Crocodile tears from experienced NIH investigators over the discontinued A2 revision

Ahh, just when the thoughtful, completely self-interest free prescriptions for saving the NIH extramural grant system from D. Noonan and Cedric Wesley were losing steam (see Odyssey for more), we have a new entry. This one is via an email chain letter from one Robert Benezra (PubMed; Institutional website; Research Crossroads). Unfortunately RePORTER doesn’t seem to generate a good link on a PI search but homeboy’s been very successful at the NIH game. He had a one year F32 in 89-90 and then a 7-8 year stretch to his first R01 but he’s been a busy beaver ever since. I note only three -01A1s on his list, one of which is competing renewal for a Program Project for which he’s only a component head. Benezra seems to have had multiple R01-level awards (some are P01 components) continually and he even has a mainline grant that survived a switch from NIGMS to NCI. The website seems to confirm that he runs an ~18-member lab operation.
In short, a guy who is as inside as you could wish (I mean I saw Harold Varmus listed as a component head of one of the Program Projects this guy is on) now has some complaints.
[Before we move on to my ramblings, you may wish to read a bit of pro/con debate from DrDra of BlueLabCoats and Comrade PhysioProf as a warmup. Additional from Prof-like Substance and Genomic Repairman.]

The letter runs as follows:

Dear Colleagues,
I am writing to solicit your help in changing a new NIH policy that I
believe will have an enormous negative impact on our field. As most of
you know, a recently adopted rule states that if a grant proposal is not
funded on the first submission, only one revision can be submitted with
the same specific aims. If that revision is not funded, the proposal
must be “substantially” changed. As far as I understand, the rule was
adopted to discourage “serial resubmitters”. While such a policy could
make sense in an era of reasonable paylines, with the projected budgets
rumored to be funding at the 7th percentile in some sections, this could
have a dramatic and I would argue devastating effect on the research
efforts in this country. Consider the following:
The rule will have a disproportionately negative impact on young
investigators with early stage and therefore less diverse programs, or
more senior investigators who also have more narrowly focused programs.
How can a young investigator, for example, who is just starting
“substantially” change their aims when they have to focus their efforts
on a very limited number of projects undertaken with limited funds and
staff. These people are often hired by senior faculty on the basis of
their first projects and to be told they must change on the basis of
applications that might fail despite being ranked better than 90% of
grants submitted, seems patently absurd. And worse, it is likely to be
profoundly discouraging and destructive.
All of us who have sat on study section know that we cannot distinguish
a 15th percentile grant from a 5th percentile grant. It is simply beyond
the resolution of the process. Therefore, this new rule will have the
consequence of redirecting the science of many of our very best
scientists on the basis of what will essentially be an arbitrary
criterion.
The meaning of “substantially changed” has not been clearly defined.
Program Officers themselves are not sure what this term means and are
not being given adequate guidance. I have heard things from “51%
different”, change the tissue or cell type you are working on, any aim
included in either the first application or revision cannot be included,
etc. We need clear and unequivocal guidance on this point, and I would
argue we need it immediately as “new” applications are being prepared by
a large number of investigators at this time.
The alternative that I advocate would be to go back to a system where at
least 2 revisions of the same application would be allowed. While we
will still obviously lose some superb applications if the pay line stays
where it is, I think this would provide a much fairer assessment of the
research proposals received by the NIH.
My intention is to let the feelings of a large number of scientists on
this subject be known. If you are willing to sign an email that will be
sent to both Francis Collins and Tony Scarpa (Director of Center for
Scientific Review) that raises these points, please let me know by
simply responding to this email and (if possible) forwarding it to 10
people who you know (not on the current recipient list) that might also
want to sign. If I can accumulate a large enough number of signatures
(100-500, say) I will draft a letter and send it first to all who have
expressed interest in signing to get feedback.
I must say, I am not generally prone to such activism but I think things
have just gotten to the tipping point.
I look forward to your responses.
With kind regards,
Robert Benezra

