As summarized this week in Science, the Pew Research Center for People and the Press reported results of a series of 3 surveys of the public and scientists on their perception of science and scientists as well as the public’s general knowledge of science:

The survey of the general public was conducted on landlines and cell phones among 2,001 adults April 28-May 12; the online survey of scientists was conducted among a sample of 2,533 members of the AAAS from May 1-June 14. Science knowledge questions were included in a separate survey of the general public, conducted on landlines and cell phones among 1,005 adults June 18-21.

Not sure what to make of the public ranking members of the military as those who most “contribute a lot to society’s well-being” … 84% versus 70% for scientists and … in a little dig to that other class of doctors … 69% for medical doctors.

A bigger concern is the public response to “which comes closer to your view …”

Govt investment in research is essential for scientific progress – 60% [!!]
Private investment ensures enough progress w/out govt investment – 29% [!!!]

No wonder Congress doesn’t have a fire lit under them to increase and stabilize research funding …

You can take the general science knowledge quiz and, when you are done, raise your eyebrows at the perhaps not entirely surprising results in the elegant Tufte-esque display of the data by demographic and question.

Professor and Asst Professor, so perhaps mentor-mentee. Go check out the new format of the full notices, including lay-friendly research explanation and parenthetical comments and the disclaimer about accepting responsibility while not admitting intent or liability (e.g., “Dr. Thomas accepted responsibility for the reporting described above, but denied that she intentionally committed research misconduct. The settlement is not an admission of liability on the part of the Respondent” (though she did agree to a 10-year debarment).

In view of these changes to the notice language, perhaps The Scientist should have waited one more month to run their article (Life after Fraud) and editorial (Fairness for Fraudsters) criticizing ORI for its procedures and “serious miscarriage of justice against researchers” – this in regard to the fact that those cited for misconduct continue to have their misdeeds advertised (and hence are punished) beyond the agreed upon exclusionary period through Internet archives of the NIH Guide & Federal Register.

Perhaps The Scientist might also have discussed the policy article published in Science last August, Scientific Misconduct: Do Punishments Fit the Crime?, as discussed previously here and in Nature… not to mention the ORI survey data published in Nature about the underreporting of scientific misconduct (beyond the side bar comment by John Dahlberg).

Without further ado …

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

Based on a finding of scientific misconduct made by UAB on January 24, 2008, a report of the UAB Investigation Committee, dated November 21, 2007, and additional analysis conducted by ORI during its oversight review, the US PHS found that Judith M. Thomas, PhD, former Professor of Surgery, UAB, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by grants R01 AI22293, R01 AI39793, U19 AI056542, U19 DK57958, and NIH/Novartis Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 96-MH-01/NIHITC-0697.

The objective of the research was to test the effectiveness of different agents, such as Immunotoxin FN18-CRM9 or 15-deoxyspergualin (15-DSG), administered around the time of renal transplantation in non-human primates, in preventing rejection of the transplanted kidney. …

PHS found that Respondent engaged in scientific misconduct by falsifying reports of research results in NIH-supported experiments with non-human primate renal allograft recipients in 15 publications and in progress reports in 2 NIH research grant applications.

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

Based on a finding of scientific misconduct made by UAB on January 24, 2008, a report of the UAB Investigation Committee, dated November 21, 2007, and analysis conducted by ORI during its oversight review, and further discussion between UAB and ORI to clarify UAB’s investigative findings and decision with respect to the requirements of 42 CFR Parts 50 and 93, the US PHS found that Juan Luis R. Contreras, MD, Assistant Professor, Department of Surgery–Transplantation, UAB, engaged in scientific misconduct in research supported by grants R01 AI22293, R01 AI39793, U19 AI056542, U19 DK57958, and NIH/Novartis Cooperative Research and Development Agreement 96-MH-01/ NIHITC-0697.

PHS found that Respondent engaged in scientific misconduct by falsifying in 7 publications reports of research results in NIH-supported experiments with non-human primate renal allograft recipients.

An oddly titled (”Start-Ups Say Innovation Doesn’t Grow on Trees”) Washington Post column by Kim Hart laments the absence of a 2.8% set-aside for SBIR/STTR awards in the $10B the NIH received in ARRA funds and notes lobbying efforts for Congressional reauthorization of the small business set-aside program:

Cha-Mei Tang, chief executive of Potomac-based Creatv MicroTech, said she submitted a grant application last week to help hire more employees to gather patient samples and statistics in the development of a tool to detect chronic lymphocytic leukemia. She said past efforts to compete for funds that are not reserved for small businesses have been unsuccessful, so she is concerned that companies will not have much of a shot at stimulus money.

“Everything we sell is based on SBIR funding,” Tang said. She said she plans to visit lawmakers on Capitol Hill this week. The House is scheduled this week to take action to reauthorize the SBIR program, which expires at the end of July. The biggest issue in question is whether venture-backed firms should have access to SBIR grants.

