Archive for March, 2010

Payline Complexity Explained & CSR College of Reviewers Updated by NIAID

March 31, 2010 at 5:50 pm · Filed under Grantsmanship, NIH Advice, Research News

As always, the latest issue of NIAID Funding News is a treasure trove of information and good advice.

First, for the hundreds of you out there wondering why your IC hasn’t set a payline yet, NIAID reports, shockingly, that the trend toward score clustering has increased and explains how score clustering causes jumps in assigned percentiles. An impact score of 20 seems to be the sweet spot thus far: “In the first two review cycles of this fiscal year, approximately 3% of applications reviewed by CSR received a score of 20.” NIAID gives an example in which a score of 20 in one study section might land at the 9th percentile, with a score of 21 in turn at the 11th percentile (payline at the 10th percentile).

NIAID also includes an update on the CSR College of Reviewers (discussed here previously), including the current membership roster. As a reminder, these folks (“editorial board members”) will be asked to provide written reviews only on up to 12 applications a year for 2 years as part of 2-stage reviews (with the second stage being the face-to-face meetings of “editors”).

Lots of other good intel and advice, so be sure to scroll through the entire newsletter and, no matter which IC is “yours”, sign up for delivery to your very own digital mail box.

Comments (7)

FundScience Applications Due Thurs, No Fooling

March 29, 2010 at 3:04 pm · Filed under Funding Opportunities, Research News

Fortunately, it shouldn’t take you – you being a graduate student – long to apply once you register for the site (scroll to bottom of page) and download the required forms (application template for illustrative purposes only). You’ll need up to 100 words describing your mentor(advisor)’s role, 100 words describing your aims & hypothesis, 100 words on background & rationale, 140 characters for your sales pitch to the public, 500 words for your abstract (graphics & video are allowed), 2-3 paragraphs on your study design/approach, and up to 500 words for preliminary data (if any) plus a 1-page bibliography and up to 6 suggested reviewers.

Why a sales pitch to the public? Because you will need to convince FundScience Website visitors (including friends & family you direct to the site for this purpose) to donate large or small $ amounts in support of your project. This is how most of your FundScience grant award will be funded, so the timing of your award will likewise depend on your ability to convince the public to fund your research.

Capisce? Great. Get your applications in, and let’s get this whole direct public funding of science experiment underway …

Comments (2)

Measures of Academic Performance … the Good and the Bad

March 24, 2010 at 4:59 pm · Filed under Research News, Research Resource

Nature, in addition to adding PLoS-like commenting to its entire journal, has an opinion piece by Julia Lane on the long-discussed need for better metrics for measuring academic productivity. She starts off:

Measuring and assessing academic performance is now a fact of scientific life. Decisions ranging from tenure to the ranking and funding of universities depend on metrics. Yet current systems of measurement are inadequate. Widely used metrics, from the newly-fashionable Hirsch index to the 50-year-old citation index, are of limited use. Their well-known flaws include favouring older researchers, capturing few aspects of scientists’ jobs and lumping together verified and discredited science. Many funding agencies use these metrics to evaluate institutional performance, compounding the problems. Existing metrics do not capture the full range of activities that support and transmit scientific ideas, which can be as varied as mentoring, blogging or creating industrial prototypes.

Better metrics will require clean, more easily accessible data not scattered among proprietary data sets … and more appropriate data for gauging performance. For example, “MESUR (Metrics from Scholarly Usage of Resources, http://www.mesur.org), a project funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and the National Science Foundation, record details such as how often articles are being searched and queried, and how long readers spend on them.” In suggesting other alternatives, she recognizes that:

Knowledge creation is a complex process, so perhaps alternative measures of creativity and productivity should be included in scientific metrics, such as the filing of patents, the creation of prototypes and even the production of YouTube videos. Many of these are more up-to-date measures of activity than citations. Knowledge transmission differs from field to field: physicists more commonly use preprint servers; computer scientists rely on working papers; others favour conference talks or books. Perhaps publications in these different media should be weighted differently in different fields.

Of course, a major factor in hiring and P&T decisions especially will continue to be grant funding, which in turn requires a solid publication record, no matter what productivity metric is used. One wonders if/when the US will be forced to adopt measures (possibly serving as a different sort of new metric) recently implemented in the UK to curb grant submissions by “repeatedly unsuccessful” PIs. Imagine how fun that discussion would be with your Chair come evaluation time….

