Archive for April, 2010

Collins FY11 Budget Testimony

Most of Francis Collins’ remarks to the House Subcommittee on Labor – HHS – Education Appropriations were of the fluffy, feel-good variety, but he closed with some talking points (references for each are available in the transcript) that you all might want to keep in mind when communicating with your Congressfolk about supporting the NIH appropriation:

It is crucial to keep in mind that investing in NIH not only improves America’s health and strengthens our nation’s biomedical research potential, it empowers the entire U.S. economy. Consider the following statistics:

  • A report issued by Families USA calculated that in 2007, every $1 in NIH funding resulted in an additional $2.11 in economic output in the U.S.
  • In FY 2007, a typical NIH grant supported the salaries of about 7 high-tech jobs in full or in part.
  • The 351,000 jobs resulting from NIH awards paid an average annual wage of more than $52,000 per annum and account for more than $18 billion in wages for FY 2007.
  • Long term, NIH funded R&D sparks U.S. economic innovation in the high-technology and high value-added pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. For example, between 1982 and 2006, one-third of all drugs and nearly 60 percent of promising new molecular entities approved by the FDA cited either an NIH-funded publication or an NIH patent.
  • NIH-funded research has contributed to overall gains in average U.S. life expectancy from 1970-2000 that were worth an estimated $95 trillion.

Leave a Comment

Findings of Research Misconduct

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

Based on the report of an investigation conducted by Wyeth Pharmaceuticals and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Boris Cheskis, PhD, former senior scientist, Discovery Research, Women’s Health, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, engaged in misconduct in science by intentionally falsifying Figures 5 and 6 in R01DK072026-01 (submitted to NIH on September 28, 2004) and Figures 6 and 9 in R01DK072026-01A2 (submitted to NIH on November 9, 2005).

Dr. Cheskis’ research was in an area of research (estrogen receptors and modulation of nongenomic phosphorylation cascades) that is of importance to women’s health. Dr. Cheskis’ team identified an adapter protein, MNAR, that coordinates interactions between certain nuclear receptors, Src and PI3K and may play important roles in regulation of cell proliferation and survival.

Both Dr. Cheskis and the US PHS were desirous of concluding this matter without further expense of time and other resources. Dr. Cheskis neither admits nor denies that ORI’s findings represent findings of research misconduct. The settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the Respondent.

Dr. Cheskis has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement. Dr. Cheskis has voluntarily agreed, for a period of 2 years, beginning on March 22, 2010:

(1) To exclude himself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant;

(2) That any institution that submits an application for PHS support for a research project on which the Respondent’s participation is proposed or that uses him in any capacity on PHS-supported research, or that submits a report of PHS-funded research in which he is involved, must concurrently submit a plan for supervision of his duties to the funding agency for approval; the supervisory plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of his research contribution; respondent agreed that he will not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervisory plan is submitted to ORI.

This next one is also covered in The Scientist [h/t Federale] …

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

Based on the Respondent’s own admissions in sworn testimony and as set forth below, Indiana University (IU) and the US PHS found that Ms. Emily M. Horvath, former graduate student, IU, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by R01AT001846, F31AT003977, and R01DK082773 by falsifying the original research data when entering values into computer programs for statistical analysis with the goal of reducing the magnitude of errors within groups, thereby gaining greater statistical power.

Respondent admitted to falsifying Figures 6B, 18, 22, 23B, and 24 in grant application R01AT001846-06 (application was withdrawn in May 2009).

Respondent admitted to falsifying Figures 6B, 8, 9D, 16D, and 21 in R01DK082773-01.

Respondent admitted to falsifying Figures 2C, 5, 6D, and 11 in the publication: Horvath et al. Molecular Endocrinology 22:937-950, 2008.

Respondent admitted to falsifying Figure 2C in the publication: Bhonagiri et al. Endocrinology 150(4):1636-1645, 2009.

