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.

Let’s see … while I’ve been trying to save the world from bad grantsmanship, last week the NSF released its FY 2006 academic R&D expenditure data … no payline news likely to be forthcoming Read the rest of this entry »

The NSF has published data for Federal Science & Engineering Awards to universities, colleges, and nonprofit institutions for FY05. For those bean counters who study these tables closely, one item to consider in these post 9/11 years is that the Dept of Homeland Security is lumped in with the 10 “other” agencies, with some special considerations in specific tables (see the Table Notes for details). Johns Hopkins maintains its commanding lead in S&E obligations ($1.23B), about half of which goes to its heavily DoD-endowed Applied Physics Laboratory (APL).

As observed today in Nature (& blogged here earlier in the year), the NSF is doing a very precise time audit of funded researchers to ensure they actually spend as much time as they are paid for on specific projects. So far, UPenn and Caltech have been scrutinized and found wanting (Caltech took a hit to their indirect cost rate). The next batch of reports will cover UC San Diego, UC Berkeley, U Utah, U Ill Urb-Cham, and Vanderbilt. Not surprisingly, everyone is being tight-lipped about the entire process. So much for NSF’s concern about administrative burden.

Update: Speak of the devil. The US DHHS Office of the Inspector General has released its FY08 Work Plan. Among the fun doings to anticipate, “We will review administrative and clerical salaries charged to federally sponsored grants and cooperative agreements by colleges and universities…. We will review colleges’ and universities’ compliance with selected aspects of OMB Circular A-21. … We will review NIH’s monitoring of extramural grantees for potential conflicts of interest. We will focus on financial conflicts of interest that grantee institutions report to NIH, as well as the extent to which NIH oversees grantees’ monitoring and management of potential financial conflicts of interest.” And somehow this slipped past those crack federal editors: “We will review the extent to which Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMB) in clinical trials.” Hmmm.

Our friend Brian Martinson and his group in Minnesota note that misreporting is the norm: 70% of mid-career scientists winning their first R01 use at least some of the funds for other projects. Of course, this is getting harder to do now when the NIH lops 20% off your approved budget just for starters.

All I can say is wait until the CTSAers have to start logging in NUMBERS OF HOURS PER PERSON OR PROJECT (fractions of hours even!) in a central database. I am so far behind logging in my own effort it isn’t funny … and it really puts a damper on wanting to help people because, damn, then I have to log the hours and probably create a new account describing the person & their research & exactly what CTSA services they received. Criminey. Nothing like making the support of innovative translational research such a joy.

The NSF data on FY05 R&D expenditures by industry show a 5.4% increase (adjusted for inflation) from FY04: $226 billion in 2005 compared with $208 billion in 2004. As a reminder, federally funded R&D increased by 4.9% in the same period (also adjusted for inflation). The tables show performance by sector, sales & employment by sector, R&D $ by company size, and R&D $ by state, with some interesting summary notes on geographic distribution (or lack thereof) for industry R&D expenditures at the end.

Last March, the NSF & AAAS announced the Science and Engineering Visualization Challenge … and the winners have been announced. Wow … take some time to enjoy the slide show and the Science Magazine feature section.

The shocking title/conclusion of this NSF report … Universities Report Stalled Growth in Federal R&D Funding in FY 2006

“Federally funded academic R&D expenditures rose 2.9% in FY 2006 to $30.0 billion. When adjusted for inflation, this represents a 0.1% decline from FY 2005. … The most significant gain occurred in funding originating from institutions, which increased 9.7% in FY 2006 to $9.1 billion.”

And what happens when Universities spend their entire rainy day fund?

If you want to check on your home institution, the most recent profiles available are for FY04.

Science reports on an NSF survey of grant applicants and reviewers that enjoyed a 56% response rate. Since 2000, the NSF has increased its award size by 34%, which in turn consumed an additional 44% of the budget. A combination of larger awards and more applications (up 47% since 2000) lowered the success rate from 30% to 21%. Interestingly, they do not think NIH applicants are turning to the NSF as an alternative source for funding. Like the NIH, however, the NSF is having trouble signing up reviewers, with one in six begging off due to insufficient time.

My favorite graphic is the one showing that reviewers think their own proposals, unlike those submitted by the great unwashed masses, represent transformative research. Also enjoyed the survey respondent snapshot drawn up by Science:

“Sent last fall to everyone who submitted a research proposal to NSF in the past 3 years (more than half were also reviewers), the survey also paints a picture of the typical applicant. He’s someone (three-fourths are men) who underestimates his chances of success but would have a go regardless of the odds. He needs the money primarily to keep his lab intact and is prepared to try and try again if his initial application is rejected. He’s reviewed up to a half-dozen proposals for NSF in the past 12 months, sometimes cutting corners, and thinks that few contain potentially transformative ideas. Yet he believes his own research, if funded, stands a good chance of shattering the existing paradigm in the field.”

Thankfully, NSF funds the sociologists, psychologists, and anthropologists who could have a field day with these findings.

Now we can see why so many researchers are frantically submitting grant applications … to bring in indirect costs to pay for billions of dollars in newly constructed R&D space, as described in detail by the stats folks at the NSF. Interestingly, my current institution seems to have boycotted this report.

The first National Science Foundation Regional Grants Conference of fiscal year 2008 will be hosted by Portland State University on October 22-23, 2007, with an optional FastLane and Grants.gov workshop on October 21.

The conference is considered a must, particularly for new faculty, researchers, educators, and administrators who want to gain key insight into a wide range of important and timely issues at NSF: the state of current Grants; the proposal and award process; and current and recently updated policies and procedures.

Conference Highlights (view agenda):

-New programs and initiatives
-Future directions and strategies for national science policy
-Proposal preparation
-NSF’s merit review process
-Cross-disciplinary and special interest programs
-Conflict of interest policies
-Breakout sessions by discipline

(in the meantime, you can download presentations from prior Regional Seminars - keep scrolling down)