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}.
New Investigator Rapid Resubmission Period Extended
03.23.11 by Michelle Kienholz
Per a Notice released today, new and ESI applicants will now have an extra couple of weeks to prepare their A1 submission in time to make the next review cycle. Previously, they needed to resubmit by the 20th of the month in which they typically received their summary statement, and now they have until the 10th of the next month, which should offer a little more breathing room for both the SROs and the applicants. For each cycle, the timing would look like this:
|
Due date for New R01 (A0) application |
Study Section Meeting Window |
Summary Statement Release |
Due Date for Next Round Resubmission (A1) |
|
February 5 |
May/June/July |
July 10 |
August 10 |
|
June 5 |
Sept/Oct/Nov |
November 10 |
December 10 |
|
October 5 |
Jan/Feb/March |
March 10 |
April 10 |
As a reminder, this only applies to R01 applications (no other mechanisms) and only to applications submitted for one of the standard deadlines (applications submitted in response to RFAs and PARs with special deadlines do not fall under this policy).
And as the Notice helpfully concludes,
New Investigators are encouraged to consult with officials at their institution and the NIH Program Director assigned to their application (identified on the summary statement) [aka PO or program officer] in making the decision on whether to utilize this option.
Embracing Responsibility for NIH Reorganization
03.21.11 by Michelle Kienholz
A recent editorial in Nature presents a rather different slant on the NCRR-NCATS situation at the NIH than has been portrayed previously in their various news, commentary, and blog pieces. For example:
The process to set up the centre, with an initial budget of more than US$600 million, has certainly been hasty, and has by its nature alienated a significant element of the NIH-funded community. But Collins is right to seek to accomplish quickly what otherwise threatens to become a drawn-out and even more disruptive period of necessary change. Band-Aids are best torn off quickly.
Band-Aids? What Band-Aids? The NCRR was functioning at the peak of health, and the other ICs are funding billions of dollars in translational research. What has alienated the NIH and the NIH-funded community is the unscientific, non-transparent, and one-sided approach to making decisions. Which, the editorialist in fact noted:
In what can only be termed an executive decision, taken quickly in December and presented to the NIH community effectively as a fait accompli, Collins wants to dismantle the remaining 60% of the NCRR and move its programmes elsewhere …
The move to dismantle NCRR was indeed a calculated executive decision to bypass the SMRB and the rest of the NIH intra- and extra-mural communities.
The editorial moves on to mention a few of the concerns associated with these maneuvers:
It is certainly risky to dismember a $1.3-billion centre and scatter its programmes without the months of analysis that, for instance, went into the decision to create a new addictions institute at the NIH in 2013. And grant recipients of NCRR-supported programmes have been forced to settle for verbal promises from Collins that the money, staff and commitment will remain unchanged in their new institutional homes. In dire budget times for the agency, such assurances are understandably cold comfort. The new NCATS will also take tremendous institutional investment to make it work, far more than is reducible to dollars and cents. The learning curve for all involved will be steep.
The rationale given for this haste is worrisome:
What’s more, he has reason to hurry. It is entirely possible that he will be out of a job 18 months from now if Republicans capture the White House in next year’s presidential election.
Surely if this is so obviously the right thing to do and the right time to do it, the next NIH Director could be trusted to continue the process at a reasonable pace. Is by-passing the SMRB and its intended role as well as any careful analysis and thoughtful planning worth the trade-off of having Collins preside over the ribbon-cutting ceremony?
Oddly, the editorial names someone never previously mentioned in conjunction with these organizational changes, someone not involved with the SMRB:
It’s worth noting, too, that the new ‘infrastructure entity’ in his office will be overseen by James Anderson, a thoughtful manager with a reputation for being smart, effective and organized — and with a keen eye for checking that programmes are well run.
I am somewhat surprised that the editors of a British science journal are so attuned to program administrators buried in NIH bureaucracy. Or that the new a newly appointed division director already has such a strong track record of success. Anderson arrived last fall to direct the Division of Program Coordination, Planning, and Strategic Initiatives (formerly known as OPASI). How the editors at Nature knew about his key role in overseeing the remnants of NCRR is a bit of a mystery. Perhaps ghostly.
Those on the NCRR Task Force might have worked out on paper where the “programs” go, but how much thought has been given to the logistics of the actual transition, especially if the personnel with years of experience managing these complicated programs do not move along with them? Then there is the issue of managing funding announcements and applications during the transition, which could be especially tricky for construction mechanisms.