Respondent also admitted to falsifying Figures 2C, 5, 6D, 11, 13C, 15A, 16A, 17A, 18, 19C, and 20A, which are included in her thesis, “Cholesterol-dependent mechanism(s) of insulin-sensitizing therapeutics.’ The PhD was awarded on December 31, 2008. Respondent was supported by F31AT003977 (9/30/06-9/29/09).

Ms. Horvath has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement in which she has voluntarily agreed, for a period of 3 years, beginning on March 22, 2010:

(1) To exclude herself from serving in any advisory capacity to PHS, including but not limited to service on any PHS advisory committee, board, and/or peer review committee, or as a consultant;

(2) That any institution that submits an application for PHS support for a research project on which the Respondent’s participation is proposed or that uses her in any capacity on PHS-supported research, or that submits a report of PHS-funded research in which she is involved, must concurrently submit a plan for supervision of her duties to the funding agency for approval; the supervisory plan must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of her research contribution; respondent agreed that she will not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervisory plan is submitted to ORI;

(3) That any institution employing her submits, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds or report, manuscript, or abstract of PHS-funded research in which the Respondent is involved, a certification that the data provided by the Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, analyses, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract; the Respondent must ensure that the institution sends a copy of the certification to ORI; and

(4) That she will write letters, approved by ORI, to relevant journal editors of the published papers cited above to state what she falsified/fabricated and to provide corrections if she has not already done so. These letters should state that her falsifications/fabrications were the underlying reason for the retraction/corrections.

Comments (8)

NSF Authorization Bill

The good news is that the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2010 (H.R.4997), introduced this week by Daniel Lipinski (D-IL), authorizes budgets of $8.22B for FY11, $8.93B for FY12, $9.56B for FY13, $10.11B for FY14, and $10.70B for FY15. Each FY total is broken down into amounts authorized for research and research-related activities, education and human resources, major equipment and facilities, agency operations and award management, National Science Board, and Inspector General. (Here is what NSF requested.)

The Bill includes a few other spending caveats, starting with an emphasis on “potentially transformative research”:

The Director shall establish a policy that requires the Foundation to use at least 5% of its research budget [not including equipment & facilities funds] to fund basic, high-risk, high-reward research proposals. … the term ‘‘high-risk, high-reward research’’ means research driven by ideas that have the potential to radically change our understanding of an important existing scientific or engineering concept, or leading to the creation of a new paradigm or field of science or engineering, and that is characterized by its challenge to current understanding or its pathway to new frontiers.

Congress is also pushing for more collaborative research at NSF … or maybe one or two particular collaborative arrangements, given the level of detail and funding:

The Director shall award competitive, merit-based awards in amounts not to exceed $5,000,000 over a period of up to 5 years to interdisciplinary research collaborations that are likely to assist in addressing critical challenges to national security, competitiveness, and societal well-being and that— (1) involve at least 2 co-equal principal investigators at the same or different institutions; (2) draw upon well-integrated, diverse teams of investigators, including students or postdoctoral researchers, from one or more disciplines; and (3) foster creativity and pursue high-risk, high-reward research. In selecting grant recipients under this section, the Director shall give priority to applicants that propose to use advances in cyberinfrastructure and simulation-based science engineering.

Well then. I guess earmarkish directives aren’t quite dead.

Universities are also sought to inject life into US manufacturing:

The Director shall carry out a program to award merit-reviewed, competitive grants to institutions of higher education to support fundamental research leading to transformative advances in manufacturing technologies, processes, and enterprises that will support United States manufacturing through improved performance, productivity, sustainability, and competitiveness. Research areas may include— (1) nanomanufacturing; (2) manufacturing and construction machines and equipment, including robotics, automation, and other intelligent systems; (3) manufacturing enterprise systems; (4) advanced sensing and control techniques; (5) materials processing; and (6) information technologies for manufacturing, including predictive and real-time models and simulations, and virtual manufacturing.

