FundScience Funding Opportunity … & Leave of Absence
03.5.10 by Michelle Kienholz
For the next 10 days, writedit will be electronically untethered and unavailable to monitor queries, comments, etc. … have fun during this unchaperoned spell … but not too much, and try not to trash the place.
Okay – FundScience.
On March 1, FundScience began accepting applications for funding of up to $50K. The deadline for submissions (electronic, at the Website) is April 1, 2010. No joke.
Using expert reviewers (3 per application – you can suggest up to 5 names for reviewers), they will select the 3 best applications that qualify for “up to $50,000 funded and facilitated by FundScience” plus potential access to Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center resources.
Although the press release is a bit short on details, a FAQ lays out a few topical priorities (though opening Website indicates any topic is fair game), preferred applicant status (graduate students are especially encouraged to apply), and help on the application process. Where the $50K comes from is not typical of extramural sponsors:
Each sponsored project will feature a dedicated webpage with an option for visitors to donate to the project. We will market all projects as well as help and encourage you to market the project yourself. The collected funds will be distributed through the affiliated university directly for the use of the project. In return we ask that you update the community on your progress and successes.
You’ll need to register to apply, but the application process is not burdensome … unless, perhaps, you aren’t used to writing a “sales pitch” for your science.
Have fun with FundScience.
ARRA Pathfinder Opportunity
03.5.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Not quite hiking the Appalachian Trail …
The NIH Director’s ARRA Funded Pathfinder Award to Promote Diversity in the Scientific Workforce (DP4)
LOI: April 5, 2010
Application: May 4, 2010
Total costs for 3-year project may not exceed $2M – up to 5 awards to be made
This new FOA introduces a new research grant program to encourage exceptionally creative individual scientists to develop highly innovative and possibly transforming approaches for promoting diversity within the biomedical research workforce. To be considered highly innovative, the proposed research must reflect ideas substantially different from those already being pursued or it must apply existing research designs in new and innovative ways to unambiguously identify factors that will improve the retention of students, postdocs and faculty from diverse backgrounds. Awardees must commit a major portion (generally 30% or more) of their research effort to activities supported by the Director’s Pathfinder Award and the proposed research must be endorsed by the highest levels of institutional management.
Letters of reference are an important component of the Director’s Pathfinder application. Applicants must arrange to have 3 (and no more than 3) letters of reference submitted on their behalf.
Description of no more than 1 page of the applicant’s single most significant publication or research accomplishment. Applicants should submit one single accomplishment, not a summary of several accomplishments, multiple publications, or background narratives. Publications or other documents will not be accepted.
In 6 pages maximum (Research Strategy upload), describe the applicant’s innovative vision for addressing diversity within the biomedical research workforce, the importance of this problem on an institutional and a national level, and the applicant’s qualifications to engage in groundbreaking research related to workforce diversity. No detailed scientific plan should be provided since the research plan is expected to evolve during the tenure of the grant. The essay should include the following sections in the order given: Science Area, Project description, Evidence of innovativeness, How does the planned research differ from your past or current work, Suitability for Director’s Pathfinder program
References are not required but if included must fit within the 6-page limit. Figures and illustrations may be included but must also fit within the 6-page limit.
Include a biosketch only for the PI. Do not submit biosketches for other senior/key personnel.
Cover Letters should not be included unless related to an application which was corrected during the two day checking period after submission in grant.gov
PO:
Clifton Poodry, PhD
Division of Minority Opportunities in Research, NIGMS
Telephone: (301) 594-3900
Email: poodryc@nigms.nih.gov
Go forth and find the path with the greatest diversity …
One that Won’t Make it to ORI
03.4.10 by Michelle Kienholz
A colleague from a prior institution alerted me to this unusual case of a scientist behaving badly.
In September 2004, Dr. William Fals-Stewart (University at Buffalo and Research Institute on Addictions) was accused of fabricating data in NIDA-funded studies; there were discrepancies between the number of subjects reported on progress reports and the actual number of consent forms signed. In December,
a University at Buffalo Inquiry Panel found the data fabrication charges to be warranted and recommended a formal investigation be undertaken.
