Ranking the NIH funding by Institution and by State
March 7, 2011
No idea what this “MedCities News” is but they’ve tabulated the FY 2010 NIH awards by Institution and by State.
A ranking of the Top 100 institutions getting NIH grants, followed by a ranking of all 50 states, is below. Johns Hopkins’ is a runaway leader in getting NIH grants, followed next by the University of Pennsylvania ($577 million), University of Washington ($571 million), University of Michigan ($565 million) and University of California San Francisco ($538 million).
Go read for the full table of Top 100….
DrugMonkey 
March 8, 2011 at 5:01 am
The rankings by city are also informative. Per capita, Boston is way ahead. “Please come to Boston for the funding…”
1. Boston, $1,731,605,006
2. NYC, $1,154,419,839
3. Baltimore, $797,320,888
4. Seattle, $783,494,653
5. Philadelphia, $770,299,254
LikeLike
March 8, 2011 at 5:08 am
Breaking things down just by institution is obviously not the whole story (hence the stateby state rankings)
Looking over that list, I was curious to see what the Harvardian Collective is raking in:
MGH: 382.5
BWH: 355.6
HMS: 255.7
Farber: 161
BIDMC: 153.5
HSPH: 137.8
Childrens (GO TEAM!): 125.8
Harvard main campus: 74
or ~1.65 billion dollars. Wow.
LikeLike
March 8, 2011 at 6:53 am
State per capita also interesting.
back of the envelope calculations in millions…
1. Mass $362
2. Maryland $161
3. Conn $132
4. Washington $122
5. Penn $108
I’m sure this it out there, but total federal funding would be interesting too. DoD has quite a bit of change.
LikeLike
March 9, 2011 at 5:16 am
So NIH funds preferentially end up at the elite institutions, where many of the top investigators work. Yet, according to the recent NIH data dump, the Environment and Investigator criteria are the two poorest predictors of a grant’s success. What is the most likely reconciliation of these seemingly disparate data?
1. Elite investigators at elite schools tend to write more grant applications that use excellent approaches, which the study section thinks will lead to significant new discoveries.
2. Study sections give unwritten or unconscious preference to grants coming from elite institutions, but the Environment scores don’t reflect that because it would be perceived as a general insult to the institution. If a lot of Harvard and UCSF grants get 1s and 2s for Environment, do grants from Very Small Colleges get 7s and 8s?
LikeLike
March 9, 2011 at 5:24 am
The mathematical reason investigator and environment correlate less well to impact than approach is that those criterion scores are (1) skewed towards the better end of the range and (2) substantially more compressed than approach.
LikeLike
March 9, 2011 at 8:06 am
If a lot of Harvard and UCSF grants get 1s and 2s for Environment, do grants from Very Small Colleges get 7s and 8s?
In my experience on study section, reviewing grants from very large to very small institutions, the answer is no. it was very rare to see anyone really bag on Environment. Usually it was a specific issue having to do with proposing to use a big ticket resource which the application did not make overwhelmingly clear was in place. *Occasionally* as a place to bag on the fact that the PI had something other than a standard tenure track appointment (lack of institutional commitment StockCritique).
Most of this is, I assume, because PIs tend to match their proposals to what can be supported in their environment.
LikeLike