
Just over half (53.3%) of the NIH budget goes to support extramural RPGs, and the NIH is squeezing each grant awarded harder to come up with enough cash to fund more applications, mainly by controlling average award size (target of $431M for FY13). The OER gave us a peak into what fiscal policies might be implemented to make dwindling dollars go farther (Sally Rockey just added a post about the belt-tightening measures in relation to the FY13 budget). A lower salary cap is already in place, shifting some of this burden to the awardee institutions. For all you basic science assistant professors, this doesn’t sound like much of a burden, but clinician scientists will have a harder sell asking to do research (net loss to their department) rather than see patients (net gain), particularly if academic medical centers must also absorb significant cuts in Medicare indirect medical education payments. As per fiscal policy in FY12, no inflationary increases will given to awardees. The budgets of all noncompeting renewals will be reduced by 1% below their FY12 budget. New for FY13 (regardless of what appropriation finally passes, no doubt in mid 2014) will be NIH-wide scrutiny of PIs receiving more than $1.5M in total costs annually prior to making additional awards (you may recall the Nature piece on the 22 big hitters or may have seen the recent story on “grandee grantees“, plus its informative comment by Jeremy Berg); some ICs have already done this, such as NIMH and NIGMS.
For those of you with more basic research interests, the NSF was the biggest science winner in the Administration’s budget blueprint, with a $340M increase that translates into 5.2% increase in research funding at the 6 science directorates and a 5.8% increase in the education directorate. FASEB spells out the 3% increase to the Biological Sciences Directorate:
BIO plans to focus on 5 Grand Challenges including “genomes to phenomes;” synthetic biology; neurosystems; Earth, climate, and biosphere; and biological diversity. Assistant Director John Wingfield, PhD also expressed a desire to increase collaboration, broaden participation, and improve public outreach.
Of course, it is hardly all over but the shoutin’. The shoutin’ hasn’t even begun …
National Institute of Substance Use and Addiction Disorders
02.8.12 by Michelle Kienholz
Notice was given today that the NIH is seeking input on the strategic plan for the new Institute to be created through the merger of NIDA and NIAAA (recommended by the SMRB in September 2010 and written up as a report - before NCATS was ever discussed). You have until May 11th to submit an response electronically on the development of a strategic plan for this new Institute, which will be included in the FY14 budget. There will also be public meetings in 2012, details of which will be released on the NIH Feedback Page.
You are asked to consider and comment on the “potential scientific opportunities and public health needs that are not sufficiently addressed within the existing NIH structure”:
- Developing a compendium of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between alcohol and the therapeutics used to treat general medical and psychiatric conditions (e.g., hypertension, diabetes, epilepsy, depression);
- Encouraging research on the generation of novel metabolites resulting from the in situ interaction of alcohol with opiates, stimulants, hallucinogens, or inhalants (e.g., the production of cocaethylene when alcohol and cocaine are co-ingested) and their pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties and toxicity;
- Understanding the mechanisms by which alcohol and other drugs of abuse increase risk for certain diseases (e.g. cancers), particularly when used in combination;
- Developing strategies to enhance stakeholder interest in developing medications to treat various addictions, including nicotine and alcohol;
- Engaging the medical community in prevention and treatment of drug addiction and alcoholism;
- Encouraging patient recognition and utilization of effective substance abuse treatments;
- Alleviating the translational bottleneck for treatments to move from the bench to the bedside to the community;
- Improving prevention efforts by developing a better understanding of the patterns and trajectories of drugs of abuse and their influence on brain development;
- Designing clinical trials that accurately reflect real-world conditions (e.g., greater inclusion of polydrug users);
- Encouraging research to elucidate the impact of using one substance (e.g., alcohol) on likelihood of relapse to other substances (e.g., other drugs);
- Targeting efforts to prevent substance abuse in adolescents and young-adults;
- Understanding the implications of policy changes on substance use patterns and trajectories, especially in youth; and,
- Furthering knowledge of tobacco use and addiction, including co-morbidity with other addiction and psychiatric disorders.
Specifically …
To ensure a thorough and comprehensive exploration of the scientific opportunities that could potentially be included in the Scientific Strategic Plan for substance use, abuse, and addiction research at NIH, responses are being sought from addiction research experts and stakeholders, including treatment and prevention specialists, investigators, patient advocates, and policy specialists, as well as from the general public.
Responders should note that the NIH is not seeking input on the SMRB recommendation to establish a new Institute focusing on addiction-related research and public health initiatives. Rather, the agency is seeking input on the scientific opportunities and public health needs that should be included in the Scientific Strategic Plan. Input is sought on the areas described above, as well as any other areas that NIH might consider.
