Archive for May, 2009

No Gender Bias in Peer Review

May 28, 2009 at 5:24 pm · Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, Biomedical Writing/Editing, Research News

A piece in this week’s issue of Nature by Herbert Marsh (professor of education at the University of Oxford, UK) and Luz Bornmann (PhD student at the ETH University in Zurich, Switzerland) asks (and answers) the question, Do women have less success in peer review? The Naturejobs item is so brief that I include it here, hopefully without raising the copyright ire of Nature Publishing Group.

Peer review assesses what is of value in science, yet it has been widely criticized for biases. One such perceived bias is gender. But evidence for such a bias has been contradictory. A 2007 meta-analysis (L. Bornmann et al. J. Informet. 1, 226–238; 2007; see also Nature 445, 566; 2007) concluded that women are at a disadvantage in peer review. As this study incorporated all known research on this issue, it seemed a definitive answer.

However, a study published last year (H. W. Marsh et al. Am. Psychol. 63, 160–168; 2008) presented conflicting results. It was the most comprehensive primary-research study, based on data from the Australian Research Council (10,023 reviews by 6,233 external assessors of 2,331 proposals from all disciplines). The study found that the gender of the applicant had no effect on the outcomes of peer review, irrespective of the discipline, the gender and nationality of the reviewers, and whether reviewers were selected by a funding panel or chosen by the applicants.

Why should these two studies have conflicting results? To investigate, both research teams worked together to reanalyse the data and extend the original meta-analysis. We applied new, stronger statistical approaches to 66 sets of results representing 353,725 proposals from 8 countries. In this extended study, which will be published in Review of Educational Research, we found no effect of the applicant’s gender on the peer review of their grant proposals. This lack of effect held across country, year of publication of the studies included in the meta-analysis, and disciplines ranging from physical sciences to the humanities.

The study did, however, reveal very small — but statistically significant — gender differences in favour of men for the 26 sets of results that were for fellowship applications. However, these fellowship results varied greatly between the individual studies within the analysis, indicating that they are not generalizable. We suggest that the differences might have arisen because fellowship applicants tend not to have established a solid track record in their research. In the absence of sound evidence on which to base their judgements, peer reviewers might therefore have been influenced by irrelevant characteristics such as gender.

At least for grant applications, all of the co-authors from each of the research teams agree that the weight of evidence suggests that the applicant’s gender has no effect on the outcome of peer review, and that these findings are robust and broadly generalizable.

Of possible interest is the fact that male authors are the ones examining these issues … I wonder if on this side of the pond, Molly Carnes and her cronies might opt to take a look as well.

Comments (3)

ARRA Administration Costs are all Indirect

May 20, 2009 at 8:22 am · Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice, Research News

I had a conversation some time ago with my Division Chief here at BICO explaining why he could not budget (DC) for someone to handle the ARRA reporting and administrative requirements (special admin costs may become direct when the science itself requires them, such as for large survey research – not when the terms of award do). More recently, the NIH has come out with a clear statement for all those other PIs trying to sneak some ARRA reporting support into their grant personnel costs:

Can ARRA grant budgets include direct costs to address ARRA administrative and reporting requirements?

No. It has been determined that ARRA requirements do not provide sufficient justification to support the provision of direct costs for administrative support in addition to the Facilities and Administrative (F&A) costs in the awarded budget.

NIH staff will continue to evaluate direct costs requested for administrate support using the guidance provided in OMB Circular A-21 F.6.b.(2). However, ARRA requirements will not be considered in this determination, because they are incorporated within the core administrative support for the project, which is reimbursed to the institution through the provision of F&A costs.

When direct costs have been requested to address ARRA administrative and reporting requirements in requested budgets, NIH staff will make appropriate adjustments. Revised budgets submitted solely to remove administrative costs will not be accepted.

Comments (6)

What Journal Editors Really Want

May 18, 2009 at 4:21 pm · Filed under Biomedical Writing/Editing, Research News

The obvious, apparently, as reported by David Shieh in The Chronicle of Higher Education, particularly at AMA and Nature journals.

SINK OR SWIM: Young children who take swimming lessons are less likely to die of drowning than those who don’t take lessons, found a study published in the March issue of the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine. Researchers, who interviewed the families of 88 drowning victims in six states, conceded that their study did not explain why the correlation exists, but noted that “it seems reasonable to assume that at least part of the protective effect is through increased swimming skills.”

BOREDOM EVERLASTING: Bored after seven years of marriage? Little will change after nine more, says a study published last month in Psychological Science. In a study of 123 married couples, researchers reported that boredom in the seventh year of marriage “strongly and significantly predicted less satisfaction” in the 16th year. Luckily, researchers also found a way to save marriages from being eroded by boredom: adding “excitement” to the relationship.

