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 …
NSF Broader Impacts Broadened
12.15.11 by Michelle Kienholz
UPDATE: According to Science Insider, in addition to not listing specific broader impacts, the NSB recommended in its report, NSF Merit Review Criteria: Review and Revisions, flexibility in how these are measured (and by whom):
NSB notes that assessing the effectiveness and impact of outcomes of these activities one project at a time may not be meaningful, particularly if the size of the activity is limited. Thus, assessing the effectiveness of activities designed to advance broader societal goals may best be done at a higher, more aggregated, level than the individual project. Large, campus-wide activities or aggregated activities of multiple PIs could lend themselves to assessment, which should be supported by NSF.
According to Mervis, the changes should be incorporated in the January 2013 version of the Grant Proposal Guide.
Last summer, NSF sought input on merit review criteria for intellectual merit and broader impacts. Nature News now reports that the task force assigned to tweaking these presented its final report, which “kept the wording for the two criteria essentially the same as before” (i.e., no list of specific activities), to the National Science Board, which is likely to approve the recommendations. Another good outcome: NSF Director Subra Suresh indicated that “One thing that remains to be done is finding the right balance in shouldering the responsibility of broader impacts between principal investigator and institution.” Here-here.
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.
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}.
Peer Review Survey
10.19.10 by Michelle Kienholz
The Comparative Assessment of Peer Review (who knew?), an NSF-funded project of the Center for the Study of Interdisciplinarity (who knew?) at the University of North Texas, has an online survey that you are all invited (and encouraged) to complete. The CAPR “examines the peer review process at 6 science agencies worldwide: NSF, NIH, NOAA, NSERC, the EU’s 7th Framework Programme, and the Dutch STW.”
Probably not entirely what you might expect, but still an interesting thought exercise with plenty of opportunity to enter free-text comments and input.
The project is also creating a digital repository for the aforementioned science agencies (the sorts of program & policy documents not easily found in one place) and examining the broader impacts criteria for NSF-funded research (other than their own).
And, speaking of peer review & broader impacts, for those of you familiar with the Rocket Boys story (and even more so for those of you who are not familiar with it!), I think you’ll enjoy this adorable little (3’32″) video from the NIH.
NSF Budget Holding Its Own
07.29.10 by Michelle Kienholz
According to Jeff Mervis in Science today,
Last week, a Senate committee declared the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) to be “the finest science foundation in the world.”
Nice. Even nicer is the Senate appropriations committee giving the Foundation a 6.2% budget boost over FY10 levels. And even nicer was the House counterpart recommending the entire 7.2% increase requested by the Administration, for an NSF FY11 budget of $7.4 billion.
Of course, who knows when appropriations bills will be signed and what might happen in the meantime, but I’m glad the NSF is starting out from a good position at least. The new broader impact criteria, I’m less excited about …
Broader Impact of the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010
06.1.10 by Michelle Kienholz
As nicely summarized by Jeffrey Mervis in ScienceInsider, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (H.R.5116) has passed the House on its third attempt. The Senate still needs to take up the measure, and then any differences would need to be reconciled. While this bill authorizes $84 billion for research, education, and other programs over the next 5 years at the NSF (which gets $40B), the Department of Energy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, another less welcome bit of NSF authorization is include. Namely, the new Broader Impact review criteria:
SEC. 214. BROADER IMPACTS REVIEW CRITERION.
(a) Goals- The Foundation shall apply a Broader Impacts Review Criterion to achieve the following goals:
(1) Increased economic competitiveness of the United States.
(2) Development of a globally competitive STEM workforce.
(3) Increased participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM.
(4) Increased partnerships between academia and industry.
(5) Improved pre-K-12 STEM education and teacher development.
(6) Improved undergraduate STEM education.
(7) Increased public scientific literacy.
(8) Increased national security.
(b) Policy- Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall develop and implement a policy for the Broader Impacts Review Criterion that–
(1) provides for educating professional staff at the Foundation, merit review panels, and applicants for Foundation research grants on the policy developed under this subsection;
(2) clarifies that the activities of grant recipients undertaken to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion shall–
(A) to the extent practicable employ proven strategies and models and draw on existing programs and activities; and
(B) when novel approaches are justified, build on the most current research results;
(3) allows for some portion of funds allocated to broader impacts under a research grant to be used for assessment and evaluation of the broader impacts activity;
(4) encourages institutions of higher education and other nonprofit education or research organizations to develop and provide, either as individual institutions or in partnerships thereof, appropriate training and programs to assist Foundation-funded principal investigators at their institutions in achieving the goals of the Broader Impacts Review Criterion as described in subsection (a); and
(5) requires principal investigators applying for Foundation research grants to provide evidence of institutional support for the portion of the investigator’s proposal designed to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion, including evidence of relevant training, programs, and other institutional resources available to the investigator from either their home institution or organization or another institution or organization with relevant expertise.