For any of the areas identified above and any other specific areas you believe are worthy of consideration by NIH, please identify the critical issues(s) and effect(s) on the public, on scientists, or both. Please identify and explain which of the issues you identified are, in your opinion, the most important for NIH to address and why.
FY 11 Success Rates & Other Stats from the NIH
01.17.12 by Michelle Kienholz
Sally Rockey posted the latest NIH success rate numbers (& other applicant data) today …
| Overall success rates for research project grants fell compared to 2010. | 18% |
| Success rates for new investigators were equal to established investigators submitting new applications. | 15% |
| The representation of women NIH investigators remained the same as in 2010. | 29% |
| Women’s success rates were equal to men for new applications. | 15% |
| Our commitment to supporting the individual investigator remains strong, with R01s and R37s representing a significant percentage of all research grants. | 60% |
| The average size of R01-equivalent grants increased slightly compared to 2010. | $408,594 |
| The average size of a center grant fell by 6% compared to 2010. | $1,863,037 |
| Number of institutional training grant applications continued to decline, from a peak in 2005. | 686 |
Sally also notes that the success rate (which is not the same thing as a payline or percentile) dropped from 20% to 18% due in part to an 8% increase in the number of applications received (49,592). In addition, fewer applications were funded in FY11 (8,765) than during any of FYs in the decade prior … the same number were funded in FY00 (though that year, the success rate was 32%).
Update: Sally explains the decline in success rate (more applications, less $ appropriated, increasing award size).
NCRR is Dead, Long Live NCATS … Oops
12.19.11 by Michelle Kienholz
NCRR is not quite dead yet … but on Saturday, Collins jumped the gun in trumpeting this “signal moment for NIH”:
From: Exec Sec1 (NIH/OD)
To: NIH-STAFF@LIST.NIH.GOV
Sent: Sat Dec 17 18:56:52 2011
Subject: Message from the NIH Director – Changes at NIHTo: All NIH Staff
From: Director, NIH
Date: December 17, 2011
Subject: Changes at NIHThe omnibus appropriations bill for FY2012 passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama today includes provisions that formally establish the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) as a new component of the NIH. This is an important step forward in our efforts to speed the delivery of new drugs, diagnostics, and medical devices to patients. It was just over a year ago that the Scientific Management Review Board recommended the establishment of this new component of NIH, and the achievement of this complex outcome in this time frame is a testimony to the remarkable diligence of many dedicated individuals, both within and outside of NIH, who have worked together to achieve this goal.
This is a signal moment for NIH. I want to take this opportunity to recognize the rich history of the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) and pay tribute to the important contributions of its dedicated employees and grantees. Over more than two decades, NCRR has established and administered a remarkably diverse portfolio of research programs, most recently including the re-invention of our nation’s academic clinical research network in the form of the Clinical and Translational Sciences Awards (CTSAs). I am grateful to Acting Director Dr. Louise Ramm and all of the dedicated staff of NCRR, for their devotion to the cause of excellence in NIH research. Although NCRR is now disbanded, its scientific legacy will live on. As former NCRR employees and their programs transition into new homes within NCATS and other Institutes and Centers, please welcome them with open arms and embrace their wealth of expertise and experience.
Change is never easy; however, it often opens doors to unexpected opportunities for personal growth and scientific collaboration. So, even as we look back at the many accomplishments of NCRR, let us also look ahead to NCATS and realizing its vision of transforming translational research.
In this vein of change, I am pleased to designate Thomas Insel, M.D., as the Acting Director of NCATS and Kathy L. Hudson, Ph.D., as Acting Deputy Director of NCATS. Drs. Insel and Hudson will lead the many activities of bringing the Center into being and getting its programs underway, while we conduct a nationwide search for the first NCATS Director. Drs. Insel and Hudson have already been deeply involved in establishing the Center and are natural choices to implement our plans for NCATS. Both of them will continue to serve in their current roles, at NIMH and in the Director’s Office respectively, while serving in these Acting leadership positions.
I very much appreciate Tom’s and Kathy’s willingness to take on these exciting but challenging additional roles, and I know I can count on all of you to join me in giving them as much support as possible.
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
***
From: “Exec Sec1 (NIH/OD)” <EXECSEC1@od.nih.gov>
Date: December 17, 2011 7:59:57 PM EST
To: “NIH-STAFF@LIST.NIH.GOV” <NIH-STAFF@LIST.NIH.GOV>
Subject: Message from the NIH Director — Correction: Please disregard the previous message.
