Archive for November, 2011

Budget Update … Good News For NSF (& their CREATIV use of these funds …)

Today the President should sign legislation continuing the CR through December 16 and … miracle of miracles … establish the FY12 appropriations for several federal agencies, including the NSF (p 246-249). In a burst of generosity, both chambers agreed on a 2.5% increase for the NSF (whereas previously, neither had).

Interesting … but even more interesting is a new mechanism through which the NSF will distribute some of this taxpayer largess: the CREATIV means to by-pass external peer review. Of course, this $24M initiative has a contorted name to achieve his acronym … Creative Research Awards for Transformative Interdisciplinary Ventures … for which the distinguishing characteristics are that “only internal merit review is required; proposals must be interdisciplinary and potentially transformative; and requests may be up to $1,000,000 and up to 5 years duration.” You do need buy in from program directors in 2 distinct divisions or programs. Applications will start pouring in Dec 1.

Getting back to the larger budget issues, FY12 for the NIH remains an unknown beyond the 1.5% cut from FY11 in the CR. We’ll see what happens along the way to Dec 16. In the meantime, here is a recap of the budget process as part of a comment I posted in NIH Paylines & Resources that may help those new to government dysfunction:

The federal fiscal year goes from Oct 1 to Sept 30 … and the year attached to the FY is always the second calendar year involved. We are currently in FY12.

Long long ago, Congress used to pass appropriation bills for individual federal agencies (i.e., Defense, Energy, State, Agriculture, et al.) before the FY ended, so the agencies would know how much money they had to spend during the next fiscal year. If there are no appropriation bills passed by Congress and signed into law by the President (or if there are only a few passed into law) by Oct 1, then Congress needs to pass a continuing resolution (CR) to maintain funding for the operation of the federal government. When you hear about threats of a federal government shut-down, this is why – no appropriated funds, no money to continue functioning. Continuing resolutions typically simply maintain the same funding levels from the year prior. For this year, F12, Congress passed a CR that funded the NIH at FY11 funding levels *minus* 1.5%. So, the NIH started FY12 with a funding cut from FY11.

The NIH has a real problem this year in reading the tea leaves. The House and Senate have completely different versions of the appropriations bill for the NIH. The Senate cuts the NIH budget and authorizes the creation of NCATS and the abolishment of NCRR (which is what Collins wants). The House gives the NIH a 3.3% increase … but keeps NCRR and does not approve the creation of NCATS. The appropriate subcommitttees in each chamber have not made any progress (at least that they’ve made public) on which version of the NIH appropriations language to use. So, no one at the NIH has a clue – not one – as to whether their funding will go up or down as FY12 proceeds. Right now, they have to assume they will complete the entire FY at the current funding level, which is FY11 – 1.5%.

You got a problem with how this system is working? Contact your Congressional delegation about supporting scientific research in the US through consistent, reliable funding streams versus putting everyone through this game every year. FASEB can help you find and communicate with your elected officials.

Comments (3)

Findings of Research Misconduct

Notice is hereby given that ORI has taken final action in the following case:

Based on the report of an investigation conducted by UVA and additional analysis conducted by ORI in its oversight review, ORI found that Dr. Jayant Jagannathan, former Resident Physician at UVA Medical Center, engaged in research misconduct by including, in 5 publications, large amounts of text and an illustration that he plagiarized from publications supported by the following NIH grant awards: T32CA09677, P01HL024136, R01HL059157, P50CA090270, M01RR01346, R01CA075979, R01DK064169, R01NS027544, R01NS052406, and K08NS002197 and by intramural funds from the NINDS Surgical Neurosurgery Branch and from NIDCR.

Publications in which Respondent reported plagiarized material were:

1. Jagannathan, J., Li, J., Szerlip, N., Vortmeyer, A.O., Lonser, R.R., Oldfied, E.H., Zhuang, Z. “Application and implementation of selective tissue microdissection and proteomic profiling in neurological disease.’ Neurosurgery 64:4-14, 2009 (to be retracted);

2. Jagannathan, J., Prevedello, D.M., Dumont, A.S., Laws, E.R. “Cellular Signaling Molecules as Therapeutic Targets in the Treatment of Glioblastoma Multiforme.’ Neurosurgical Focus 20(4):E8, 2006 (retracted “due to plagiarism,’ Neurosurgical Focus 30(2):E8r, 2011);

3. Kanter, A.S., Jagannathan, J., Shaffrey, C.I., Ouellet, J.A., Mummaneni, P.V. “Inflammatory and dysplastic lesions involving the spine.’ Neurosurgical Clinics of North America 19(1):93-109, 2008;

4. Jagannathan, J., Dumont, A.S., Prevedello, D.M., Oskouian, R.J., Lopes, B., Jane, J.A. Jr, Laws, E.R. Jr. “Genetics of pituitary adenomas: Current theories and future implications.’ Neurosurgical Focus 19(5):E4, 2005 (retracted “due to plagiarism,’ Neurosurgical Focus 30(2):E4r, 2011);

5. Jagannathan, J. “Role of calcium influx and modulation of local neurotransmitters as hallmarks of pediatric traumatic brain injury.’ Biomarkers Med. 3:95-97, 2009 (retracted online 9/11/ 2010).

Dr. Jagannathan has entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement (Agreement) and has voluntarily agreed for a period of 4 years, beginning on October 20, 2011:

(1) To have his research supervised; Respondent agreed to ensure that prior to the submission of an application for U.S. PHS support for a research project on which his participation is proposed and prior to his participation in any capacity on PHS-supported research, the institution employing him must submit a plan for supervision of his duties to ORI for approval; the plan for supervision must be designed to ensure the scientific integrity of his research contribution; Respondent agreed that he will not participate in any PHS-supported research after 60 days from the effective date of the Agreement until a plan for supervision is submitted to and approved by ORI; Respondent agreed to maintain responsibility for compliance with the agreed upon supervision plan;

(2) That any institution employing him must submit, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract;

(3) To submit a letter to the journal editor for publication 3 (Neurosurgical Clinics of North America) listed above, requesting that the paper be retracted because Respondent had plagiarized portions of text reported in it; the letter must be sent to ORI for approval prior to being sent to the editor; and

(4) 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.

Leave a Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 114 other followers