March 8, 2014
Jocelyn Kaiser at ScienceInsider has obtained data on PI numbers from the NIH.
I think this graph should be pinned up right next to Sally Rockey’s desk. It is absolutely essential to any attempts to understand and fix grant application success rates and submission churning.
UPDATE 03/12/14: I should have noted that this graph depicts PIs who hold R01-equivalent grants (R01, R23, R29, R37 with ARRA excluded). The Science piece has this to say about the differential from RPG:
NIH shared these data for two sets of grants: research project grants (RPGs), which include all research grants, and R01 equivalents, a slightly smaller category that includes the bread-and-butter R01 grants that support most independent labs.
But if you read carefully, they’ve posted the excel files for both the R01-equivalents and RPG datasets. Woo-hoo! Let’s get to graphing, shall we? There is nothing like a good comparison graph to make summary language a little more useful. Don’t you think? I know I do….
A “slightly smaller category” eh? Well, I spy some trends in this direct comparison. Let’s try another way to look at it. How about we express the difference between the number of RPG and R01-equivalent numbers to see how many folks have been supported on non-R01/equivalent Research Project Grants over the years…
Well I’ll be hornswaggled. All this invention of DP-this and RC-that and RL-whatsit and all the various U-mechs and P01 (Center components seem to be excluded) in recent years seemingly has had an effect. Sure, the number of R01 equivalent PIs only slightly drifted down from the end of the doubling until now (relieved briefly by the stimulus). So those in NIH land could say “Look, we’re not sacrificing R01s, our BreadNButter(TM) Mech!”. But in the context of the growth of nonR01 RPG projects, well….hmmm.
Jeremy Berg has a new President’s Message up at ASBMB Today. It looks into a topic of substantial interest to me, i.e., the fate of investigators funded by the NIH. This contrasts with our more-usual focus on the fate of applications.
With that said, the analysis does place the impact of the sequester in relatively sharp focus: There were about a thousand fewer investigators funded by these mechanisms in FY13 compared with FY12. This represents more than six times the number of investigators who lost this funding from FY11 to FY12 and a 3.8 percent drop in the R-mechanism-funded investigator cohort.
another tidbit addresses the usual claim from NIHlandia that R-mechs and R01s in particular are always prioritized.
In her post, Rockey notes that the total funding for all research project grants, or RPGs, dropped from $15.92 billion in FY12 to $14.92 billion in FY13, a decrease of 6.3 percent. The total funding going to the R series awards that I examined (which makes up about 85 percent of the RPG pool) dropped by 8.9 percent.
What accounts for this difference? U01 awards comprise the largest remaining portion of the RPG pool…The funds devoted to U01 awards remained essentially constant from FY12 to FY13 at $1.57 billion.
Go Read the whole thing.
This type of analysis really needs more attention at the NIH level. They’ve come a looooong way in recent years in terms of their willingness to focus on what they are actually doing in terms of applications, funding, etc. This is in no small part due to the efforts of Jeremy Berg, who used to be the Director of NIGMS. But tracking the fate of applications only goes so far, particularly when it is assessed only on a 1-2 year basis.
The demand on the NIH budget is related to the pool of PIs seeking funding. This pool is considerably less elastic than the submission of grant applications. PIs don’t submit grant applications endlessly for fun, you know. They seek a certain level of funding. Once they reach that, they tend to stop submitting applications. A lot of the increase in application churn over the past decade or so has to do with the relative stability of funding. When odds of continuing an ongoing project are high, a large number of PIs can just submit one or two apps every 5 years and all is well. Uncertainty is what makes her submit each and every year.
Similarly, when a PI is out of funding completely, the number of applications from this lab will rise dramatically….right up until one of them hits.
I argue that if solutions to the application churn and the funding uncertainty (which decreases overall productivity of the NIH enterprise) are to be found, they will depend on a clear understanding of the dynamics of the PI population.
Berg has identified two years in which the PI turnover is very different. How do these numbers compare with historical trends? Which is the unusual one? Or is this the expected range?
Can we see the 1,000 PI loss as a temporary situation or a permanent fix? It is an open question as to how many sequential years without NIH funding will affect the PI. Do these individuals tend to regain funding in 2, 3 or 4 years’ time? Do they tend to go away and never come back? More usefully, what proportion of the lost investigators will follow these fates?
The same questions arise for the other factoids Berg mentions. The R00 transition to other funding would seem to be incredibly important to know. But a one year gap seems hardly worth discussing. This can easily happen under the current conditions. But if they are not getting funded after 2 or maybe 3 years after the R00 expires? This is of greater impact.
Still, a welcome first step, Dr. Berg. Let’s hope Sally Rockey is listening.
March 4, 2014
A communication to the blog raised an issue that is worth exploring in a little more depth. The questioner wanted to know if I knew why a NIH Program Announcement had disappeared.
