Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship

This time, a presentation on the NIH Investment direct from OER. NIH policy wonks will be delighted, though I’m still looking for that elusive graph that plots R01s awarded in response to RFAs (what the NIH calls “solicited”) vs those in response to PAs & PARs & PAS (what I would call solicited or at least semi-solicited but the NIH considers unsolicited) vs those in response to the plain jane parent PA (truly investigator initiated). Drugmonkey should be able to find trends of interest lurking in graphs stacked with colors so similar it’s maddening even if you aren’t colorblind. Or maybe being a deuteranope is advantageous here in this sea of blues, greens, and blue-greens. In any case, data associated with the slides are linked within the publication and can be accessed by right clicking the slide, selecting “edit slide”, and then double clicking the graphic. What fun.

Today’s NYT editorial page includes a piece on tobacco policy and trends on the heels of the Institute of Medicine report last week. The editorial notes the obvious - “Currently, some 44 million adults in this country smoke cigarettes, and 4 out of 5 are addicted, frustrating their efforts to quit. Tobacco kills 440,000 smokers every year in the United States, and secondhand smoke inhaled by bystanders claims another 50,000″ - and that “standard tactics will not bring smoking rates much below 15% for adults.” Conclusion? “The only real hope of breaking smokers’ addiction is to strike at the addictive properties of cigarettes and at the machinations of manufacturers who work hard to hook customers.” Good luck.

While looking at today’s NYT, you might also take a gander at the Op-Ed piece on electronic medical records, specifically the Veterans Affairs’ acclaimed Veterans Health Information Systems and Technology Architecture (VistA).

A refreshing opening and concluding slide at today’s Laureate Lecture: “I SUPPORT OPEN ACCESS.”

Richard Roberts, PhD, Chief Scientific Officer at New England BioLabs and recipient of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine (discovery of split genes) discussed methods for predicting active restriction enzymes and experimental approaches to testing computational predictions of the same. However, he took considerable time at the beginning to proselytize, as he put it, for scientists to publish in open access journals or to pay the required fee to ensure open access. He is very much in favor of Congress mandating that all NIH-funded investigators be required to use PubMed Central and gave a plug for Nucleic Acids Research plus his own REBASE database. He strongly believes this is one of the most worthwhile causes in the scientific community, and I - unencumbered by the P&T process, of course (as is Dr. Roberts) - concur.

And for those of you looking for all-things open access, I encourage you to check out Open Access News.

A veritable treasure trove of data on the NIH history, funding trends, budget woes, and more, complements of the Congressional Research Service.

An MD-PhD Student (no longer part of the PhD program). Sigh.

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case:

Kartik Prabhakaran, University of Pittsburgh: Based on the report of an inquiry conducted by the University of Pittsburgh, extensive oral and written admissions by the Respondent, and additional analysis conducted by the Office of Research Integrity during its oversight review, the U.S. Public Health Service found that Mr. Kartik Prabhakaran, former graduate student in the joint M.D./Ph.D. program at UP, engaged in research misconduct while supported by grant F30NS50905 and grants R01EY005945, P30EY008098, and R01EY015291.

Specifically, Mr. Prabhakaran falsified and fabricated data that was included in a PowerPoint presentation and in a paper published in Immunity (Immunity 23:515-525, November 2005). Mr. Prabhakaran’s research misconduct occurred while he was a student in the M.D./Ph.D. program for UP’s School of Medicine. He is no longer in UP’s Ph.D. program but is still enrolled in its M.D. program in the School of Medicine. The Immunity publication has been retracted (Immunity 24:657, May 2006).

WHO has posted the World Health Statistics 2007 for 193 member states online, where you can query the database by country, region, year, and/or indicator (individual or cluster). Data are available on core health indicators, mortality, disease statistics, health system statistics, risk factors & health coverage, and inequitities in health care coverage … plus plenty of links to other data sources.

From, whom else, NIAID. This SBIR Phase II proposal, Identification of E. coli anti-infective rRNA targets, submitted on November 30, 2005 is exactly what reviewers read and scored (summary statement also available) except for the removal of some confidential information and intellectual property details. The applicants were the chief executive officer of RiboNovix, Alison Taunton-Rigby, Ph.D., and principal investigator, Cheryl Murphy, Ph.D. In my current position, I don’t support preparation of these types of applications, but for those of you in or partnering with small business, NIAID of course has many other excellent SBIR/STTR resources to help guide your submission.

This Friday, entire forests will be delivered to CSR in the form of T32 grant applications - the dreaded Ruth L. Kirschstein National Research Service Awards Institutional Research Training Grants. Why dreaded? Have fun with these tables from NIGMS. Or these from NHLBI. Or these from NIAID.

But first, make sure you should even be considering one of these proposals. The T32 mechanism is meant to leverage an existing well-funded research program (i.e., lots of R01 & P-type awards) into a means of training the next generation of biomedical researchers. No R01/P01 funding, no grounds for T32 support. The T32 isn’t meant to support training where no foundation of independently funded research projects exists.

Even if you think you have the requisite number, duration, and diversity of R01 awards in your field, you need to chat with the appropriate contact person for this mechanism in your IC of choice. Not all ICs are looking to fund new T32 programs right now, so this conversation could save you a lot of time and aggravation (those aforementioned tables). Be sure to check out what other T32s are funded at your institution - any hint of overlap will send an IC running. Check also to see what dates applications will be accepted by your IC du jour. May 25 is the big submission date, but some proposals (i.e., only predoc or postdoc programs) are welcomed by some ICs on Jan 25 and Sept 25.

Now, assuming your IC contact gave you the green light, do the damn tables first. These tell most of the story, particularly the funding base of the program faculty (most if not all mentors/sponsors need to have an active R01 that extends well beyond the start date for your T32 award) and the track record of past trainees. You must be able to demonstrate that your faculty can & have already helped pre- and postdoctoral trainees move on to productive (i.e., capable of securing their own grant awards) academic (versus private practice) careers. So, you need a multidisciplinary faculty with funded projects and track records of turning out grant-getting biomedical researchers. (okay, I can already hear drugmonkey saying that this is just what we need - more well-trained investigators competing for limited research funding) Oh, and you need a career development plan that involves more than indentured servitude. Piece of cake. Bon appetit!

In talking with a new research recruit today, I discovered that I had not uploaded a past NSF Grant Overview Presentation, most of which is mostly still relevant. (I use this site to catalog & maintain convenient access to the sort of resources needed for my daily grind that I hope you find useful as well.) Please also check out the latest NSF Regional Grant Seminar presentations, which are more current and detailed. Scroll down, and you’ll be rewarded with many PDF files from various NSF-related presentations.

New study sections require about the same gestational period as a human before they are delivered into service at CSR. For the October 2007 cycle, the following study sections led by the designated SRA will be reviewing applications (so those of you submitting new or amended proposals with potential overlap should take a look at these groups):

• CSRS/Cellular Signaling and Regulatory Systems, SRA Jonathan Arias
• MIST/Molecular and Integrative Signal Transduction, SRA Raya Mandler
• MSFD/Macromolecular Structure and Function D (computational focus), SRA James Mack
• MSFE/Macromolecular Structure and Function E (mechanistic enzymology focus), SRA Nitsa Rosenzweig
• CMBG/Cellular and Molecular Biology of Glia, SRA Toby Behar
• CMND/Cellular and Molecular Biology of Neurodegeneration, SRA Carole Jelsema

You can learn more about them and all study sections at the CSR Website. You’ll see them sprinkled through 4 updated IRGs: Biological Chemistry and Macromolecular Biophysics; Biology of Development and Aging; Cell Biology; and Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Neuroscience.