Archive for January, 2009

NSF Cost-Sharing

In its recent report, Investing in the Future: NSF Cost Sharing Policies for a Robust Federal Research Enterprise, the NSF National Science Board recommends

(1) to allow, but narrowly circumscribe, the application of mandatory cost sharing requirements in NSF programs in which such cost sharing is foundational to achieving programmatic goals, and

(2) to prohibit voluntary committed cost sharing in NSF proposals and thus eliminate post-award tracking and reporting requirements.

These recommendations are intended to improve consistency and clarity of NSF cost sharing practices and policy and to maximize the effectiveness of institutional dollars invested in research. The Board firmly believes that prohibiting voluntary committed cost sharing, and permitting mandatory cost sharing requirements only in limited and appropriate circumstances, will not reduce institutional commitment and financial contributions to NSF-sponsored projects or negatively impact institutional stewardship of Federal resources. Instead, it likely will enhance the ability of institutions to strategically and flexibly plan, invest in, and conduct research projects and programs and promote equity among grantee institutions in NSF funding competitions.

Comments (1)

Findings of Scientific Misconduct

Whoa.

Based on the reports of separate investigations conducted by Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH), CalTech, and MIT and additional analysis conducted by ORI, the US PHS found that Luk Van Parijs, PhD, former Graduate Student, Department of Pathology, Harvard; former Research Fellow and Instructor of Pathology, BWH; former Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biology, CalTech; and former Associate Professor, Department of Biology, Center for Cancer Research, MIT, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by grants U19AI56900, R21AI49897, R01AI42100, P01AI35297, R37AI25022, R01AI32531, R01CA51462, P30ES02109, and R01GM57931.

PHS found that Respondent engaged in scientific misconduct by including false data in grant applications R01AI54519-01A1, R01AI54973-01, R01AI54973-01A1, 2P30CA14051-34, and R21DK69277-01.

Specifically, PHS found that Respondent engaged in scientific misconduct by including false data in 7 published papers, 3 submitted papers (with 2 earlier versions submitted for one of these), one submitted book chapter, and multiple presentations as follows: Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (13)

Refreshing the NIH Intramural Research Program

Comprising nearly 10% of the NIH budget ($2.9 billion, supporting ~6,000 scientists), the Intramural Research Program (IRP) “has a highly regarded history of discovery but today lacks a clearly defined mission within the overall NIH effort” according to Faster Cures, a part of the Miliken Institute. To help the NIH address this oversight,

Faster Cures convened a task force headed by Nobel Laureate Dr. David Baltimore to recommend to the new Administration a framework within which to refresh the Intramural Research Program, giving it a distinct mission and identity in the service of improving public health. This mission is three-fold:

  • to focus on translational research, especially work that utilizes the unique capabilities of the NIH Clinical Center;
  • to be prepared to respond expeditiously to new scientific opportunities and challenges; and
  • to focus on high-risk, long-term basic research goals that would be difficult to pursue in the extramural research environment.

It’s been 20 years since the Institute of Medicine released A Healthy NIH Intramural Program: Structural Change or Administrative Remedies [fair warning, the online version seems to have been infiltrated by a symposium on Education for the Manufacturing World of the Future], and there was the [Richard] Klausner Report in 1992 (summarized & discussed in Science), commissioned by former NIH director Bernadine Healy following complaints by basic scientists and completed in time for the arrival of Harold Varmus, who coincidentally is re-arriving on the scene as an Obama adviser. But more recently, how does the NIH itself view the intramural research program? Read the rest of this entry »

Comments (5)

NIH Challenge Grants

Update: The NIH has released the Challenge Grant RFA and created a Website for the NIH Challenge Awards in Health and Science Research. More info here (including comments), plus Kington’s vision for ARRA spending, and a 12-page narrative template with additional advice is also available for download. Likely review timeline and scenario noted here.

Update: From the conference report: “The conference agreement adopts the Senate guidance that, to the extent possible, the $800,000,000 retained in the Office of the Director shall be used for purposes that can be completed within two years; priority shall be placed on short-term grants that focus on specific scientific challenges, new research that expands the scope of ongoing projects, and research on public and international health priorities. Bill language is included to permit the Director of NIH to use $400,000,000 of the funds provided in this account for the flexible research authority authorized in section 215 of Division G of P.L. 110-161.”

Get ready to be stimulated. House Bill (American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009) includes $3.5B for the NIH. Nature describes the distribution as

$1.5 billion would be for research at NIH centres over two years; $1.5 billion for building grants at university research facilities; and $500 million for construction on the NIH campus in Bethesda, Maryland.

To me, that first pot of money sounds intramural. But according to Science, no – much more encouraging for us on the outside:

Biomedical researchers will have the chance to apply for quick-hit, $1 million challenge grants as part of the funding that the National Institutes of Health is slated to receive under the proposed economic recovery package introduced yesterday by Democrats in the House of Representatives. Each institute and center at NIH would be asked to identify “real scientific challenges that they are facing,” according to Acting NIH Director Raynard Kington. “Scientists would apply through a relatively quick process, to receive $500,000 a year for 2 years, to make progress in designated areas.” The grants could be extended for a longer time, Kington says, “depending on funding.”

… To avoid the boom-and-bust cycle that NIH has experienced in the past decade, half the money would be disbursed this year and the other half in 2010. “Funds will be allocated by competitive peer review to universities nationwide, as is current NIH funding, and to NIH intramural research,” explains a report accompanying the bill.