Virtual manufacturing. Who knew? There is more language about funding for partnerships with minority-serving institutions, mid-scale research equipment, and a big emphasis on education in STEM (bill focuses on grad students and postdocs).

Of possible interest to anyone seeking NSF funding is the language on “Broader Impacts” and its review criterion. First, why Congress thinks this is important:

The Foundation shall apply a Broader Impacts Review Criterion to achieve the following goals:

    (1) Increased economic competitiveness of the United States.
    (2) Development of a globally competitive STEM workforce.
    (3) Increased participation of women and underrepresented minorities in STEM.
    (4) Increased partnerships between academia and industry.
    (5) Improved K-12 STEM education and teacher development.
    (6) Improved undergraduate STEM education.
    (7) Increased public scientific literacy.
    (8) Increased national security.

National security? What happened to, “How well does the activity advance discovery and understanding while promoting teaching, training and learning?”

Then the Bill lays out the policy changes (versus current guidance) NSF should implement:

(b) POLICY.—Not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director shall develop and implement a policy for the Broader Impacts Review Criterion that—

    (1) provides for educating professional staff at the Foundation, merit review panels, and applicants for Foundation research grants on the policy developed under this subsection;
    (2) clarifies that the activities of grant recipients undertaken to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion shall— (A) to the extent practicable employ proven strategies and models and draw on existing programs and activities; and (B) when novel approaches are justified, build on the most current research results;
    (3) allows for some portion of funds allocated to broader impacts under a research grant to be used for assessment and evaluation of the broader impacts activity;
    (4) encourages institutions of higher education and other nonprofit organizations to develop and provide, either as individual institutions or in partnerships thereof, appropriate training and programs to assist Foundation-funded principal investigators at their institutions in achieving the goals of the Broader Impacts Review Criterion as described in subsection (a); and
    (5) requires principal investigators applying for Foundation research grants to provide evidence of institutional support for the portion of the investigator’s proposal designed to satisfy the Broader Impacts Review Criterion, including evidence of relevant training, programs, and other institutional resources available to the investigator from either their home institution or organization or another institution or organization with relevant expertise.

Hmm. And the broader impact on NSF grant applications will be …

Comments (6)

NIH FY09 Success Rates

So as the 2009 applicants await word as to whether they will be funded with FY10 dollars, I thought I’d post the lastest success rate data from the NIH.

The big NIH-wide scoreboard shows an overall success rate of 20.6%. This includes all competitive applications (e.g., new, renewals, supplements) for all mechanisms. As a reminder, NIH Success Rates:

include applications that are peer reviewed and either scored or unscored by an Initial Review Group. Success rates are determined by dividing the number of competing applications funded by the sum of the total number of competing applications reviewed and the number of funded carryovers [i.e., applications reviewed and scored but not funded the fiscal year prior]. Applications having one or more amendments in the same fiscal year are only counted once.

Grants funded jointly by 2 or more ICs are counted only by the IC footing the largest chunk of the bill.

On the master file, you can click on your favorite ICs to get their specific success rate stats.

Across the NIH, R21s (all Type 1s) have success rates well below R01s (which include Type 2/3 applications in their success rate). Among the big ICs, NHLBI is at 14.5% for the R21; NCI, 13.7%; NINDS, 12.8%; NIAID 11.8%; NIGMS, 7.9%; and NIDDK (which discourages applicants from using this mechanism except for specific types of work), 4.6%. NIMH is an outlier with an R21 success rate of 20.1%. In general, in fact, NIMH looks to be a nice place to go for money … except for R03s, which have a success rate of 9.6% (go to NIDDK, 58%, or NCI, 30.8%, for this mechanism … though these are probably mainly secondary data analyses awards).

No data on F, K, or T awards here … you need to scroll down the main success rate page and check the appropriate Excel spreadsheet for these data … or better yet, check the NIH Data Book for trends in Career Development Awards and Training Grants & Fellowships.

Comments (15)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 114 other followers