Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship

From H.R. 2642 (Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008 - signed into law by our very own Dear Leader on June 30):

For an additional amount for `Office of the Director’, $150,000,000, which shall be transferred to the Institutes and Centers of the National Institutes of Health and to the Common Fund established under section 402A(c)(1) of the Public Health Service Act in proportion to the appropriations otherwise made to such Institutes, Centers, and Common Fund for fiscal year 2008: Provided, That these funds shall be used to support additional scientific research and shall be merged with and be available for the same purposes and for the same time period as the appropriation or fund to which transferred: Provided further, That this transfer authority is in addition to any other transfer authority available to the National Institutes of Health: Provided further, That none of these funds may be transferred to `National Institutes of Health-Buildings and Facilities’, the Center for Scientific Review, the Center for Information Technology, the Clinical Center, the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, or the Office of the Director (except for the transfer to the Common Fund).

No word as yet from the Great Zerhouni as to how these funds might be distributed. I’m sure it will be transformative, though.

Now, the NIH is not the only agency celebrating Christmas (or your favorite giving holiday) in July. NASA receives “an additional amount for `Science, Aeronautics and Exploration’, $62,500,000″, while the Department of Energy gets “an additional amount for `Science’, $62,500,000, to remain available until expended.”

The NSF receives a split dividend: “For an additional amount for `Research and Related Activities’, $22,500,000, of which $5,000,000 shall be available solely for activities authorized by section 7002(b)(2)(A)(iv) of Public Law 110-69″ and “For an additional amount for `Education and Human Resources’, $40,000,000: Provided, That of the amount provided, $20,000,000 shall be available for activities authorized by section 10 of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1) and $20,000,000 shall be available for activities authorized by section 10A of the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 1862n-1a).”

Science provides a nice overview of these goodies as well as current House and Senate versions of the FY09 budget … which won’t see the light of day until well into 2009. For now, a 4% increase for the NIH, and a healthy 13% increase for the NSF. In addition to the big 4 noted above, Science also briefly reviews budget requests for NOAA, NIST, USDA, EPA, and the US Geological Survey.

Someday, in my spare time (tee-hee-hee), I’ll create a dynamic resource page similar to the one for Paylines that provides links to the various IC cleared concept clearinghouses. Or maybe I’ll just add these links to the Paylines page. Done (links added to Paylines page, that is). In the meantime, please remember to go see what your favorite IC council has been up to (besides approving your application for funding, of course). For example, NIAID just cleared concepts for several ambitious programs.

The proposed DoD Science & Technology FY08 budget of $10.8 billion is 2.2% of the total DoD budget, a decline of $311 million (whereas total DoD budget grew by $42 billion in FY08). This is about a third of the NIH budget, but it’s spent on significantly fewer initiatives (I like the 3rd category - perhaps the vomit flashlight?):

Foundational Sciences - $300-500M
Active & Conventional Armor Technology - $50M
Defeat of Speed of Light Weapons Systems - $50-100M
Adaptive, Interactive, Full Immersion Training of the Soldier/Marine - $50-100M
Metamaterials - $30-50M
Information Warfare - $100-200M
Information Assurance - $100-200M
Networking Technology - $40-70M
Organization, Fusion, & Mining Large Data Sets for Enhanced Decision Making - $40-60M
Energy - $50-100M
Manufacturing Science Technology - $50-70M
Software Development Technology - $40-70M
Combatting Weapons of Mass Destruction - $50-100M
Neuro-ergonomics - $30-50M
Advanced Medical Research - $100-150M
Autonomous Operations of Networks of Unmanned Vehicles in Complex Environments - $100M
Disparate Sensors, Communications, & Spectrum Management - $500M
Biometric-Based Tactical Threat Identification Demonstration - $190M
Monitoring the Marine Environment for Marine Mammals During Active Sonar Operations - $150M
Specialty Materials for Airships - $30M

Given the crowd who probably reads this blog, I’ll add that the Advanced Medical Research initiative includes such topics as … tissue regeneration, traumatic brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder … [okay, all these make sense] … and …

“Off-head neurophysiologically-based brain activity sensing” [I get the gist - but there must be a better title] and
“Universal Antigens” [hmmm]

And yes, I realize these don’t add up to $10.8B. These are the major priorities - there will be others, and demonstration projects as well. UPDATE: Science is reporting a request to increase the S&T budget by 11% (1.2B) for FY09, though the likelihood of such an increase is slim. Additional resources would go primarily toward “foundational sciences, covering areas such as biosensors, photonic crystals, and the computing sciences.”

The Arete Initiative at The University of Chicago is pleased to announce a $2 million research program on the nature and benefits of Wisdom. In 2008, up to 20, two-year research grants will be awarded to scholars from institutions around the world who have received their Ph.D. within the past 10 years. Letters of Intent are due November 19, 2007. Example projects might include:

• Wisdom in the context of risk and uncertainty; wisdom in the context of real-world unknowables;
• Wisdom in the context of social norms;
• Finding new wisdom in the context of optimization models in biology and computer science;
• New wisdom in the context of changing of ethical systems and law;
• Wisdom in selecting subjective preference weights in the context of economic models;
• The art of balancing long-term and short term considerations and trade-offs;
• Wisdom in the design of institutional structures;
• New ways to learn/teach emerging kinds of wisdom;
• Wisdom in nature;
• Wisdom in the practice of compassion (forgiveness, international aid programs, etc.)