Actually, the new first and eighth goals are not far off from the NSF’s original intent: “The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 ‘to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense’ ” Who knew?
Nature’s Corie Lok recently took a look at the NSF’s broader impact requirement, which began in 1997 (and started to be enforced in 2002), though this was based on prior NSF criteria. Even so …
Many NSF-funded researchers find the foundation’s definition of broader impacts to be, perhaps unsurprisingly, broad, and frustratingly vague. …
Because it lacks conceptual clarity, the broader-impacts requirement often leaves researchers unsure about what to include in their proposals, and leads to inconsistencies in how reviewers evaluate applications. …
To make matters worse, the NSF has made little attempt to systematically track how its broader-impacts requirements are being met, or how much grant money is being spent in the process. Nor does it have a system in place to evaluate the effectiveness of the various projects.
Indeed, how does one track the impact of individual NSF-funded investigators on achieving the new first and eighth goals (increased economic competitiveness and national security)? It seems, at least, help may be on the way:
In March, the NSF’s oversight body, the National Science Board, launched a task force to examine how broader impacts can be improved. Chaired by Alan Leshner, chief executive of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington DC, the task force is not expected to make its recommendations until 2011.
Perhaps the task force will concur with suggestions that remove the burden of broader impacts from individual investigators:
Yet such ideas lead to a more fundamental question. Is having every principal investigator working individually on broader impacts for which many are inexperienced and untrained the most efficient way of achieving the maximum effect?
Some scholars say no. In a paper published last year, Warren Burggren, a biologist and dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at the University of North Texas in Denton, writes that the job of implementing broader impacts should fall to the researcher’s institution, not to the researcher him or herself. The institution, be it college, department or centre, would pool a portion of the NSF grants obtained by its members and hire the professionals needed to broaden impacts effectively. Scientists should still be involved, but the coordination would happen at the institutional level. “I think it will be more efficient, because you’ve got people doing what they’re trained for,” says Burggren.
Another idea, suggested by Barry Bozeman, a science-policy expert at the University of Georgia in Athens, is for the NSF to create specific research programmes with strong broader-impact goals around areas in which the effects are important and obvious, such as climate change. Bozeman says that the NSF is already following this strategy with awards that, for example, promote the recruitment and retention of women in academic science.
Imagine that … having everyone concentrate on doing what they’re trained to do … talk about making America competitive in science again.
NIH & NSF Entering a New Line of Business
05.13.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Funding it, that is, as part of the new i6 Challenge.
I couldn’t possibly describe this program better than the full announcement:
The i6 Challenge is a new, multi-agency innovation competition led by the U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and its Economic Development Administration (EDA). The DOC and EDA will coordinate this funding opportunity with the NIH, the NSF, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to leverage federal resources and maximize available funding to i6 Challenge winners.
The i6 Challenge is designed to encourage and reward innovative, ground-breaking ideas that will accelerate technology commercialization and new venture formation across the United States, for the ultimate purpose of helping to drive economic growth and job creation.
To accomplish this, the i6 Challenge targets sections of the research-to-deployment continuum that are in need of additional support, in order to strengthen regional innovation ecosystems. Applicants to the i6 Challenge are expected to propose mechanisms to fill in existing gaps in the continuum or leverage existing infrastructure and institutions, such as economic development organizations, academic institutions, or other non-profit organizations, in new and innovative ways to achieve the i6 objectives.
Applicants are also expected to leverage regional strengths, capabilities, and competitive advantages. Furthermore, they are expected to identify a real or persistent problem or an unaddressed opportunity with a sense of urgency, cultivate strong public-private partnerships, provide a credible plan to access resources, demonstrate how the effort will be sustained, and bring together a well-qualified team and partners.
EDA intends to fund implementation grants for technical assistance through its Economic Adjustment Assistance Program under the i6 Challenge.
EDA will make at least 6 awards of up to $1M – one in each of its 6 regions. EDA can only fund proposals in an area that, on the date of application, meets one (or more) of the following economic distress criteria: 1. An unemployment rate that is, for the most recent 24-month period for which data are available, at least one percentage point greater than the national average unemployment rate; 2. Per capita income that is, for the most recent period for which data are available, 80% or less of the national average per capita income; or 3. Has a Special Need, as determined by EDA.
Successful Applicants who are NIH SBIR Grantees with an active SBIR grant as of October 2010 are eligible for up to $500K in supplemental awards.
Successful Applicants who are NSF SBIR Grantees with an active SBIR grant as of July 15, 2010 are eligible for up to $100K (individual) to $500K (collective) in supplemental awards.