Reply-To: “Exec Sec1 (NIH/OD)” <EXECSEC1@od.nih.gov>To: All NIH Staff
From: Director, NIH
Date: December 17, 2011
Subject: Correction: Please disregard the previous message.The President signed a Continuing Resolution until December 23, so nothing is finalized until we have a signed bill. We apologize for any confusion.
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
I hope he was not suggesting we disregard the polite praise for NCRR … which, according to the NIH Almanac, has been serving the biomedical research community quite well for closer to five decades (though only formally as NCRR since 1990).
The FY12 appropriations bill Conference Report includes its own assessment of the process by which NCRR was replaced by NCATS:
The conference agreement includes language to eliminate the NCRR and create the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).
NCATS will study steps in the therapeutics development and implementation process, consult with experts in academia and the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries to identify bottlenecks in the processes that are amenable to re-engineering, and develop new technologies and innovative methods for streamlining the processes. In order to evaluate these innovations and new approaches, NCATS will undertake targeted therapeutics development and implementation projects. In all of these efforts, the conferees expect that NCATS will complement, not compete with, the efforts of the private sector.
While the conferees welcome the creation of NCATS, they were disappointed by the way the administration requested it. The President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 included a vague description of NCATS but did not formally request funding for the restructuring or provide any details about which components of NIH would be consolidated into the new Center. The failure to do so caused unnecessary uncertainty about the proposal and contributed to the impression that it was being rushed. The conferees are also aware of concerns that the NIH process for evaluating the merits of the NCATS reorganization did not comply with the NIH Reform Act of 2006 with respect to the role of the Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB).
The decision to create NCATS might have been rushed?
NIH FY12 Appropriations – UPDATED
12.16.11 by Michelle Kienholz
With an agreement finally reached on an appropriations bill, the news for the NIH is better than if we had continued the CR with its 1.5% cut all year. Looking at the House Appropriations Committee’s marked up bill (H.R. 3671, see pp 50-56) and FY11 appropriation levels, I initially read slight decreases (except where NCRR funds move to new ICs), with any new money earmarked for specific programs (see notes below). Science and The Chronicle of Higher Education highlighted a slight overall increase for the NIH, which is true but relative (more below). Either way, not much change, up or down.
Biggest bonus surprise: anyone who applied to an IDeA FOA this past year certainly hit the jackpot: this program will have an extra ~$46M+ to hand out by September 30th … not sure if they’ll just reach farther down their payline or whip up a new solicitation in time for review & funding by the end of the FY. This is now NIGMS’ call, with the unfortunate dissolution of NCRR in the same appropriations bill.
I originally used dollar amounts from the marked up HR 3671 and the FY11 $s from what was signed into law. However, the Conference Report (see table at pp 31-34) helpfully provides $s for FY11 enacted that take into account Public Law 112-10‘s 0.2% across-the-board cut in discretionary spending plus an extra $210M cut to the NIH (spread across the ICs) … so the NIH is getting a small increase, though it does not quite offset what was lost last year (i.e., by the 0.2% + $210M additional cuts). I’ll leave all the numbers up as a reminder of how complicated this can get …
-
NCI: $5,103,388,000 FY11 (PL)/$5,058,577 (Conf) vs $5,081,788,000 FY12
NHLBI: $3,096,916,000 FY11 (PL)/$3,069,723 (Conf) vs $3,084,851,000 FY12
NIDCR: $413,236,000 FY11 (PL)/$409,608,000 (Conf) vs $411,488,000 FY12
NIDDK: $1,808,100,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,792,224,000 (Conf) vs $1,800,447,000 FY12
NINDS: $1,636,371,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,622,003,000 (Conf) vs $1,629,445,000 FY12
NIAID: $4,518,275,000 (after $300M to global fund) FY11/$4,478,668,000 (Conf) vs $4,499,215,000 FY12 (no global fund transfer)
NIGMS: $2,051,798,000 FY11 (PL)/$2,033,782,000 (Conf) vs $2,434,637,000 FY12 (includes $ for NCRR programs transferred to NIGMS … and “provided that not less than $276,480,000 is provided for the IDeA program”)