Comments (6)

NIH Plans to Eliminate Error-Correction Window

March 18, 2010 at 11:48 am · Filed under NIH Advice, Research News

within the next year, along with AHRQ and the CDC, according to a notice seeking input on this proposed change.

The rationale:

Eliminating the error correction window will allow NIH to enforce a fair and consistent submission deadline for all applicants. In addition, eliminating the error correction window will help NIH reduce the time needed to process applications and forward them through the peer review process.

They also note that “applications now tak[e] minutes to process through both systems [Grants.gov and eRA] on average instead of days” and that safeguards remain in place for systems problems that might interfere with on-time submission/error-checking.

You can submit comments on the impact of such a change as well as any preference on timing (in the next 3-6 months, in a year, or later).

Comments (3)

Input Sought on NIGMS Training & Career Development Plan

March 17, 2010 at 6:05 pm · Filed under NIH Advice, Research News

As NIGMS Director Jeremy Berg noted on their blog the Feedback Loop, NIGMS would very much appreciate your input as they develop a strategic plan for training and career development.

You can submit comments online until April 21st.

You can participate in person at one of four regional stakeholder meetings:

You can participate in a Web discussion on Friday, June 11th, from 1-4 p.m. Eastern Time.

Please do participate, though. Obama’s proposed FY11 budget includes higher $ amounts for stipends (6% increase!) but a loss of 140 funded slots on institutional awards (T mechanisms) and only 48 additional individual awards (Fs); these numbers are NIH-wide, not just at NIGMS. With stipend levels more attractive but awards/slots increasingly competitive, your input will be more important than ever.

Comments (4)

FundScience Funding Opportunity

March 5, 2010 at 9:23 pm · Filed under Funding Opportunities, Research News

For the next 10 days, writedit will be electronically untethered and unavailable to monitor queries, comments, etc. … have fun during this unchaperoned spell … but not too much, and try not to trash the place.

Okay – FundScience.

On March 1, FundScience began accepting applications for funding of up to $50K. The deadline for submissions (electronic, at the Website) is April 1, 2010. No joke.

Using expert reviewers (3 per application – you can suggest up to 5 names for reviewers), they will select the 3 best applications that qualify for “up to $50,000 funded and facilitated by FundScience” plus potential access to Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center resources.

Although the press release is a bit short on details, a FAQ lays out a few topical priorities (though opening Website indicates any topic is fair game), preferred applicant status (graduate students are especially encouraged to apply), and help on the application process. Where the $50K comes from is not typical of extramural sponsors:

Each sponsored project will feature a dedicated webpage with an option for visitors to donate to the project. We will market all projects as well as help and encourage you to market the project yourself. The collected funds will be distributed through the affiliated university directly for the use of the project. In return we ask that you update the community on your progress and successes.

You’ll need to register to apply, but the application process is not burdensome … unless, perhaps, you aren’t used to writing a “sales pitch” for your science.

Have fun with FundScience.

Comments (2)

ARRA Pathfinder Opportunity

March 5, 2010 at 8:56 pm · Filed under Funding Opportunities, NIH Advice, Research News

Not quite hiking the Appalachian Trail …

The NIH Director’s ARRA Funded Pathfinder Award to Promote Diversity in the Scientific Workforce (DP4)

LOI: April 5, 2010
Application: May 4, 2010

Total costs for 3-year project may not exceed $2M – up to 5 awards to be made

This new FOA introduces a new research grant program to encourage exceptionally creative individual scientists to develop highly innovative and possibly transforming approaches for promoting diversity within the biomedical research workforce. To be considered highly innovative, the proposed research must reflect ideas substantially different from those already being pursued or it must apply existing research designs in new and innovative ways to unambiguously identify factors that will improve the retention of students, postdocs and faculty from diverse backgrounds. Awardees must commit a major portion (generally 30% or more) of their research effort to activities supported by the Director’s Pathfinder Award and the proposed research must be endorsed by the highest levels of institutional management.

Letters of reference are an important component of the Director’s Pathfinder application. Applicants must arrange to have 3 (and no more than 3) letters of reference submitted on their behalf.

Description of no more than 1 page of the applicant’s single most significant publication or research accomplishment. Applicants should submit one single accomplishment, not a summary of several accomplishments, multiple publications, or background narratives. Publications or other documents will not be accepted.

In 6 pages maximum (Research Strategy upload), describe the applicant’s innovative vision for addressing diversity within the biomedical research workforce, the importance of this problem on an institutional and a national level, and the applicant’s qualifications to engage in groundbreaking research related to workforce diversity. No detailed scientific plan should be provided since the research plan is expected to evolve during the tenure of the grant. The essay should include the following sections in the order given: Science Area, Project description, Evidence of innovativeness, How does the planned research differ from your past or current work, Suitability for Director’s Pathfinder program

References are not required but if included must fit within the 6-page limit. Figures and illustrations may be included but must also fit within the 6-page limit.