SWEDE TOOTH: Those who wake up in the middle of the night to head for the refrigerator are more likely to be obese, reports a study in this month’s issue of the journal Obesity. Researchers, who teamed up with the Swedish Twin Registry in Stockholm to survey more than 20,000 Swedish twins for the study, found that “night eating” was also correlated with binge eating, disrupted sleep patterns, and insomnia.

IS THAT A BENTLEY IN YOUR POCKET? Men who drive luxury cars are found to be more attractive than those who drive subcompacts, says a study published online in March in the British Journal of Psychology. Study participants were shown pictures of a model of the opposite sex in two different cars: a silver Bentley Continental and a red Ford Fiesta. While men found the model equally attractive in both settings, women rated the model as “significantly more attractive” when sitting in the Bentley. Noted the study: “It would appear that despite a noticeable increase in female ownership of prestige/luxury cars over recent years, males, unlike females, remain oblivious to such cues.”

Of course, this last journal also just published Men’s preferences for women’s profile waist-to-hip ratio, breast size, and ethnic group in Britain and South Africa, which reported “a strong positive correlation between ratings of attractiveness and health.” No, I do not know whom you should contact about volunteering to participate in this sort of research.

Comments (2)

NIH ARRA Implementation Plan

May 16, 2009 at 11:39 am · Filed under NIH Advice, Research News

I know you’ve been waiting on the edge of your seat for the HHS Agency-Wide Recovery Implementation Plan, and I’m thrilled to say the wait is over.

The section on Strengthening Scientific Research and Facilities includes 4 PDF files laying out how the NIH will spend $8.2B on Scientific Research (only $122M used intramurally); $1B on Extramural Lab Construction & Renovation; $300M on Shared Instrumentation; and $500M on Buildings & Facilities (intramural).

The Scientific Research plan again notes the plan to support Signature Initiatives, the only mechanism (or strategy) not yet announced for funding – and not mentioned in the implementation timeline. On page 4 of the plan, there is an interesting table laying out how the $8.2B will be distributed by grant type. I was puzzled to see, for example, 525 awards totaling $39M going toward institutional training grants. Meritoriously scored pick-ups and supplements?

The table on page 6 is of interest as it gives target quotas for the number of new and competing RPGs, administrative supplements, and competitive revision awards to be made … plus an empty row for number of jobs created/retained. The numbers jump considerably between the original and revised targets for each, especially in FY09, giving a nice incremental change (increase) in performance:

  • 9,842 -> 16,564 RPGs
  • 1,369 -> 3,445 administrative supplements
  • 37 -> 576 competitive revision awards

Oddly, the NIH had no original target for extramural construction awards, despite knowing money had specifically been designated for this purpose. For FY09, their revised award target is 58, with 174 awards to be made in FY10. The Shared Instrumentation plan shows a bigger jump in FY10 (124 -> 544 awards) than in FY09 (123 -> 198).

Intramurally, the NIH’s big projects include the John Edward Porter Neuroscience Research Center Phase II (PNRCII) ($266 million), Building 10 (original clinical research hospital) F Wing Renovations ($134 million), Build-Out of Building 3 (offices) ($21 million), and Conversion of Building 7 (Rocky Mountain Laboratories) ($7 million).

A separate section on Supporting Comparative Effectiveness Research includes 3 very uninformative PDF files: NIH ($400M), AHRQ ($300M), and Office of Secretary. None of them have any original or revised targets in terms of numbers of awards, though the Office of the Secretary plan notes that $1.5M went for a CER study by the IOM and another $1.1M to provide logistical support to the new Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Also of interest in the Office of the Secretary plan is a table on page 4 showing output measure targets, which I bring up in consideration of RC2 applicants, who need to provide measurable outcomes to assess whether they are making the most of their grand opportunity. The AHRQ CER plan provides another model for such a table on pp 4-5.

Comments (2)

No Recycling RC1s in June!

May 15, 2009 at 3:59 pm · Filed under Funding Opportunities, NIH Advice, Research News

I’ve said this before, and not that I expected any of you to try to sneak a recycled RC1 as an R01 or R21 in June, but the NIH has released an official stern reminder to the scientific community not to resubmit RC1s until the October cycle.

