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
12.18.11 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 …
CSR Gets its Own Council
04.29.11 by Michelle Kienholz
As of March 31st and as recently announced, CSR has its own Advisory Council, the CSRAC, whose chartered mission is to “advise the Director … concerning matters of policy and practice pertaining to monitoring of, coordination of, and evaluation of peer review at CSR.” The CSRAC will be “keenly focused on enhancing CSR’s operations.” Notice there is no mention of approving applications for funding. Study sections still do not fund grants.
The CSRAC replaces the PRAC (Peer Review Advisory Committee), which was established in 2005 to provide “technical and scientific advice and recommendations to the NIH Director, the Deputy Director for Extramural Research, and the Director of CSR on matters relating broadly to review procedures and policies for the evaluation of scientific and technical merit of applications for grants and awards.” PRAC held its last meeting on Feb 1, 2010, when it discussed peer review pilot projects, study section realignments, the ESI initiative, and electronic submissions.
Some PRAC members will continue on the CSRAC (Garret Fitzgerald, Penn; Heidi Hamm, Vanderbilt; Peter MacLeish, Morehouse; Andrew Murray, Harvard), and two CSRAC members come from the ACD Working Group on Peer Review (which was active during the Enhancing Peer Review initiative): co-Chair Keith Yamamoto (UCSF) and Bruce Alberts (UCSF and editor-in-chief of Science).
Of course, continuous review of peer review occurs at OER, where you can also learn more about peer review policies and practices. CSR itself offers resources for applicants and for reviewers.
Collins to Honor NCRR as the NIH’s “Healthiest” IC on Take a Hike Day!
04.22.11 by Michelle Kienholz
It’s true …
The Office of Research Services is proud to announce that the NCRR is the winner of the 2010 NIH President’s Challenge.
The NCRR bested two-time defending champion, NIDCD, with the highest average point total per employee. …
Thus, the NCRR is now the “Healthiest” Institute/Center at NIH!
… Dr. Collins awards the trophy to NCRR at the 4th annual Take a Hike Day on Thursday May 11, 2011 at 11:30 AM on the steps of Building 1.
“Project not congruent with program objectives”
04.20.11 by Michelle Kienholz
Having never heard of an application being labeled as such, I thought I would pull this comment out from NIH Paylines and Resources for broader dissemination and consideration:
Colleague got rejection email from NCI (NI/ESI) with 14% – “project not congruent with program objectives” – yikes.
Well then. Thank you for accepting primary assignment. Thank you for wasting the time and effort of the applicant and the SRG. Thank you for discouraging this ESI/NI. With Varmus’s new approach to cherry-picking awards above the 10th percentile (for ESI/NI), I can understand a 14th percentile being passed up if it fell in an area already well funded or outside a current high-priority topic of investigation or in the pile of a PO with lesser lobbying skills (or too many exceptional applications) etc. … and perhaps this was the intended meaning … but the statement as worded suggests the research focus was beyond the scope of the program that accepted the application, and it is certainly not useful in conveying to the PI how he/she could make 14th percentile science more relevant to program. I think Enhancing Peer Review needs to go back to school on this one, especially if such categories of rejection are likely to become more commonplace in a time of dwindling budgets.
Limping Toward FY11 Appropriations
04.12.11 by Michelle Kienholz
With ~5.5 months left in the fiscal year, we now know how much the NIH et al. will have in the piggy bank. Here is text from the final appropriations bill for FY11 related to the NIH (available at Thomas as H.R. 1473):
TITLE I–GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 1101. (a) Such amounts as may be necessary, at the level specified in subsection (c) and under the authority and conditions provided in applicable appropriations Acts for fiscal year 2010, for projects or activities (including the costs of direct loans and loan guarantees) that are not otherwise specifically provided for, and for which appropriations, funds, or other authority were made available in the following appropriations Acts:
(1) The Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-80).
(2) The Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-85).
(3) The Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-83).
(4) The Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010 (division A of Public Law 111-88).
(5) The Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2010 (division A of Public Law 111-68).
(6) The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-117).
(7) Section 102(c) (except the last proviso relating to waiver of fees) of chapter 1 of title I of the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010 (Public Law 111-212) that addresses guaranteed loans in the rural housing insurance fund.
…
Sec. 1812. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ shall be $4,818,275,000, and the requirement under `National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ in division D of Public Law 111-117 for a transfer from Biodefense Countermeasures funds shall not apply.
Sec. 1813. The amount provided by section 1101 for `Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health’ is reduced by $210,000,000, through a pro rata reduction in all of the Institutes, Centers, and Office of the Director accounts within `Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health’ based on the total funding provided.
Sec. 1814. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, Buildings and Facilities’ shall be $50,000,000.
And at the NSF:
Sec. 1317. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `National Science Foundation, Research and Related Activities’ shall be $5,575,025,000 {$5,617,920,000 in Public Law 111-117}.
Sec. 1318. Notwithstanding section 1101, the level for `National Science Foundation, Education and Human Resources’ shall be $862,760,000 {$872,760,000 in Public Law 111-117}.