Include a biosketch only for the PI. Do not submit biosketches for other senior/key personnel.

Cover Letters should not be included unless related to an application which was corrected during the two day checking period after submission in grant.gov

PO:

Clifton Poodry, PhD
Division of Minority Opportunities in Research, NIGMS
Telephone: (301) 594-3900
Email: poodryc@nigms.nih.gov

Go forth and find the path with the greatest diversity …

Leave a Comment

One that Won’t Make it to ORI

March 4, 2010 at 3:28 pm · Filed under Biomedical Research Ethics, Research News

A colleague from a prior institution alerted me to this unusual case of a scientist behaving badly.

In September 2004, Dr. William Fals-Stewart (University at Buffalo and Research Institute on Addictions) was accused of fabricating data in NIDA-funded studies; there were discrepancies between the number of subjects reported on progress reports and the actual number of consent forms signed. In December,
a University at Buffalo Inquiry Panel found the data fabrication charges to be warranted and recommended a formal investigation be undertaken.

At that point, this could almost have just been an accounting error that needed to be clarified, but probably a bit more as Fals-Stewart was apparently pressured to leave the University in 2005. And clearly there was serious fabrication of one at least one according to a news release from NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo:

… during a subsequent formal investigation launched by the University, three witnesses testified by telephone because Fals-Stewart claimed they were out of town. In reality, they were actors who thought they were taking part in a mock-trial. Fals-Stewart paid the actors to testify. He also provided them with scripts to use during the proceedings that were riddled with inaccuracies regarding his research. Fals-Stewart told the three actors, who he had hired before for legitimate training videos, that they would be performing in a mock trial training exercise. They were not aware that they were testifying at a real administrative hearing, nor did they know they were impersonating real people. Because of these false testimonies, Fals-Stewart was exonerated at the administrative hearing.

Claiming that the misconduct allegations tarnished his reputation, Fals-Stewart sued the University, seeking $4 million from the state in damages. The Office of the Attorney General, in its role of defending the University and the state in the court action, conducted a thorough investigation of the claims against the University. It was during this investigation that Cuomo’s office discovered the alleged fraud, forced Fals-Stewart to withdraw his lawsuit and initiated a criminal investigation.

Fals-Stewart was arrested February 16th on multiple felony charges (attempted grand larceny, perjury, identity theft, offering a false instrument and falsifying business records) … and was found dead at his home on February 23rd. Cause of death, after autopsy but probably not all toxicology results, remains unknown (or unreported). The Buffalo News suggests he may have been ill in recent years.

But wait, there’s more. Between 2005 and 2010, Fals-Stewart was not idle. According to the University of Rochester Campus Times:

After leaving UB, Fals-Stewart worked at Research Park Triangle in North Carolina before coming to UR, where he was hired as a professor at the School of Nursing in 2007.

He resigned in November 2009, and in January he filed against UR in the State Supreme Court, claiming that he should have been granting tenure at the University.

I assume the Campus Times means he thinks he should have been granted tenure versus doing the granting … fortunately, his response to denial of tenure did not inflict tragedy on others.

Comments (2)

OpenNSF Dialogue Now Open for Discussion

March 2, 2010 at 3:05 pm · Filed under NSF Info, Research News

Quite simply, an open invitation from the NSF to the scientific community:

NSF is developing an Open Goverment Plan, which will serve as the roadmap for our plans to improve transparency, better integrate public participation and collaboration into our core mission, and become more innovative and efficient. As we begin to consider these topics, we’d like to hear your ideas and suggestions. Please visit our OpenNSF dialogue between February 6 and March 19 to give us your input.

Comments (1)

Act FAST for 100th Anniversary Edition Offer

March 1, 2010 at 10:44 am · Filed under Funding Opportunities, NIH Advice, Research News

I love Ron Abeles … from the BSSR Guide to NIH Grants, Issue No. 100, March 1, 2010:

============================================================

Issue No. 100, March 1, 2010

ONE-HUNDREDTH ANNIVERSARY ISSUE

To mark the 100th issue of this electronic service,
the first 10 readers to submit an application will receive a R .01 Award.
Submit your name and US postal address to abeles@nih.gov.

============================================================

Comments (3)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 114 other followers