Special Information for Pending Challenge Grant (RC1) Applications

It is important to note that NIH anticipates a large number of unsuccessful applications after the review of RFA OD-09-003, NIH Challenge Grants in Health and Science Research (RC1). In accordance with the policies described above, the earliest a new application from that unfunded pool could be submitted is during the Cycle III due dates for new applications. In addition the following conditions must be met:

  • The initial peer review process is complete and the review outcome and summary statement are available on eRA Commons. This is expected to occur in August, 2009.
  • The application is submitted as a new application on the appropriate date for new applications and makes no reference to the previous review (does not include an Introduction or identify the changes made). Note that applications that are incorrectly submitted on the dates for resubmission applications will not be allowed to be corrected and will have to wait until January, 2010 to submit as a new application.
    There is an appropriate match of science topic and Institutes/Centers sponsoring the FOA.
  • The new application follows all the requirements for the FOA and activity code; these may be different than those in the original Challenge Grant RFA. There is not a Parent Announcement for the RC1 activity code and thus applications will have to use other appropriate research activity codes – R01, R03, R15, R21, etc.

Any reconfigured RC1 applications submitted that are found to be not in compliance with these policies will be withdrawn without further consideration. In particular, any application submitted for Cycle II due dates before the initial review process is complete will be returned.

Comments (5)

NCMHD ARRA Opportunities

May 12, 2009 at 3:13 pm · Filed under Funding Opportunities, NIH Advice

One application per institution for each of these RFAs, due June 30/July 1:

Community Participation in Health Disparities Intervention Research Planning Phase (R24) – LOI, May 29; Application receipt, June 30; Direct costs may not exceed $375,000 per year for a maximum of a 2-year project period; up to 5 awards will be made

Dissertation Research Award to Increase Diversity (R36) – LOI May 29; Application receipt, June 30; The requested budget may not exceed the current fiscal year NRSA predoctoral stipend level & up to $15,000 for additional expense costs per year for a maximum of a 2-year project period; 3-5 awards will be made

Exploratory Centers of Excellence (P20) – LOI, June 1; Application receipt, July 1; Direct costs may not exceed $450,000 per year for a maximum of a 2-year project period; up to 5 awards will be made

Leave a Comment

NSF ARRA Solicitations

May 12, 2009 at 7:17 am · Filed under Funding Opportunities, NSF Info

Though of course, the NSF uses R² (recovery & reinvestment) rather than ARRA. Both are limited submissions, with up to two instrumentation acquisition plus one instrumentation development proposal allowed, and just one facilities modernization proposal allowed per applicant institution. Cost sharing (30% of project total cost) is required for the instrumentation program but not the research infrastructure program.

Major Research Instrumentation Program (MRI-R²)

Full Proposals Due: August 10, 2009

400 awards: Proposal budgets may include requests of $100K-$6M from Ph.D.-granting institutions & up to $6M (no minimum) from non-Ph.D.-granting institutions & the disciplines of mathematical sciences or social, behavioral, & economic sciences at any eligible organization. Up to $40M (of $200M) will be available for the acquisition or development of instruments costing between $2-$6M.

Acquisition proposals are characterized by a rapid implementation requiring limited personnel. MRI-R2 acquisition proposals may also be characterized by a demonstrated need for the purchase or upgrade of generally available, yet sophisticated, instruments with little or no modification for shared use among a group of researchers.

Development proposals are characterized by a demonstrated need for new or upgraded instruments that can provide enhanced or potentially transformative use and performance, open up new areas of research and research training, and/or have potential as commercial products. Development proposals must describe the added performance of the new instrument and the expected impact on the broader research community; development of instrumentation that takes advantage of new opportunities enabled by investments in cyberinfrastructure is encouraged.

Academic Research Infrastructure Program (ARI-R²)

LOI due July 1, Full Proposals due Aug 24.

The ARI-R² program will invest in the repair, renovation, or in exceptional cases, the replacement of existing research facilities. It will not support the construction of new research facilities. Organizations may submit one proposal, either as lead or as a sub-awardee but not both.

Approximately 100 awards ranging from a total of $250K-$2M; 6-10 awards ranging from $2-$5M; and 3-5 awards ranging from $5-$10M. The award duration for ARI-R² grants up to $2M is up to 3 years; award duration for grants $2-$10M is up to 4 years.

Comments (1)

Obama’s NIH FY10 Budget

May 8, 2009 at 9:16 am · Filed under NIH Advice, Research News

Grant applications in the NIH pipeline now that are not potentially eligible for ARRA funding will fall under the FY10 appropriation, which will come in at $30.9 billion, a whopping 1.4% increase over FY09. Most ICs will see their budget go up about that much, with greater gains going to NCI (3.6%), NIEHS (3.2%), and NCRR (2.1%) at the expense of the OD (-5.1%, bridge grants eliminated due to ARRA funding). The Chronicle of Higher Education includes a table breaking down budget allocations to all science funding agencies (except, oddly, the NSF, which will enjoy a 16% increase over FY09 levels to $7B).