NICHD: $1,329,528,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,317,854,000 (Conf) vs $1,323,900,000 FY12
NEI: $707,036,000 FY11 (PL)/$700,828,000 (Conf) vs $704,043,000 FY12
NIEHS: $689,781,000 FY11 (PL)/$683,724,000 (Conf) vs $686,869,000 FY12
NIA: $1,110,229,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,100,481,000 (Conf) vs $1,105,530,000 FY12
NIAMS: $539,082,000 FY11 (PL)/$534,349,000 (Conf) vs $536,801,000 FY12
NIDCD: $418,833,000 FY11 (PL)/$415,155,000 (Conf) vs $417,061,000 FY12
NINR: $145,660,000 FY11 (PL)/$144,381,000 (Conf) vs $145,043,000 FY12
NIAAA: $462,346,000 FY11 (PL)/$458,286,000 (Conf) vs $460,389,000 FY12
NIDA: $1,059,848,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,050,542,000 (Conf) vs $1,055,362,000 FY12
NIMH: $1,489,372,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,476,294 (Conf) vs $1,483,068,000 FY12
NHGRI: $516,028,000 FY11 (PL)/$511,497,000 (Conf) vs $513,844,000 FY12
NIBIB: $316,582,000 FY11 (PL)/$313,802,000 (Conf) vs $338,998,000 FY12 (includes $ for NCRR programs transferred to NIBIB)
NCRR: $1,268,896,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,257,754,000 (Conf) vs $0 FY12 (these $ are all redistributed to other ICs & OD)
NCCAM: $128,844,000 FY11 (PL)/$127,713,000 (Conf) vs $128,299,000 FY12
NIMHD: $211,572,000 FY11 (PL)/$209,714,000 (Conf) vs $276,963,000 FY12 (includes $ for NCRR programs transferred to NIMHD)
FIC: $70,051,000 FY11 (PL)/$69,436,000 (Conf) vs $69,754,000 FY12
NLM: $339,716,000 FY11 (PL)/$336,733,000 (Conf) vs $338,278,000 FY12
NCATS: $0 FY11 vs $576,456,000 FY12 ($10M for CAN, $487,767,000 for CTSA, rest for other NCRR programs)
OD: $1,177,300,000 FY11 (PL)/$1,166,963,000 (Conf) ($544,109,000 for Common Fund) vs $1,461,880,000 ($545,962,000 for Common Fund)
Buildings and facilities: $100,000,000 FY11 vs $125,581,000 FY12
If anything changes in the language of the final bill signed into law, I will update this post accordingly.
In the meantime, the Conference Report includes a few other items of interest:
- The conferees affirm the critical importance o f new and competing RPGs to the mission of NIH and are concerned that in the past few years, NIH has failed to support the number of new, competing RPGs that it estimated
would be awarded in its annual congressional budget justifications. - NIH should also establish safeguards to ensure the percentage of funds used to support basic research across NIH is maintained.
- While the conferees welcome the creation of NCATS, they were disappointed by the way the administration requested it. The President’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2012 included a vague description of NCATS but did not formally request funding for the restructuring or provide any details about which components of NIH would be consolidated into the new Center. The failure to do so caused unnecessary uncertainty about the proposal and contributed to the impression that it was being rushed. The conferees are also aware of concerns that the NIH process for evaluating the merits ofthe NCATS reorganization did not comply with the NIH Reform Act of 2006 with respect to the role of the Scientific SMRB.
- Lessons learned with NCATS should guide NIH as it considers another proposed restructuring, one that would involve consolidating NIDA, NIAAA and components of other ICs into a new Institute devoted to research on substance use, abuse and addiction. The conferees understand that NIH plans to adopt a more deliberate approach in evaluating the need for this Institute. The conferees strongly recommend that this approach should include full consideration by the SMRB and that if the administration ultimately decides to seek such a restructuring, it should provide sufficient details in a formal budget request to Congress.
NSF Program Announcements for Oncology & Health Services Research
12.2.11 by Michelle Kienholz
So, whether they are feeling flush or a need to diversify further into the health sciences (e.g, PAR-10-141 and 142 and PAR-11-203), the NSF just released two interesting program announcements, Physical and Engineering Sciences in Oncology in partnership with NCI (Office of Physical Sciences-Oncology) and Advancing Health Services through System Modeling Research in partnership with AHRQ (Health Information Technology). However, neither the Biological Sciences Directorate nor the Divsions of Chemistry or Physics are participating in any of these initiatives.
The NSF also just released a new report, Rebuilding the Mosaic, on its priorities for social science research. Hot topics include population change, sources of disparity, communication-language-linguistics, and technology-new media-social networks.