USPTO will provide customized intellectual property seminars to entrepreneurs and innovators associated with the winning Applicants.
Applicants must demonstrate a Matching Share of at least $500K, which must be available and committed to the project from non-federal sources. EDA will give preference to applications with higher Matching Shares and to applications with higher levels of cash contributions in their Matching Share.
Strongly recommended letters of intent are due June 15th – full applications due July 15th.
Questions? I can’t imagine … but there will be a conference call on Monday, May 17, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. EDT.
NSF Authorization Bill
04.15.10 by Michelle Kienholz
The good news is that the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R.4997), introduced this week by Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), authorizes budgets of $8.22B for FY11, $8.93B for FY12, $9.56B for FY13, $10.11B for FY14, and $10.70B for FY15. Each FY total is broken down into amounts authorized for research and research-related activities, education and human resources, major equipment and facilities, agency operations and award management, National Science Board, and Inspector General. (Here is what NSF requested.)
The Bill includes a few other spending caveats, starting with an emphasis on “potentially transformative research”:
The Director shall establish a policy that requires the Foundation to use at least 5% of its research budget [not including equipment & facilities funds] to fund basic, high-risk, high-reward research proposals. … the term high-risk, high-reward research means research driven by ideas that have the potential to radically change our understanding of an important existing scientific or engineering concept, or leading to the creation of a new paradigm or field of science or engineering, and that is characterized by its challenge to current understanding or its pathway to new frontiers.
Congress is also pushing for more collaborative research at NSF … or maybe one or two particular collaborative arrangements, given the level of detail and funding:
The Director shall award competitive, merit-based awards in amounts not to exceed $5,000,000 over a period of up to 5 years to interdisciplinary research collaborations that are likely to assist in addressing critical challenges to national security, competitiveness, and societal well-being and that (1) involve at least 2 co-equal principal investigators at the same or different institutions; (2) draw upon well-integrated, diverse teams of investigators, including students or postdoctoral researchers, from one or more disciplines; and (3) foster creativity and pursue high-risk, high-reward research. In selecting grant recipients under this section, the Director shall give priority to applicants that propose to use advances in cyberinfrastructure and simulation-based science engineering.
Well then. I guess earmarkish directives aren’t quite dead.
Universities are also sought to inject life into US manufacturing:
The Director shall carry out a program to award merit-reviewed, competitive grants to institutions of higher education to support fundamental research leading to transformative advances in manufacturing technologies, processes, and enterprises that will support United States manufacturing through improved performance, productivity, sustainability, and competitiveness. Research areas may include (1) nanomanufacturing; (2) manufacturing and construction machines and equipment, including robotics, automation, and other intelligent systems; (3) manufacturing enterprise systems; (4) advanced sensing and control techniques; (5) materials processing; and (6) information technologies for manufacturing, including predictive and real-time models and simulations, and virtual manufacturing.
Virtual manufacturing. Who knew? There is more language about funding for partnerships with minority-serving institutions, mid-scale research equipment, and a big emphasis on education in STEM (bill focuses on grad students and postdocs).
Of possible interest to anyone seeking NSF funding is the language on “Broader Impacts” and its review criterion. First, why Congress thinks this is important:
The Foundation shall apply a Broader Impacts Review Criterion to achieve the following goals:
(1) Increased economic competitiveness of the United States.
(2) Development of a globally competitive STEM workforce.
(3) Increased participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM.
(4) Increased partnerships between academia and industry.
(5) Improved K-12 STEM education and teacher development.
(6) Improved undergraduate STEM education.
(7) Increased public scientific literacy.
(8) Increased national security.
National security? What happened to, “How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning?”
Then the Bill lays out the policy changes (versus current guidance) NSF should implement:
(b) POLICY.Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall develop and implement a policy for the Broader Impacts Review Criterion that
(1) provides for educating professional staff at the Foundation, merit review panels, and applicants for Foundation research grants on the policy developed under this subsection;
(2) clarifies that the activities of grant recipients undertaken to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion shall (A) to the extent practicable employ proven strategies and models and draw on existing programs and activities; and (B) when novel approaches are justified, build on the most current research results;
(3) allows for some portion of funds allocated to broader impacts under a research grant to be used for assessment and evaluation of the broader impacts activity;
(4) encourages institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations to develop and provide, either as individual institutions or in partnerships thereof, appropriate training and programs to assist Foundation-funded principal investigators at their institutions in achieving the goals of the Broader Impacts Review Criterion as described in subsection (a); and
(5) requires principal investigators applying for Foundation research grants to provide evidence of institutional support for the portion of the investigators proposal designed to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion, including evidence of relevant training, programs, and other institutional resources available to the investigator from either their home institution or organization or another institution or organization with relevant expertise.
Hmm. And the broader impact on NSF grant applications will be …
