Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship

In case you were not aware, you can browse NIH ARRA-funded awards by state (notice the nice distribution of push pins) or you can search RePORTER (think enhanced CRISP) using the swanky new query form, which includes a check box to “show only projects supported by NIH Recovery Act funds.” Each list of projects by state (scroll down below map) can be sorted by PI or organization name (click on the appropriate column heading) to find those of most interest.

<I’ll pause a moment while feverish fingers check out the success of rivals.>

Notice upon searching RePORTER that you will be given tabs that list award description (abstract), details (including $ amounts), results (publications), history (renewals, supplements – interesting for long-standing awards especially), and subprojects. I’ll add that the new query portal layout and functionality is a very welcome improvement over the CRISP query page.

You can also view an interactive graph to monitor how much of the ARRA monies have been committed to FOAs.

Update: Happy ending stories already coming online, such as one PI receiving two R21s and another receiving a P01 … I guess they certainly do have something to cheer about.

As more and more of you become stimulated by ARRA funding, you might consider whether you have a “success story” to share with your funding IC. NIAID has created an ARRA Success Stories Website, and I assume at least some – if not all – other ICs will follow suit. NIAID will eventually have a Web-form through which you can submit your anecdotes, but in the meantime, please send niaidarraimpact@mail.nih.gov the following information:

• Grant number, project title, PI name
• How ARRA funding has helped you (1,000 words or fewer)

Another NIAID page suggests what you might report:

Share your successes, both big and small, with us and your community. For example, your personal stories can illustrate how the funds enabled you to keep your lab intact, hire a promising young scientist, expand your research, or advance science.

Maybe even salvage a tenure application. Good luck to you all in getting your sliver (à la mode, of course) of the stimulus pie!

No.

Update: Emaderton3′s comment below includes this formula for converting the new impact score into the former priority score: [5 * (new impact score - 10)] + 100 = old priority score

e.g., [5 * (80 - 10)] + 100 = 450

An impact score of 80 at the 59th percentile means either the study section discussed all proposals, or someone took an interest in your otherwise triage-destined application and advocated for its discussion.

The new scoring range is from 10-90, with impact scores under 20 most likely to be funded … perhaps under 25 since ARRA has relieved the system of some of the backlog of potentially fundable applications. Percentiles issued in this round reflect only the current study section in which the application was reviewed (assuming the study section had 25 or more applications under review … if fewer than 25, then pooled with either all CSR or all IC applications, as appropriate to the review group’s affiliation).

You can find details on the scoring procedure and interpretation as well as reviewer guidelines by mechanism at the Enhancing Peer Review Website.

I’m guessing NIAID will be the first to update their paylines accordingly, and I’ll post updates as the ICs provide them here in the main blog and on the NIH Paylines & Resources page.

What is Toni Scarpa smoking? He recently told The Chronicle of Higher Education that

The numbers [of RC1s] are causing concern for the present, as each application requires an average of three reviewers working 12 hours apiece, Dr. Scarpa told agency representatives.

Everyone out there who is spending 12 hours reviewing their Challenge Grants, raise your hand. Based on conversations I’ve had with investigators here at BICO (& warmer environs elsewhere) in a wide range of disciplines, they uniformly find these proposals, shall we say, unchallenging, to be kind. I’m sure Comrade PhysioProf can provide the appropriate color commentary. The minimal time needed to assess these is a good thing given that I also know of faculty who just last week unexpectedly found as many as 5 RC1 applications sitting in their eRA Commons account with reviews due June 12. Twelve hours per application? Ooooooh yaaaaaa.

And this apparently is after the NIH removed about 8% of applications that were deemed to be unresponsive/noncompliant … I think noncompliant with the laws of science more than the FOA policies. Many are apparently recycled ideas that weren’t funded the first time as R01s/R21s etc., so novelty will not be a common term used in the truncated summary statements (unless to point out the distinct lack of). It could be that the most novel proposals achieve this distinction due to their basis in woo.

Anyone experiencing review nirvana out there?

But, Toni is most grateful:

“Our scientists and their staff are unsung heroes, managing twice as many applications in a very compressed time with great professionalism and excellence,” said CSR Director Dr. Toni Scarpa. “The response by the scientific community also has been tremendous. The help is particularly gratifying because it shows the value and respect that scientists have for NIH peer review.”

I am glad Toni decided to issue a press release about the number of applications (nearly 21K) and reviewers (18K+) involved. The sheer numbers will hopefully serve as a wake up call that the NIH base appropriation needs to be restored and maintained in a responsible manner – not in irregular spikes guaranteed to stimulate irrational exuberance followed by a musical chairs, survival of the fittest (& richest) scramble for the crumbs that remain after the feast.

Indeed, The Chronicle article concludes:

Mr. Obama’s proposal, if approved by Congress, would set the agency’s baseline budget 4.7% higher than its final budget under President George W. Bush in 2008. But the biology federation said the increase proposed by Mr. Obama for the NIH in fiscal 2010 is only 1.45% higher than the fiscal 2009 level, excluding the stimulus money, raising questions about the federal government’s commitment to sustain biomedical research.