At that point, this could almost have just been an accounting error that needed to be clarified, but probably a bit more as Fals-Stewart was apparently pressured to leave the University in 2005. And clearly there was serious fabrication of one at least one according to a news release from NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo:
… during a subsequent formal investigation launched by the University, three witnesses testified by telephone because Fals-Stewart claimed they were out of town. In reality, they were actors who thought they were taking part in a mock-trial. Fals-Stewart paid the actors to testify. He also provided them with scripts to use during the proceedings that were riddled with inaccuracies regarding his research. Fals-Stewart told the three actors, who he had hired before for legitimate training videos, that they would be performing in a mock trial training exercise. They were not aware that they were testifying at a real administrative hearing, nor did they know they were impersonating real people. Because of these false testimonies, Fals-Stewart was exonerated at the administrative hearing.
Claiming that the misconduct allegations tarnished his reputation, Fals-Stewart sued the University, seeking $4 million from the state in damages. The Office of the Attorney General, in its role of defending the University and the state in the court action, conducted a thorough investigation of the claims against the University. It was during this investigation that Cuomo’s office discovered the alleged fraud, forced Fals-Stewart to withdraw his lawsuit and initiated a criminal investigation.
Fals-Stewart was arrested February 16th on multiple felony charges (attempted grand larceny, perjury, identity theft, offering a false instrument and falsifying business records) … and was found dead at his home on February 23rd. Cause of death, after autopsy but probably not all toxicology results, remains unknown (or unreported). The Buffalo News suggests he may have been ill in recent years.
But wait, there’s more. Between 2005 and 2010, Fals-Stewart was not idle. According to the University of Rochester Campus Times:
After leaving UB, Fals-Stewart worked at Research Park Triangle in North Carolina before coming to UR, where he was hired as a professor at the School of Nursing in 2007.
He resigned in November 2009, and in January he filed against UR in the State Supreme Court, claiming that he should have been granting tenure at the University.
I assume the Campus Times means he thinks he should have been granted tenure versus doing the granting … fortunately, his response to denial of tenure did not inflict tragedy on others.
One that Won’t Make it to ORI
03.4.10 by Michelle Kienholz
A colleague from a prior institution alerted me to this unusual case of a scientist behaving badly.
In September 2004, Dr. William Fals-Stewart (University at Buffalo and Research Institute on Addictions) was accused of fabricating data in NIDA-funded studies; there were discrepancies between the number of subjects reported on progress reports and the actual number of consent forms signed. In December,
a University at Buffalo Inquiry Panel found the data fabrication charges to be warranted and recommended a formal investigation be undertaken.
At that point, this could almost have just been an accounting error that needed to be clarified, but probably a bit more as Fals-Stewart was apparently pressured to leave the University in 2005. And clearly there was serious fabrication of one at least one according to a news release from NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo:
… during a subsequent formal investigation launched by the University, three witnesses testified by telephone because Fals-Stewart claimed they were out of town. In reality, they were actors who thought they were taking part in a mock-trial. Fals-Stewart paid the actors to testify. He also provided them with scripts to use during the proceedings that were riddled with inaccuracies regarding his research. Fals-Stewart told the three actors, who he had hired before for legitimate training videos, that they would be performing in a mock trial training exercise. They were not aware that they were testifying at a real administrative hearing, nor did they know they were impersonating real people. Because of these false testimonies, Fals-Stewart was exonerated at the administrative hearing.
Claiming that the misconduct allegations tarnished his reputation, Fals-Stewart sued the University, seeking $4 million from the state in damages. The Office of the Attorney General, in its role of defending the University and the state in the court action, conducted a thorough investigation of the claims against the University. It was during this investigation that Cuomo’s office discovered the alleged fraud, forced Fals-Stewart to withdraw his lawsuit and initiated a criminal investigation.
Fals-Stewart was arrested February 16th on multiple felony charges (attempted grand larceny, perjury, identity theft, offering a false instrument and falsifying business records) … and was found dead at his home on February 23rd. Cause of death, after autopsy but probably not all toxicology results, remains unknown (or unreported). The Buffalo News suggests he may have been ill in recent years.
