Archive for July, 2009

Pending Payline Pain

July 30, 2009 at 9:30 am · Filed under NIH Advice, Payline, Research News

Update: NIAID has officially announced their interim payline at the 6th percentile (also confirmed by Anthony Fauci at the September 2009 Advisory Council, with the hope that this can be raised to the 8th percentile at the January 2010 Council meeting), with a 10th percentile interim payline for new investigator R01s.

So, for those non-ARRA applications submitted last February-March or thereabouts, what might your expectations be for the initial FY10 paylines?

Think low. Painfully low, at least at the outset.

First, we still don’t have an FY10 budget, though Congress probably will have something in place by October for a change. What will be in place for the NIH will be a minimal increase (~1.5%) in the base appropriation, so nothing to get excited about. {Don’t forget to ask your Congressional delegation to support an increase in NIH funding}

However, in addition to uncertainty about funding levels, ICs are also struggling with the changes in scoring and the lack of a percentile base on which to make award decisions. Plus, they realize hundreds or perhaps thousands of RC1s will come back this fall, swelling the pool later in the fiscal year … and then all the lucky ARRA awardees will start submitting their competing renewals soon after, particularly those with bridge awards or one-year administrative supplements essentially serving as bridge awards.

With a set (and limited) amount of money and uncertainty as to what scores will truly reflect the most highly meritorious applications and how many such submissions might come in, ICs will be erring on the side of caution to avoid setting a payline that cannot be sustained for the entire fiscal year – again, especially since they anticipate so many competitive applications in the pipeline. Imagine them subsequently reducing a payline mid-year … whereas it is possible to go back and pick up applications if the payline is relaxed.

So, how painful will these initially conservative paylines be?

The tentative interim FY10 R01 payline at one IC will likely be at the 6th percentile (which includes everything up to the 6.9th percentile in the new system), with the anticipation that this will move up to the 8-9th percentile once the NIH has its final appropriation and once data from at least 2 rounds of review are in. Program will have a smidge of wiggle room for discretionary awards such as bridge and select pay.

Now, if you have found it difficult to get clear advice in the past from your POs about whether to resubmit should your score be on the bubble, you can imagine how noncommittal they will be in the months to come.

Have fun and good luck.

Comments (19)

RC1 Scores & Remaining Review Procedures

July 24, 2009 at 9:28 pm · Filed under NIH Advice, Payline, Research News

I thought I would add a post in which to consolidate & commiserate over RC1 scores and remind folks of the remaining phases of review.

First, for calibration purposes, some scores previously posted at MWEG (feel free to continue adding scores in the comments here – I’ll move some scores up to this list as they come in) and mentioned to me in the hallways at BICO (impact score/percentile):

15/1st
19/1st
20/2nd
22/1.5th
28/5th
30/2nd
32/3rd
32/6th
34/7th
35/6th
36/6th
36/9th
37/8th
38/7th
39/7th
43/12th
44/8th
46/8th
49/6th
49/12th
50/10th
50/12th
54/12th
57/9th
58/13th
60/11th
66/17th
77/11th

So what happens next?

If the process continues as previously described to me, the third stage of review will be conducted by the ICs, each of which will prioritize their assigned applications for each Broad Challenge Area (n=15) and write brief summaries of the top 10% of the applications for each Broad Challenge Area (this can include applications assigned to one IC but that meet a high priority for another IC).

In early August, a group of IC directors will conduct the fourth stage of review and rank applications across all Broad Challenge Areas. These recommendations go to the NIH director for the final decision on the 200 applications to be supported by OD ARRA funds. Applications not selected for funding with OD ARRA funds will go back to ICs for funding consideration.

Finally, all applications selected for ARRA support will still need to go through the standard “secondary” peer review by Council of the IC that will be responsible for oversight of the application in time to obligate funds in FY09.

Oh, and then really finally, off to the Executive Branch for final approval of each requested award.