First, NIAMS, then NINR … now NIDCR makes 3 NIH ICs that restrict use of the R03 small grant program mechanism for clearly defined new investigators. NIDCR offers up to $150K in direct costs for the 2-year period. NIAMS sticks with the traditional $50K per year but for up to 3 years. NINR seems to be following the parent R03 award of $50K per year for 2 years.

NIDCD offers a special R03 program for young investigators - including postdocs - within 7 years of their doctorate (excluding years of formal clinical training). Applications may be submitted for up to 4 modules of $25,000 each (ie, $100,000 Direct Costs per year), for up to 3 years of support. There are special receipt dates later in the major cycle months (Feb, June, Oct).

Exceptional, Unconventional Research Enabling Knowledge Acceleration … an RFA co-sponsored by NIGMS, NIDA, NIMH, NINDS, and NIAID to provide non-renewable R01 support to “investigators who are testing novel, unconventional hypotheses or are pursuing major methodological or technical challenges. … Several key features of the EUREKA FOA have been designed to emphasize to applicants and peer reviewers that these applications are very different from conventional, investigator-initiated R01s.” So - read the RFA carefully, and then read very carefully between the lines. LOI due Sept 24th, application receipt date is Oct 24th.

From Science as well … get your thinking caps on:

Two hot biological research areas–epigenetics and the microbes our bodies host–will lead Roadmap 1.5, the second round of research initiatives that cut across all 27 institutes and centers at the NIH. Alan Krensky, incoming director of NIH’s new planning office, says solicitations for these two 5-year programs will go out this fall. Epigenetics will catalog genetic changes that affect gene expression but don’t involve a change in DNA sequence. The Human Microbiome Project will examine the body’s microbial communities and their relation to disease. Two more projects to start as pilots include work on human phenotyping and protein probes. NIH projects spending $30 million next year and $80 million for each of the next 4 years.

You know it’s bad when the research deity at one of the top 10 recipients of NIH funding gives a state of the universe speech & tells his audience to look elsewhere for support. In a very timely special feature section, Nature provides in-depth coverage on the brave new world of biomedical research philanthropy.

Philanthropic funding of science and health has doubled in the past decade (thank you, Bill Gates), with foundations alone granting $1.2 billion to US science and medical research in 2005 and $3.4 billion to the broader category of health research (still considerably less than a month in Iraq). Check out the Nature material for all the stats on philanthropic research funding (who gives how much for what purpose) and commentaries on the pros and cons of working out agreements with giga-donors who bring their personal requests and expectations to the granting process.

I recently noted the addition of 46 more study sections to the New Investigator Pilot Program, and I have now tracked down some data on how this pilot is going. Sounds like you all in the new investigator category should definitely start taking advantage of the quick resubmission opportunity upon getting your summary statement.

As a refresher, here’s the scenario timeline: New investigator submits a new R01 application for the Feb 5 receipt date that is reviewed by a study section participating in the pilot program (all study sections will be on board by the October cycle). Said new investigator gets his/her summary statement by July 1. Said new investigator can submit a revised (A1) application by July 20 and have it counted toward the July 5 cycle deadline. Otherwise, said new investigator must wait until Nov 5 to resubmit.

For the July and Nov 2006 cycles, 1207 new investigator R01s were reviewed by study sections participating in the pilot study. 162 of these new investigators (13.4%) took advantage of the opportunity to revise and resubmit a cycle early (e.g., July 20 instead of waiting for Nov 5).

Almost a third of these early resubmitters (30%) received A1 scores that fell below the 15th percentile - almost guaranteed funding for a new PI. Among applicants not participating in the pilot program, only 16% of new investigators submitting A1 applications fared as well.

Now, it is a bit worrisome that about one third of pilot program R01 resubmitters were unscored … though one half of new investigator revised applications not part of the pilot program were also unscored. So, it is hard to judge, but it doesn’t sound as though hurrying to resubmit in 3 weeks is any more likely to result in a streamlined application as is waiting for the next cycle. Sad to think folks in both these groups only have one more chance to submit - especially with no feedback from the study section as a group. Hopefully they are chatting up their program officer - and getting sound advice from him or her.

The National Human Genome Research Institute’s Office of Population Genomics supports the application of genomic knowledge to health by promoting multidisciplinary research in epidemiology and genomics, by applying genomic technologies to existing population and clinical studies, and by developing new population resources for investigation of genetic and environmental contributions to complex diseases. The Office provides a home for the Genes, Environment and Health Initiative and the Genetic Association Information Network. Led by Jeff Struewing, MD, MS, the Office has an interesting RFA on Genome-Wide Studies in Biorepositories with Electronic Medical Record Data that could really bring a whole new perspective to clinical research … ie, using routine clinical data and biospecimens to answer the big questions. One of my current challenges and a fascinating proposal to work on indeed.