Perhaps Creatv MicroTech should consider why they have been unsuccessful in competing for R&D funding and whether this reflects on the soundness of their science, study design, expertise, facilities, etc.

The Enhancing Small Business Research and Innovation Act of 2009 is being reviewed by the House Committee on Science and Technology, whose Chair Bart Gordon (D-Tenn) calls it “one of the most significant bills the Committee will likely address in this Congress”. Right now, the bill extends the life of SBIR/STTR only until 2011 (corresponding Senate bill, SBIR/STTR Reauthorization Act of 2009 [S. 1233], goes through 2023 and gradually increases the set-aside amount until it reaches 3.5% in 2020). Usually, the program is reauthorized for 8-year cycles.

Both bills increase the award levels, and the House also shortens the application review period. One presumes the NIH will be among those extending the 90-day deadline to 180 days recommended in the House report:

The section also directs Federal agencies to render a final decision on each proposal 90 days after the date a solicitation closes. A clear timeline will allow applicants to better forecast and prepare for receipt of potential SBIR awards. Recognizing that the agencies will not be able to meet with this directive in all cases, the section provides the agencies with the authority to extend the 90-day deadline to a 180-day deadline on a case-by-case basis.

With regard to ARRA small-business funding, apparently the recent RFAs — Biomedical Research, Development, and Growth to Spur the Acceleration of New Technologies (BRDG-SPAN) Pilot Program (RC3) ($35M) and Small Business Catalyst Awards for Accelerating Innovative Research (R43) ($5M) — which were not mentioned in the Post article, don’t count.

Regardless, Aprile Pilon of Clarassance, a Rockville-based biopharmaceutical company, “argues that small-business applications get tougher scrutiny than those from academic institutions, and she claims that the board reviewing the applications is largely made up of university representatives.”

What a shocker that the NIH would want to have qualified scientists review the science. Never mind that the paylines for SBIR/STTR grants are much higher than those for the basic biomedical research that will eventually become available for commercialization.

Oh, the Post piece notes that:

Cardin, Van Hollen and Edwards [all D-Md reps] sent a pointed letter to [acting NIH Director] Kington after the hearing [on the SBIR reauthorization bill], saying that his “absence sent a message of indifference.”

Hmm. Wonder what Ray might have on his plate that could possibly be more important than small-business set asides?

Now, not that I am against the NIH Small Business Research programs. Far from it. But when the NIH has to keep raising paylines because there aren’t enough scientifically outstanding and excellent applications competing for these Congressionally designated funds, perhaps industry should put as much effort into evaluating their research practices as lobbying for more federal set-asides.

The NSF Division of Science Resources Statistics has released its Academic Institutional Profiles for 2006. A convenient upgrade for this year is that you can scroll through alphabetized lists of academic institutions with their various rankings or without any rankings. Clicking on the institution name in either list takes you to their data tables (earned doctorates, federal science & engineering obligations, grad students & postdoctorals, and R&D expenditures). A search engine can also be used to take you to the institution of interest.

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

Based on reports submitted by MetroHealth System’s inquiry and investigation committees, the Respondent’s own repeated admissions, and additional analysis conducted by ORI during its oversight review, the US PHS found that Ms. Jennifer Wanchick, former Research Assistant, MetroHealth System (an affiliated hospital of Case Western Reserve University), engaged in research misconduct in research supported by grant P60MD002265.

Specifically, by her own admission, Ms. Wanchick engaged in research misconduct by fabricating information in the electronic database purportedly collected from 150 individuals about their willingness to sign up to be an organ donor at the time they obtained a driver’s license. Ms. Wanchick also admitted to fabricating the information on several survey instruments. The study at issue was entitled “Community Based Intervention to Enhance Signing of Organ Donor Cards.’

ORI acknowledges Ms. Wanchick’s cooperation and assistance in completing its oversight review and resolution of this matter.

Update: In addition to the comment below from the AAU that provides clarification provided regarding the article in The Chronicle described in this post, I will add that Mr. Berdahl’s commentary on this issue can be read in The Chronicle, and Stan Katz apologizes for misinterpreting Berdahl’s comments, also in The Chronicle. Stan also poses some questions of his own, such as “Shouldn’t we also be asking the more complex question of whether research universities are (or are not) developing the broad range of human resources required by a vibrant democracy?”

Today The Chronicle of Higher Education reports a suggestion from the Association of American Universities that the US “may need “fewer but better” when it comes to top research universities.” The Chronicle reports AAU has taken its concern to the National Academies (Science, Engineering, IOM, NRC):

The association isn’t making any specific recommendations regarding such a reduction and instead has asked the National Academies to study the question. It also hasn’t said how deeply the number of American research universities would be reduced, though Mr. Berdahl [AAU president] suggested federal spending decisions could play a role.