The NIH Office of Budget also has tabular FY10 budget data as well as a budget justification of sorts. Research priorities identified include cancer (Obama has pledged to double funding in this area), autism, bioethics ($5M new initiative), and “Nanotechnology-related Environment, Health and Safety Research” ($9M to NIEHS). Common Fund budgetary priorities include doubling the T01 (transformative R01) program (total of $70M), continuing the New Innovator ($80M) and Pioneer ($41M) awards, and a brand new program:

Genotype/Tissue Expression Resources, or GTEx, which allows investigators to correlate changes in genetic sequence with global changes in gene expression across many tissues. In addition, the FY 2010 CF request has reserved up to $12 million for new projects that will be developed during FY 2009.

Biodefense spending will go up by 1%.

More than half of the budget (52.7%) goes toward RPGs (research project grants), with a 2% allowance for inflation and an underwhelming projected increase in the number of competing awards granted: 7.

The FY 2010 President’s Budget would fund a total of 9,849 new and competing renewal RPGs, an increase of 7 RPGs over the estimated FY 2009 level. Competing RPGs total $3,934 million, an increase of $79 million or 2 percent over the FY 2009 level. Due to the receipt of Recovery Act funds in FY 2009, NIH will temporarily suspend the NIH Director’s Bridge Award program in FY 2010; the vast majority of these funds are redistributed to the ICs.

The number of full-time training positions supported (via fellowships and institutional training grants) will go up by 101 (total of 17,742 positions).

Intramural research, which accounts for 10.4% of the total NIH budget, would receive a 1.5% increase ($3.2 B).

Comments (1)

Cures Acceleration Network & NIH Reauthorization Act of 2009

May 6, 2009 at 11:00 am · Filed under NIH Advice, Research News

Arlen Specter is at it again.

His recently introduced bill, the Cures Acceleration Network and National Institutes of Health Reauthorization Act of 2009 (S. 914), would create an independent agency – the Cures Acceleration Network (CAN) – outside of DHHS to “identify and promote revolutionary advances in basic research, translating scientific discoveries from bench to bedside.” (and the NIH does what exactly?)

The bill also elevates the NCMHD (minority health/health disparities) to institute status and authorizes appropriations for NIH at $40 billion for FY 2010 and “such sums as may be necessary” for FYs 2011 and 2012.

The CAN would fund “independent investigators, research organizations, biotechnology companies, academic research institutions, and other entities … to accelerate the development of cures and treatments.” Cures Acceleration Grant Awards would provide up to $15 million per year per project with no requirement for matching funds. The Cures Acceleration Partnership Awards also provide up to $15 million per year but require a 1:3 match by grantees. The first year appropriation would be $1 billion per award program.

Sounds damn appealing. The governance part is less so. CSR study sections would review grant applications, though the second level of review would come from the 24-member CAN Board of Directors (appointed by the President) rather than NIH ICs. The AAMC summarizes who would serve at the President’s pleasure on this Board:

The board would include at least one individual “who is eminent” in each of the following fields: basic research, medicine, biopharmaceuticals, discovery and delivery of medical products, bioinformatics and gene therapy, medical instrumentation, and regulatory review and approval of medical products. The board also would include at least 4 leaders in professional venture capital or private equity organizations who have demonstrated experience in private equity investing and at least 8 individuals representing disease advocacy organizations. Representatives from NIH, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs, the VHA, the NSF, and the FDA would serve as ex officio members.

Hmmm. Sounds like a proposal that should be triaged to me.

Comments (9)

Challenges Continue to Mount at NIH

May 5, 2009 at 10:09 am · Filed under NIH Advice, Research News

Although the dust has not settled as yet, the NIH has currently accepted more than 18K RC1 applications, with another 11K in the error correction queue. So, at least 20,000 Challenge Grants and perhaps close to my initial estimate of 30K way back when.

For comparison, CSR reviewed 27,360 R01s and 9,483 R21s in 2008.

Of course, while the number of RC1 applications in need of review continues to climb, the days available for review continues to dwindle, and the pool of reviewers has already been heavily tapped. For all of 2008, CSR used 16,000 reviewers (3,104 chartered, 12,136 ad hoc). If each RC1 is to be read by 3 reviewers … well, hello thousands more ad hoc reviewers. I guess at least all the newbies won’t be burdened by prior comfort with the old priority scoring system, and everyone will have the same tabula rasa in terms of how the 1-9 scores will be assigned.

Per the just released Extramural Nexus, CSR expects to engage 10K – 15K reviewers. Scores and summary statements should be available in August, and “while around 200 Challenge Grants will be funded by the NIH Office of the Director through the Common Fund and other monies, it is likely that an equal or greater number of projects will be funded by NIH Institutes and Centers.”

Comments (19)

Older Posts »