Now far be it from me to jump the gun here. Okay, I will…
I am reflexively suspicious of extremely well established investigators who have now, oh-so-conveniently, taken up the plight of the early stage and transitioning newly independent investigator. Could be that this guy has been on this tack all along, sure. But as we see this email get circulated virally, somehow I suspect that many of those established types that are enthusiastic about this letter are a tad, disingenuous shall we say.
Where the hell were you?
No, really. Where were you from the mid-90s onward as many of the study section cultural memes and habits were being laid down in stone? Where were you when the “expectation” for preliminary data kept ramping up? When the R29/FIRST was the expectation (that or some other lesser award) prior to R01? Where were you when the new investigators were taking it on the chin just because they were, um new, instead of inferior? Where were you when the average age of first award was increasing? Were you on the barricades against the ever increasing trend for “necessary” 5, 6 + years of postdoc experience?
Where were you on the multiple awards to exceptionally well funded faculty issue*?
You refer to study section service, Professor Benezra. Yes, we agree about the resolution of the judging when we are at the 10-20%ile line. I wonder, however, if you were the burr under the saddle of study section culture, constantly advocating for the ESIs, debating the merits of “Well Prof BlueHair is so damn productive that we gotta give this clusterbork of a proposal a good score anyway”, dismantling the expectation for yet more preliminary data and prioritizing giant, GlamourMag chasing labs over those of newbs. Were you? Were you on the barricades over putting junior folks (who could ill-afford it) into the endless revision holding pattern?

Whew, this is getting long. How bout some data to break it up?

When the NIH started making noises about special paylines for ESI investigators….did you endorse them enthusiastically? Did you use these moves during discussion at Study Section to further emphasize your position vis a vis helping the newbies? Did you rebut your peers who were grumbling about affirmative action for newly transitioned investigators? And how about the great Assistant Professor Purge from study sections? Did you cheer Scarpa along or did you oppose that?
Where were you on new hires, for that matter, if you have been in a position to affect such matters? Were you one who opposed trends for more and more postdoctoral training? Or did you slot right in a nod sagely with the wagging gray beards (From the Googs, actually I think Prof Benezra came along far too late to have a significant effect on the *start* of this process)?
To be clear, my queries go well beyond the personal situation of the petition writer himself. I generalize this to all of the experienced and comfortably funded (until recently) PIs who are signing the petition. Even if Professor Benezra has been a bleeding heart n00b PI supporter his whole career I think it safe to conclude that many of the petition signers have not.
My take in all of this is that I find the timing to be highly suspicious. I suspect that this crying over the fate of ESI under the A1-and-out rules to be disingenuous. I suspect quite strongly that what is really motivating people is the fear about their own grant sinecures. Their own expectation of continual competing renewals of their core projects. Their outrage that finally, finally, at long last, they themselves are facing the uncertainties and fears of losing grants that many folks of my approximate transition generation and below have had as a reality for our entire careers. My conclusion arises from talking to more than one established, continually well funded investigator much like Professor Benezra, not just random internet clownery, I will note.
Now, since I may perhaps have a few new readers due to this kerfuffle, I’ll repost a proposal that I made in the past. I do have a favored solution to the endless-revision-churning problem.

The ICs should set a “desired” funding target consistent with their historical performance, say 24% of applications, for each Council round. When they do not have enough budget to cover this many applications in a given round, they should roll the applications that missed the cut into the next round. Then starting the next Council round they should apportion some fraction of their grant pickups to the applications from the prior rounds that were sufficiently meritorious from a historical perspective. Perhaps half roll-over and half from the current round of submissions. That way, there would still be some room for really outstanding -01 apps to shoulder their way into funding
The great part is that essentially nothing would change. The A2 app that is funded is not going to result in scientific conduct that differs in any substantial way from the science that would have resulted from the A1/15%ile app being funded. New apps will not be any more disadvantaged by sharing the funding pie with prior rounds than they currently are facing revision-status-bias at the point of study section review.

What do you say? Shall we have a petition for this?
__
*I will admit to be a scallywag on this one, sorry peeps.