Berdahl sent a letter to Senator Lamar Alexander in February asking, “How many research universities does the United States realistically require in order to maintain its agenda of innovation and advanced training?”

This in turn led to the press release earlier this week (distributed by AAMC & I’m sure other groups) by Senators Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) and Lamar Alexander (R-TN), joined by Representatives Bart Gordon (D-TN) and Ralph Hall (R-TX), in which they ask the National Academies to come up with “the top ten actions that Congress, state governments, research universities, and others could take to assure the ability of the American research university to maintain the excellence in research and doctoral education needed to help the United States compete, prosper, and achieve national goals for health, energy, the environment, and security in the global community of the 21st century?”

Sounds like AAU thinks the answer is more money to fewer institutions. The NIH’s CTSA and other major Roadmap programs are distinguishing to a certain extent the haves from the have nots. Consider too that of the 20K+ Challenge Grants submitted, ~7% came from 5 institutions, which comprised less than a quarter of one percent of applying institutions. Not that they’ll all get funded of course.

Research Means Hope (also on Facebook), a coalition seeking sustained growth in NIH funding and other federal support for biomedical research, has developed a nice Web portal for communicating your concern over the NIH FY10 budget appropriation with your Congressional delegation. In addition to formatting both electronic and print letters to your House and Senate representatives, the Web form provides a canned letter body, suggests factoids for customizing your letter, and encourages you to add personal anecdotes. I’m sure your favorite professional society likewise has such a form letter available as well.

Of course, just in time for this process, a new report in PNAS whose “analysis shows consistent non-linear temporal correlations of funding to mortality rates across diseases” and, as summarized by Nature News, suggests that the past 50 years of NIH funding have “helped to avert up to 1.35 million deaths per year from four chronic diseases: cardiovascular disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes.”

Now, given the nature of the paper, the funding citation for this work is, unfortunately, incorrect. The PNAS footnote refers to simply AG01159 –31 (no mechanism prefix), which RePORTER identifies as R01AG011595 (Blood Pressure, Cognitive Function & MRI in Older Adults), which seems to have limped along after only 6 years of funding on no-cost extensions from 1994 until 2003 under the direction of Iris Goldstein at UCLA. However, slipping in an extra “0″ after the IC abbreviation returns the correct long-standing award to the lead author, Kenneth Manton: R01AG001159, Demographic Study of Multiple Causes of Death (funded through March 31, 2009 with a supplement last year and no doubt a pending competitive renewal (no A1s or A2s in the entire history – impressive).

In case you were not aware, you can browse NIH ARRA-funded awards by state (notice the nice distribution of push pins) or you can search RePORTER (think enhanced CRISP) using the swanky new query form, which includes a check box to “show only projects supported by NIH Recovery Act funds.” Each list of projects by state (scroll down below map) can be sorted by PI or organization name (click on the appropriate column heading) to find those of most interest.

<I’ll pause a moment while feverish fingers check out the success of rivals.>

Notice upon searching RePORTER that you will be given tabs that list award description (abstract), details (including $ amounts), results (publications), history (renewals, supplements – interesting for long-standing awards especially), and subprojects. I’ll add that the new query portal layout and functionality is a very welcome improvement over the CRISP query page.

You can also view an interactive graph to monitor how much of the ARRA monies have been committed to FOAs.

As more and more of you become stimulated by ARRA funding, you might consider whether you have a “success story” to share with your funding IC. NIAID has created an ARRA Success Stories Website, and I assume at least some – if not all – other ICs will follow suit. NIAID will eventually have a Web-form through which you can submit your anecdotes, but in the meantime, please send niaidarraimpact@mail.nih.gov the following information:

• Grant number, project title, PI name
• How ARRA funding has helped you (1,000 words or fewer)

Another NIAID page suggests what you might report:

Share your successes, both big and small, with us and your community. For example, your personal stories can illustrate how the funds enabled you to keep your lab intact, hire a promising young scientist, expand your research, or advance science.

Maybe even salvage a tenure application. Good luck to you all in getting your sliver (à la mode, of course) of the stimulus pie!

No.

An impact score of 80 at the 59th percentile means either the study section discussed all proposals, or someone took an interest in your otherwise triage-destined application and advocated for its discussion.

The new scoring range is from 10-90, with impact scores under 20 most likely to be funded … perhaps under 25 since ARRA has relieved the system of some of the backlog of potentially fundable applications. Percentiles issued in this round reflect only the current study section in which the application was reviewed (assuming the study section had 25 or more applications under review … if fewer than 25, then pooled with either all CSR or all IC applications, as appropriate to the review group’s affiliation).

You can find details on the scoring procedure and interpretation as well as reviewer guidelines by mechanism at the Enhancing Peer Review Website.

I’m guessing NIAID will be the first to update their paylines accordingly, and I’ll post updates as the ICs provide them here in the main blog and on the NIH Paylines & Resources page.