Budget Update … Good News For NSF (& their CREATIV use of these funds …)
11.18.11 by Michelle Kienholz
Today the President should sign legislation continuing the CR through December 16 and … miracle of miracles … establish the FY12 appropriations for several federal agencies, including the NSF (p 246-249). In a burst of generosity, both chambers agreed on a 2.5% increase for the NSF (whereas previously, neither had).
Interesting … but even more interesting is a new mechanism through which the NSF will distribute some of this taxpayer largess: the CREATIV means to by-pass external peer review. Of course, this $24M initiative has a contorted name to achieve his acronym … Creative Research Awards for Transformative Interdisciplinary Ventures … for which the distinguishing characteristics are that “only internal merit review is required; proposals must be interdisciplinary and potentially transformative; and requests may be up to $1,000,000 and up to 5 years duration.” You do need buy in from program directors in 2 distinct divisions or programs. Applications will start pouring in Dec 1.
Getting back to the larger budget issues, FY12 for the NIH remains an unknown beyond the 1.5% cut from FY11 in the CR. We’ll see what happens along the way to Dec 16. In the meantime, here is a recap of the budget process as part of a comment I posted in NIH Paylines & Resources that may help those new to government dysfunction:
The federal fiscal year goes from Oct 1 to Sept 30 … and the year attached to the FY is always the second calendar year involved. We are currently in FY12.
Long long ago, Congress used to pass appropriation bills for individual federal agencies (i.e., Defense, Energy, State, Agriculture, et al.) before the FY ended, so the agencies would know how much money they had to spend during the next fiscal year. If there are no appropriation bills passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (or if there are only a few passed into law) by Oct 1, then Congress needs to pass a continuing resolution (CR) to maintain funding for the operation of the federal government. When you hear about threats of a federal government shut-down, this is why – no appropriated funds, no money to continue functioning. Continuing resolutions typically simply maintain the same funding levels from the year prior. For this year, F12, Congress passed a CR that funded the NIH at FY11 funding levels *minus* 1.5%. So, the NIH started FY12 with a funding cut from FY11.
The NIH has a real problem this year in reading the tea leaves. The House and Senate have completely different versions of the appropriations bill for the NIH. The Senate cuts the NIH budget and authorizes the creation of NCATS and the abolishment of NCRR (which is what Collins wants). The House gives the NIH a 3.3% increase … but keeps NCRR and does not approve the creation of NCATS. The appropriate subcommitttees in each chamber have not made any progress (at least that they’ve made public) on which version of the NIH appropriations language to use. So, no one at the NIH has a clue – not one – as to whether their funding will go up or down as FY12 proceeds. Right now, they have to assume they will complete the entire FY at the current funding level, which is FY11 – 1.5%.
You got a problem with how this system is working? Contact your Congressional delegation about supporting scientific research in the US through consistent, reliable funding streams versus putting everyone through this game every year. FASEB can help you find and communicate with your elected officials.
SMRB Meeting October 26
10.21.11 by Michelle Kienholz
Remember our friends at the SMRB? The folks charged to advise the NIH Director on the use of organizational authorities? The Federal Register (and finally, today, so does their main Website) announced their meeting next on October 26th, which is open to the public and can be viewed via Webcast.
Let’s see. Since their last meeting in Feb, the Director has directed the planned dismantling and redistribution of NCRR programs, which in fact remained at NCRR under the CR … and would be permanently kept at NCRR according to the House draft (which also increases NIH funding) of the Labor, HHS, and Education appropriations bill … whereas the Senate version eliminates NCRR, establishes NCATS, and cuts the NIH appropriation.
The agenda for next Wednesday’s SMRB meeting is as follows:
-
9:00 AM Opening Remarks, Norman Augustin
9:15 AM Status of NIH Today and Looking to the Future, Francis Collins
9:45 AM Advancing Translational Sciences, Kathy Hudson
10:15 AM Discussion
10:45 AM Substance Use, Abuse, & Addiction Research, Lawrence Tabak
10:50 AM Discussion
11:00 AM Public Comments
11:30 AM NIH Clinical Center, Stephen Katz
12:00 PM Discussion
12:30 PM Public Comments
12:45 PM Lunch (nothing served via Webcast)
1:30 PM SBIR & STTR Programs at NIH, Sally Rockey
2:00 PM Charge to the SMRB, Francis Collins
2:10 PM Discussion
2:45 PM Next Steps, Norman Augustine
3:00 PM Adjournment
To sign up to make a public comment at the meeting, send your name and affiliation to Lyric Jorgenson, PhD by October 25, 2011 (you can submit a written comment to the same address).
We will see what advice on executing organizational authority comes forth next …