AAAS separately offers an analysis of all science R&D funding in the draft bill (also summarized in the Science Insider blog). More recently, Science has published a table comparing the stimulus package outlays for the House and Senate versions for scientific research.

Without their insider info, Science would be hard-pressed to interpret the Congressional press release about the bill as involving such an exciting means for distributing the pork, I mean, stimulus:

    • National Institutes of Health Biomedical Research: $2 billion, including $1.5 billion for expanding good jobs in biomedical research to study diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer, and heart disease – NIH is currently able to fund less than 20% of approved applications – and $500 million to implement the repair and improvement strategic plan developed by the NIH for its campuses.
    • University Research Facilities: $1.5 billion for NIH to renovate university research facilities and help them compete for biomedical research grants. The National Science Foundation estimates a maintenance backlog of $3.9 billion in biological science research space. Funds are awarded competitively.

So … let’s see what comes out the other end of the sausage making machinery.

Comments (6)

Research, Condition, & Disease Categorization (RCDC) of NIH $

Thanks to Congress, the NIH officially launched the RCDC “process” for conveying funding details on “various diseases, conditions, and research areas.” 215 of them, to be exact, as laid out in this summary table. The dollar amounts include grants, contracts, and intramural research but do not reflect how the full NIH budget is spent.

New this year is the ability to click on the total award amount per category to see details on how this money was distributed, such as this table showing how $8M has been allocated to Tourette Syndrome. Grant number and title, PI, organization, total annual cost … very nice. They could do themselves one better by including a link to the CRISP abstract … maybe even e-mail to the PI?

Impressively, the NIH promises that “links to patents and publications associated with each project also will be available in the next few months.” Thank heavens all that progress reporting you do isn’t for naught.

Of course, one wonders about the utility of such categorization when the largest category is “Clinical Research” ($9,625M), followed by such other laser-precise categories as Genetics ($6,872M), Biotechnology ($5,179M) (not to be confused with Bioengineering at $2,853M, Prevention ($4,623M), Clinical Trials ($3,562M), and so on. Cancer ($5,570M) is listed as its own category, in addition to listings for individual types of cancer (breast, brain, cervical, et al.). We have Emerging Infectious Diseases ($2,098M), plus the garden variety Infectious Diseases ($3,575M) and, again, many individual IDs. And then there are the listings for Climate Change ($4M), Global Warming Climate Change ($1M), and Health Effects of Climate Change ($286M). Who knew?

Orac will be interested to learn that CAM is listed as receiving a mere $430M. Oh, and the additional $567M for Mind and Body. No listing for woo as yet.

Comments (1)

W.T. Grant Fdn RFP on Use of Research Evidence

An interesting new RFP from the William T. Grant Foundation seeks applications to examine “what affects policymakers’ and practitioners’ acquisition, interpretation, and use of research evidence … we believe studies of this topic will increase our understanding of how to improve the production and subsequent use of research for and in policy and practice.” Read the rest of this entry »

Leave a Comment

CSR Peer Review Notes

The January 2009 edition of Peer Review Notes is hot off the PDF press, though disappointedly lacking in substance considering how many substantive questions we all have about the upcoming spring round of study sections, which will inaugurate, so to speak, the new scoring and review/summary statement procedures. As Jon Stewart might say, “Ewwwwh, the new scoring system is based on a 9-point rating scale using only integers.”

Comments (10)

CTSA RFA Re-issued

Well, writedit needs to eat a little crow in assuming the NIH was going to hand out all 60 CTSA sites based on applications to the last CTSA RFA announcement (only 22 sites are left). A new RFA has been issued with an October 14th receipt date and the promise of up to 4 awards. Nice to see they’ve decided to stop handing these valuable awards out a dozen at a time. Plus they’ve added page limits (290) and are bracing applicants for budget realities ($20 million for the next 4 sites).

The next set of sites (probably no more than 6 based on the single small SEP that met last Sept) should be announced relatively soon. Two large panels will be reviewing last fall’s applications (Feb 10 and Feb 18), which apparently many institutions also thought might be the last call.

The most recent additions to the Consortium were noted last May, preceded by my pool pick musings the prior October. You can go right to the CTSA Consortium Website for the full list of CTSA sites and more about the program.

Leave a Comment

Hangover? Data say – live with it …

Time to dust off the 2005 BMJ paper by Pittler, Vester, & Ernst entitled, Interventions for preventing or treating alcohol hangover: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. We’ll cut right to the chase:

Results Fifteen potentially relevant trials were identified. Seven publications failed to meet all inclusion criteria. Eight randomised controlled trials assessing eight different interventions were reviewed. The agents tested were propranolol, tropisetron, tolfenamic acid, fructose or glucose, and the dietary supplements Borago officinalis (borage), Cynara scolymus (artichoke), Opuntia ficus-indica (prickly pear), and a yeast based preparation. All studies were double blind. Significant intergroup differences for overall symptom scores and individual symptoms were reported only for tolfenamic acid, {gamma} linolenic acid from B officinalis, and a yeast based preparation.

Conclusion No compelling evidence exists to suggest that any conventional or complementary intervention is effective for preventing or treating alcohol hangover. The most effective way to avoid the symptoms of alcohol induced hangover is to practise abstinence or moderation.

Happy 2009! Best wishes for success to you all in your research and research funding efforts.

Comments (2)