But wait, there’s more. Between 2005 and 2010, Fals-Stewart was not idle. According to the University of Rochester Campus Times:
After leaving UB, Fals-Stewart worked at Research Park Triangle in North Carolina before coming to UR, where he was hired as a professor at the School of Nursing in 2007.
He resigned in November 2009, and in January he filed against UR in the State Supreme Court, claiming that he should have been granting tenure at the University.
I assume the Campus Times means he thinks he should have been granted tenure versus doing the granting … fortunately, his response to denial of tenure did not inflict tragedy on others.
OpenNSF Dialogue Now Open for Discussion
03.2.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Quite simply, an open invitation from the NSF to the scientific community:
NSF is developing an Open Goverment Plan, which will serve as the roadmap for our plans to improve transparency, better integrate public participation and collaboration into our core mission, and become more innovative and efficient. As we begin to consider these topics, we’d like to hear your ideas and suggestions. Please visit our OpenNSF dialogue between February 6 and March 19 to give us your input.
Act FAST for 100th Anniversary Edition Offer
03.1.10 by Michelle Kienholz
I love Ron Abeles … from the BSSR Guide to NIH Grants, Issue No. 100, March 1, 2010:
============================================================
Issue No. 100, March 1, 2010
ONE-HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE
To mark the 100th issue of this electronic service,
the first 10 readers to submit an application will receive a R .01 Award.
Submit your name and US postal address to abeles@nih.gov.
============================================================
Joint NIH-FDA Leadership Council Announced
02.26.10 by Michelle Kienholz
The NIH and FDA announced “a new collaboration on regulatory and translational science to … help speed the translation of research into medical products and therapies.”
Oh, you know this is going to be good, starting with their description of the two, um, partners in this collaboration:
The initiative involves two interrelated scientific disciplines: translational science, the shaping of basic scientific discoveries into treatments; and regulatory science, the development and use of new tools, standards and approaches to more efficiently develop products and to more effectively evaluate product safety, efficacy and quality. Both disciplines are needed to turn biomedical discoveries into products that benefit people.
And, indeed, the NIH is just the partner to make it happen, according to Francis Collins:
“This collaboration … will use the NIH’s breadth of experience as a leader in biomedical sciences, to help make the regulatory review process at the FDA as seamless as possible.”
Hmm. Somehow I missed that improving the FDA’s regulatory review process was a major priority in biomedical research, though clearly the FDA does need help in that department. But wait, there’s more …
As part of the effort, the agencies will establish a Joint NIH-FDA Leadership Council to spearhead collaborative work on important public health issues. The Joint Leadership Council [chaired by NIH Director and FDA Commissioner plus 6 members from each agency] will work together to help ensure that regulatory considerations form an integral component of biomedical research planning, and that the latest science is integrated into the regulatory review process.
I have not yet had time to view the entire hour-long videocast of this announcement, so I didn’t hear how much the NIH budget would be increased to absorb this additional effort (which will clearly need more than $6.75M to succeed).
However, this new emphasis on regulatory science does explain the latest unusual RFA issued from the Office of the Director (supported with $6M from the NIH Common Fund and $650K from the FDA), Advancing Regulatory Science through Novel Research and Science-Based Technologies (U01), which offers up to $675K in direct costs per year for 2010, 2011, and 2012. The RFA describes 5 broad areas of research to be supported … by 2-3 awards.
More big applied science, one hopes not at the expense of the most basic biomedical research needed to fill the translational pipeline with science to “shape into treatments.”
PLoS Tobacco Ban
02.24.10 by Michelle Kienholz
PLoS Medicine has joined PLoS Biology and PLoS ONE in not accepting “papers where support, in whole or in part, for the study or the researchers comes from a tobacco company.”
Long-time readers of the blog will know that I say, Bravo! I particularly appreciate their rationale:
First, tobacco is indisputably bad for health. … Tobacco interests in research cannot have a health aim—if they did, tobacco companies would be better off shutting down business—and therefore health research sponsored by tobacco companies is essentially advertising.