The National Advisory Research Resources Council expressed their frustrations with regard to lack of consideration of these and other issues in their public comment to the SMRB:
The process undertaken over these past months leading to the decision to eliminate NCRR was rushed and excluded members of the affected scientific community, the NCRR leadership, and the NCRR advisory council from any input into the process. Congress and the public expect and deserve, among other things, transparency, stakeholder input, meaningful deliberation and consideration, and importantly, analysis of impact and consequences before the fact, not after decisions have been made. This is essential to ensure continued public trust.
The mission of the NCRR is unique at the NIH, providing flexibility and independence not easily available in categorical ICs. Its programs contribute substantially to ICs that provide extramural funding. The outcry from the research community following announcement of the intention to eliminate NCRR and to reassign its programs to other ICs should be considered in a meaningful way. …
We strongly urge the SMRB and Office of the Director to delay any further decisions based on the recommendation to eliminate NCRR and to delay any reassignment of NCRR programs. Proposed changes to existing NCRR programs must involve further open discussion with the scientific community, as well as the other NIH ICs. We see no scientific justification for rushing these decisions in order to complete the reorganization prior to October 1, 2011.
Clearly the SMRB has never had any role in this, and the Office of the Director is, in light of the editorial observation above, concerned more with short-term legacy than long-term planning. Congress, however, could still have something to say since NCATS will need to be specifically written into the first CR for FY12 (in light of the current debate ongoing for FY11, we clearly will not have any appropriation bills passed before Oct 1), and NCRR will need to be specifically written out of it.
NIH Funding Data Recap by FASEB
03.14.11 by Michelle Kienholz
When H.R. 1 imposed a $1.6B-cut in the NIH budget, FASEB quickly sent out a press release and analysis of NIH funding trends. Among the findings highlighted in their statement:
- Over the past 6 years, the number of research project grants funded by NIH has declined in almost every year, and we now fund 2,000 fewer grants than in FY2004
- NIH made 9,455 competing (new and renewed) awards in FY2010, 1,000 fewer than in FY2003
- Success rates have fallen more than 10 percentage points in the past decade
- Success rates for new (type 1) applications have fallen for 3 straight years and are now at 17%
Some specific slides that may be of interest …
You can also monitor these sorts of data at the NIH Funding Facts Website.
Collins to Discuss NCATS
03.10.11 by Michelle Kienholz
with “patient advocacy groups, medical research foundations and other stakeholders of the medical research system.”
An hour-long Webinar sponsored by FasterCures is scheduled for Wednesday, March 16th, starting at 4 p.m. EDT; registration is required and limited.
As Collins says on the Feedback site:
Next week I will speak to the community about my vision for NCATS on a webinar hosted by the nonprofit organization FasterCures. I will be joining Margaret Anderson, the Executive Director of FasterCures, who will moderate a question and answer period following my talk. Please join me and have your questions ready.
Please do.
More on the Impact-Criterion Score Correlation
03.8.11 by Michelle Kienholz
This time by Sally Rockey on Rock Talk.
Jeremy Berg introduced the concept of correlating overall impact score with the individual criterion scores, first using NIGMS and then NIH-wide data.
Based on the 32,546 applications (of 54,727 submitted) that received overall impact scores in FY10, OER played with the numbers a bit more but came up with the same conclusions: Approach and then Significance drive Overall Impact scores.
For applications receiving numerical impact scores (about 60% of the total), we used multiple regression to create a descriptive model to predict impact scores using the applications’ criterion scores, while attempting to control for ten different “institutional” factors (e.g., whether the application was new, a renewal, or a resubmission). In the model, scores for the approach criterion had the largest regression weight, followed by criterion scores for significance, innovation, investigator, and environment. The same pattern of results was observed across multiple rounds of peer review and institute funding decisions.
She also notes, as can be seen in her figure, that scores for Approach showed the widest range, followed by Significance.
So, the work you propose doing better be important … and, more importantly, better be done right.
Input sought on …
03.3.11 by Michelle Kienholz
… the NIH Early Independence Award, which, at least in its initial FOA, provides $250K DC per year for 5 years to grad students so they can skip the postdoc period and immediately become independent faculty researchers. An interesting report on how to structure this program presents some alternative models and considers existing successful programs (e.g., Carnegie, Whitehead, Janelia Farm, RWJF, etc.). According to the RFI Notice, you have until March 18 to chime in. I wonder if we can comment on the rather unusual image the NIH Director has selected to represent this program.
… and the planned transfer of NCRR programs to NIGMS by Jeremy Berg at the Feedback Loop. Congress still has time to recognize this might not be the best use of taxpayer dollars, but in the absence of a sudden burst of clear thinking, the reorganization will move forward, and Director Berg would genuinely appreciate feedback from the key constituency (namely, the extramural research community the NCRR serves … served). Reflections on the whole process and what this might portend for the NIH more broadly would likely be welcome as well.