The Program Announcement (PA) is the most general of the NIH Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs). It is described with these key features:
- Identifies areas of increased priority and/or emphasis on particular funding mechanisms for a specific area of science
- Usually accepted on standard receipt (postmarked) dates on an on-going basis
- Remains active for three years from date of release unless the announcement indicates a specific expiration date or the NIH Institute/Center (I/C) inactivates sooner
In my parlance, the PA means “Hey, we’re interested in seeing some applications on topic X“….and that’s about it. Admittedly, the study section reviewers are supposed to conduct review in accordance with the interests of the PA. Each application has to be submitted under one of the FOAs that are active. Sometimes, this can be as general as the omnibus R01 solicitation. That’s pretty general. It could apply to any R01 submitted to any of the NIH Institutes or Centers (ICs). The PAs can offer a greater degree of topic specificity, of course. I recommend you go to the NIH Guide page and browse around. You should bookmark the current-week page and sign up for email alerts if you haven’t already. (Yes, even grad students should do this.) Sometimes you will find a PA that seems to fit your work exceptionally well and, of course, you should use it. Just don’t expect it to be a whole lot of help.
This brings us to the specific query that was sent to the blog, i.e., why did the PA DA-14-106 go missing, only a week or so after being posted?
Sometimes a PA expires and is either not replaced or you have happened across it in between expiration and re-issue of the next 3-year version. Those are the more-common reasons. I’d never seen one be pulled immediately after posting, however. But the NOT-DA-14-006 tells the tale:
This Notice is to inform the community that NIDA’s “Synthetic Psychoactive Drugs and Strategic Approaches to Counteract Their Deleterious Effects” Funding Opportunity Announcements (FOAs) (PA-14-104, PA-14-105, PA-14-106) have been reposted as PARs, to allow a Special Emphasis Panel to provide peer review of the applications. To make this change, NIDA has withdrawn PA-14-104, PA-14-105, PA-14-106, and has reposted these announcements as PAR-14-106, PAR-14-105, and PAR-14-104.
This brings us to the key difference between the PA and a PAR (or a PAS):
- Special Types
- PAR: A PA with special receipt, referral and/or review considerations, as described in the PAR announcement
- PAS: A PA that includes specific set-aside funds as described in the PAS announcement
Applications submitted under a PA are going to be assigned to the usual Center for Scientific Review (CSR) panels and thrown in with all the other applications. This can mean that the special concerns of the PA do not really influence review. How so? Well, the NIDA has a generic-ish and long-running PA on the “Neuroscience Research on Drug Abuse“. This is really general. So general that several entire study sections of the CSR fit within it. Why bother reviewing in accordance with the PA when basically everything assigned to the section is, vaguely, in this sphere? And even on the more-specific ones (say, Sex-Differences in Drug Abuse or HIV/AIDS in Drug Abuse, that sort of thing) the general interest of the IC fades into the background. The panel is already more-or-less focused on those being important issues. So the Significance evaluation on the part of the reviewers barely budges in response to a PA. I bet many reviewers don’t even bother to check the PA at all.
The PAR means, however, that the IC convenes their own Special Emphasis Panel specifically for that particular funding opportunity. So the review panel can be tailored to the announcement’s goals much in the way that a panel is tailored for a Request for Applications ( RFA) FOA. The panel can have very specific expertise for both the PAR and for the applications that are received and, presumably, have reviewers with a more than average appreciation for the topic of the PAR. There is no existing empaneled population of reviewers to limit choices. There is no distraction from the need to get reviewers who can handle applications that are on topics different from the PAR in question. An SEP brings focus. The mere fact of a SEP also tends to keep the reviewer’s mind on the announcement’s goals. They don’t have to juggle the goals of PA vs PA vs PA as they would in a general CSR panel.
As you know, Dear Reader, I have blogged about both synthetic cannabinoid drugs and the “bath salts” here on this blog now and again. So I can speculate a little bit about what happened here. These classes of recreational drugs hit the attention of regulatory authorities and scientists in the US around about 2009, and certainly by 2010. There have been a modest but growing number of papers published. I have attended several conference symposia themed around these drugs. And yet if you do some judicious searching on RePORTER you will find precious few grants dedicated to these compounds. It it no great leap of faith to figure that various PIs have been submitting grants on these topics and are not getting fundable scores. There are, of course, many possible reasons for this and some may have influenced NIDA’s thinking on this PA/PAR.
It may be the case that NIDA felt that reviewers simply did not know that they wanted to see some applications funded and were consequently not prioritizing the Significance of such applications. Or it may be that NIDA felt that their good PIs who would write competitive grants were not interested in the topics. Either way, a PA would appear to be sufficient encouragement.
The replacement of a PA with a PAR, however, suggests that NIDA has concluded that the problem lies with study section reviewers and that a mere PA was not going to be sufficient* to focus minds.
As one general conclusion from this vignette, the PAR is substantially better than the PA when it comes to enhancing the chances for applications submitted to it. This holds in a case in which there is some doubt that the usual CSR study sections will find the goals to be Significant. The caveat is that when there is no such doubt, the PAR is worse because the applications on the topic will all be in direct competition with each other. The PAR essentially guarantees that some grants on the topic will be funded, but the PA potentially allows more of them to be funded.