Comments (265)

Please Entertain Yourselves

July 13, 2009 at 11:59 am · Filed under Research News

while I head out to an undisclosed location for a week or so. Comments and questions left will as likely as not be answered by other thoughtful blog contributors, so ask away and good luck with all your scores and research programs. cheers- writedit

Comments (9)

Perceptions of Science – Scientist vs Public

July 10, 2009 at 12:17 pm · Filed under Research News

As summarized this week in Science, the Pew Research Center for People and the Press reported results of a series of 3 surveys of the public and scientists on their perception of science and scientists as well as the public’s general knowledge of science:

The survey of the general public was conducted on landlines and cell phones among 2,001 adults April 28-May 12; the online survey of scientists was conducted among a sample of 2,533 members of the AAAS from May 1-June 14. Science knowledge questions were included in a separate survey of the general public, conducted on landlines and cell phones among 1,005 adults June 18-21.

Not sure what to make of the public ranking members of the military as those who most “contribute a lot to society’s well-being” … 84% versus 70% for scientists and … in a little dig to that other class of doctors … 69% for medical doctors.

A bigger concern is the public response to “which comes closer to your view …”

Govt investment in research is essential for scientific progress – 60% [!!]
Private investment ensures enough progress w/out govt investment – 29% [!!!]

No wonder Congress doesn’t have a fire lit under them to increase and stabilize research funding …

You can take the general science knowledge quiz and, when you are done, raise your eyebrows at the perhaps not entirely surprising results in the elegant Tufte-esque display of the data by demographic and question.

Comments (7)

Findings of Scientific Misconduct … & The Scientist

July 8, 2009 at 1:33 am · Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, Research News

Professor and Asst Professor, so perhaps mentor-mentee. Go check out the new format of the full notices, including lay-friendly research explanation and parenthetical comments and the disclaimer about accepting responsibility while not admitting intent or liability (e.g., “Dr. Thomas accepted responsibility for the reporting described above, but denied that she intentionally committed research misconduct. The settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the Respondent” (though she did agree to a 10-year debarment).

In view of these changes to the notice language, perhaps The Scientist should have waited one more month to run their article (Life after Fraud) and editorial (Fairness for Fraudsters) criticizing ORI for its procedures and “serious miscarriage of justice against researchers” – this in regard to the fact that those cited for misconduct continue to have their misdeeds advertised (and hence are punished) beyond the agreed upon exclusionary period through Internet archives of the NIH Guide & Federal Register.

Perhaps The Scientist might also have discussed the policy article published in Science last August, Scientific Misconduct: Do Punishments Fit the Crime?, as discussed previously here and in Nature… not to mention the ORI survey data published in Nature about the underreporting of scientific misconduct (beyond the side bar comment by John Dahlberg).

Without further ado …

Notice is hereby given that ORI and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case:

Based on a finding of scientific misconduct made by UAB on January 24, 2008, a report of the UAB Investigation Committee, dated November 21, 2007, and additional analysis conducted by ORI during its oversight review, the US PHS found that Judith M. Thomas, PhD, former Professor of Surgery, UAB, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by grants R01 AI22293, R01 AI39793, U19 AI056542, U19 DK57958, and NIH/Novartis Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 96-MH-01/NIHITC-0697.

The objective of the research was to test the effectiveness of different agents, such as Immunotoxin FN18-CRM9 or 15-deoxyspergualin (15-DSG), administered around the time of renal transplantation in non-human primates, in preventing rejection of the transplanted kidney. …

PHS found that Respondent engaged in scientific misconduct by falsifying reports of research results in NIH-supported experiments with non-human primate renal allograft recipients in 15 publications and in progress reports in 2 NIH research grant applications.

Notice is hereby given that the ORI and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case:

Based on a finding of scientific misconduct made by UAB on January 24, 2008, a report of the UAB Investigation Committee, dated November 21, 2007, and analysis conducted by ORI during its oversight review, and further discussion between UAB and ORI to clarify UAB’s investigative findings and decision with respect to the requirements of 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93, the US PHS found that Juan Luis R. Contreras, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery–Transplantation, UAB, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by grants R01 AI22293, R01 AI39793, U19 AI056542, U19 DK57958, and NIH/Novartis Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 96-MH-01/ NIHITC-0697.

PHS found that Respondent engaged in scientific misconduct by falsifying in 7 publications reports of research results in NIH-supported experiments with non-human primate renal allograft recipients.