Second, we remain concerned about the industry’s long-standing attempts to distort the science of and deflect attention away from the harmful effects of smoking. … we do not wish to provide a forum for companies’ attempts to manipulate the science on tobacco’s harms.
They acknowledge this policy will have minimal impact on submissions as PLoS Medicine has not received any manuscripts involving tobacco support and PLoS ONE only two. However, they note that
the business model used to support our open access publishing (the research funder covers publication costs, unless the author requests a waiver) means we would essentially be accepting money from the tobacco industry by publishing their papers. This is unacceptable to the editorial team of PLoS Medicine.
Again, I applaud PLoS for another commendable contribution to the scientific community.
Reviews of New NIH Review System
02.23.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Thanks to Jef Akst at The Scientist for his post earlier today entitled NIH Reviewers Praise New Rules (& SaG for the alert). Thanks too to those who in turn have commentend on the piece. I tend to agree with both sets of contributors – the 3 grant reviewers in the main article and the various commenters who have come along since.
Recognizing the learning curve associated with adopting a new system and inherent challenges in assessing significance and impact, reviewers felt that “changes to the reviewing guidelines have actually increased the validity and utility of the reviews.” Specifically:
For example, in the new system scoring is limited to whole numbers (1 through 9), whereas before, a reviewer could give a proposal a priority score anywhere from 1 to 5 in increments of tenths. But such a fine scale was counterproductive, Wiley noted. “[Y]ou cannot possibly discriminate grants on that kind of level,” he said, adding that the process was effectively “a crapshoot after you pick the top 25%.”
Another benefit of the new system is that reviewers are now required to justify their scores by listing strengths and weaknesses for each subcriterion…
Other changes to the review process specifically aim to cut down on the amount of time the process takes. … The template now provided by the NIH gives bullet points where reviewers are to write a couple of sentences summarizing the strengths and weakness of each category, limiting them to just half a page.
Finally, rather than reviewing the grant proposals in random order, the study section starts with the highest scored applications (based on preliminary scores) and works their way down the list. In addition to cutting the total number of grants the study section will review orally — low-ranked applications with no chance of getting funded won’t even be discussed — it also helps the reviewers to “recalibrate” their scores, Wiley said, by providing an excellent standard against which the others can be judged. “It was a very clever idea,” he said. “I found this has been very, very helpful.”
Of course, those fast, easy, bulleted comments are not without their shortcomings, as many commenters noted (e.g.):
The comments are vague and provide little meaningful guideline for improvement. Of course, that is not the primary goal-to be helpful. I think this is mainly a mechanism to more efficiently winnow down the stack of applications in this time of tight paylines.
The new format makes the critique more diffuclt to decipher and the applicant will have a hard time to get a handle on how to revise the application to get a better score.
Plus a reflection on the preliminary score-driven discussion order:
The new review order is truely a clever idea that helps to calibrate the scores and make the whole process more consistent. I delibrately avoid the wording “fairer” because I also see the downside of this new order. The more contentious and contraversial applications are more likely being discussed near the lunch breaks or late in the day and people tend to get really tired by that point. The debate on those contraversial grants may not be as vigorous as it used to be.
I dunno. Looking at summary statements coming out of this brave new world, I’m pretty happy with the way things are going, vague bullets and all. I especially like the ability (or perhaps increased tendency) of reviewers to comment directly on the advisability of resubmission. And I’m happy with the way SROs are preparing the Resume & Summary of Discussion paragraphs as well. I like the short applications. I like the reviews. The paylines, not so much.
2009 International Science & Engineering Visualization Challenge
02.19.10 by Michelle Kienholz
Woohoo! One of my favorite events of the year … the announcement of the NSF & Science International Science & Engineering Visualization Challenge winners.
The NSF maintains a nice Website for this annual competition, and this issue of Science covers the 2009 highlights. Categories include Illustration, Photography, non-interactive media, and interactive media.
Enjoy!