It is only “essentially” because the PAR does not come with set-aside funds as does the RFA or the PAS. And I say “potentially” because this depends on their being many highly competitive applications which are distributed across several CSR sections for a PA.
*This is a direct validation of my position that the PA is a rather weak stimulus, btw.
As always when it comes to NIDA specifics, see Disclaimer.
February 27, 2014
Just after we noticed that Congress has seen fit to add a special prohibition on anything done with Federal grant funds that might suggest gun control is in order, there’s another late breaking Congressional mandate notice.
FY 2014 New Legislative Mandate
Restriction of Pornography on Computer Networks (Section 528)
“(a) None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to maintain or establish a computer network unless such network blocks the viewing, downloading, and exchanging of pornography.
(b) Nothing in subsection (a) shall limit the use of funds necessary for any Federal, State, tribal, or local law enforcement agency or any other entity carrying out criminal investigations, prosecution, or adjudication activities.”
Really guys? That was a top priority item?
Interesting though, isn’t it? Including indirect cost expenditures this would seem to apply to a very large number of Universities in the US. And now Congress has demanded they adopt nanny pR0n filters.
I don’t see any exceptions for classwork here, either.
February 24, 2014
In my limited experience, the creation, roll-out and review of Multi-PI direction of a single NIH grant has been the smoothest GoodThing to happen in NIH supported extramural research.
I find it barely draws mention in review and deduce that my fellow scientists agree with me that it is a very good idea, long past due.
February 21, 2014
While I’m getting all irate about the pathetic non-response to the Ginther report, I have been neglecting to think about the intramural research at NIH.
From Biochemme Belle:
February 21, 2014
In reflecting on the profound lack of association of grant percentile rank with the citations and quantity of the resulting papers, I am struck that it reinforces a point made by YHN about grant review.
I have never been a huge fan of the Approach criterion. Or, more accurately, how it is reviewed in practice. Review of the specific research plan can bog down in many areas. A review is often derailed off into critique of the applicant’s failure to appropriately consider all the alternatives, to engage in disagreement over the prediction of what can only be resolved empirically, to endless ticky-tack kvetching over buffer concentrations, to a desire for exacting specification of each and every control….. I am skeptical. I am skeptical that identifying these things plays any real role in the resulting science. First, because much of the criticism over the specifics of the approach vanish when you consider that the PI is a highly trained scientist who will work out the real science during the conduct of same. Like we all do. For anticipated and unanticipated problems that arise. Second, because there is much of this Approach review that is rightfully the domain of the peer review of scientific manuscripts.
I am particularly unimpressed by the shared delusion that the grant revision process by which the PI “responds appropriately” to the concerns of three reviewers alters the resulting science in a specific way either. Because of the above factors and because the grant is not a contract. The PI can feel free to change her application to meet reviewer comments and then, if funded, go on to do the science exactly how she proposed in the first place. Or, more likely, do the science as dictated by everything that occurs in the field in the years after the original study section critique was offered.
The Approach criterion score is the one that is most correlated with the eventual voted priority score, as we’ve seen in data offered up by the NIH in the past.
I would argue that a lot of the Approach criticism that I don’t like is an attempt to predict the future of the papers. To predict the impact and to predict the relative productivity. Criticism of the Approach often sounds to me like “This won’t be publishable unless they do X…..” or “this won’t be interpretable, unless they do Y instead….” or “nobody will cite this crap result unless they do this instead of that“.
It is a version of the deep motivator of review behavior. An unstated (or sometimes explicit) fear that the project described in the grant will fail, if the PI does not write different things in the application. The presumption is that if the PI does (or did) write the application a little bit differently in terms of the specific experiments and conditions, that all would be well.
So this also says that when Approach is given a congratulatory review, the panel members are predicting that the resulting papers will be of high impact…and plentiful.
Peer review of NIH grants is not good at predicting, within the historical fundable zone of about the top 35% of applications, the productivity and citation impact of the resulting science.
What the NHLBI data cannot address is a more subtle question. The peer review process decides which specific proposals get funded. Which subtopic domains, in what quantity, with which models and approaches… and there is no good way to assess the relative wisdom of this. For example, a grant on heroin may produce the same number of papers and citations as a grant on cocaine. A given program on cocaine using mouse models may produce approximately the same bibliometric outcome as one using humans. Yet the real world functional impact may be very different.
I don’t know how we could determine the “correct” balance but I think we can introspect that peer review can predict topic domain and the research models a lot better than it can predict citations and paper count. In my experience when a grant is on cocaine, the PI tends to spend most of her effort on cocaine, not heroin. When the grant is for human fMRI imaging, it is rare the PI pulls a switcheroo and works on fruit flies. These general research domain issues are a lot more predictable outcome than the impact of the resulting papers, in my estimation.
This leads to the inevitable conclusion that grant peer review should focus on the things that it can affect and not on the things that it cannot. Significance. Aka, “The Big Picture”. Peer review should wrestle over the relative merits of the overall topic domain, the research models and the general space of the experiments. It should de-emphasize the nitpicking of the experimental plan.