Comments (1)

SBIR Woes

July 6, 2009 at 12:16 pm · Filed under NIH Advice, Research News

An oddly titled (“Start-Ups Say Innovation Doesn’t Grow on Trees”) Washington Post column by Kim Hart laments the absence of a 2.8% set-aside for SBIR/STTR awards in the $10B the NIH received in ARRA funds and notes lobbying efforts for Congressional reauthorization of the small business set-aside program:

Cha-Mei Tang, chief executive of Potomac-based Creatv MicroTech, said she submitted a grant application last week to help hire more employees to gather patient samples and statistics in the development of a tool to detect chronic lymphocytic leukemia. She said past efforts to compete for funds that are not reserved for small businesses have been unsuccessful, so she is concerned that companies will not have much of a shot at stimulus money.

“Everything we sell is based on SBIR funding,” Tang said. She said she plans to visit lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week. The House is scheduled this week to take action to reauthorize the SBIR program, which expires at the end of July. The biggest issue in question is whether venture-backed firms should have access to SBIR grants.

Perhaps Creatv MicroTech should consider why they have been unsuccessful in competing for R&D funding and whether this reflects on the soundness of their science, study design, expertise, facilities, etc.

The Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act of 2009 is being reviewed by the House Committee on Science and Technology, whose Chair Bart Gordon (D-Tenn) calls it “one of the most significant bills the Committee will likely address in this Congress”. Right now, the bill extends the life of SBIR/STTR only until 2011 (corresponding Senate bill, SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009 [S. 1233], goes through 2023 and gradually increases the set-aside amount until it reaches 3.5% in 2020). Usually, the program is reauthorized for 8-year cycles.

Both bills increase the award levels, and the House also shortens the application review period. One presumes the NIH will be among those extending the 90-day deadline to 180 days recommended in the House report:

The section also directs Federal agencies to render a final decision on each proposal 90 days after the date a solicitation closes. A clear timeline will allow applicants to better forecast and prepare for receipt of potential SBIR awards. Recognizing that the agencies will not be able to meet with this directive in all cases, the section provides the agencies with the authority to extend the 90-day deadline to a 180-day deadline on a case-by-case basis.

With regard to ARRA small-business funding, apparently the recent RFAs — Biomedical Research, Development, and Growth to Spur the Acceleration of New Technologies (BRDG-SPAN) Pilot Program (RC3) ($35M) and Small Business Catalyst Awards for Accelerating Innovative Research (R43) ($5M) — which were not mentioned in the Post article, don’t count.

Regardless, Aprile Pilon of Clarassance, a Rockville-based biopharmaceutical company, “argues that small-business applications get tougher scrutiny than those from academic institutions, and she claims that the board reviewing the applications is largely made up of university representatives.”

What a shocker that the NIH would want to have qualified scientists review the science. Never mind that the paylines for SBIR/STTR grants are much higher than those for the basic biomedical research that will eventually become available for commercialization.

Oh, the Post piece notes that:

Cardin, Van Hollen and Edwards [all D-Md reps] sent a pointed letter to [acting NIH Director] Kington after the hearing [on the SBIR reauthorization bill], saying that his “absence sent a message of indifference.”

Hmm. Wonder what Ray might have on his plate that could possibly be more important than small-business set asides?

Now, not that I am against the NIH Small Business Research programs. Far from it. But when the NIH has to keep raising paylines because there aren’t enough scientifically outstanding and excellent applications competing for these Congressionally designated funds, perhaps industry should put as much effort into evaluating their research practices as lobbying for more federal set-asides.

Comments (28)

NSF 2006 Academic Institutional Profiles

July 2, 2009 at 11:35 am · Filed under NSF Info, Research News, Research Resource

The NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics has released its Academic Institutional Profiles for 2006. A convenient upgrade for this year is that you can scroll through alphabetized lists of academic institutions with their various rankings or without any rankings. Clicking on the institution name in either list takes you to their data tables (earned doctorates, federal science & engineering obligations, grad students & postdoctorals, and R&D expenditures). A search engine can also be used to take you to the institution of interest.

Leave a Comment