Don't forget about NIH Rapid Reponse grants

Given the horrible disasters that seem to have descended on the world in the past few weeks, I wanted to make sure that you are all aware that NIH provides grants to examine the impact of disasters on affected populations.  These grants undergo a quick review process that will allow you to receive funding and begin work soon after disasters happen.  Such grants could be used to examine, for example, the impact of the Boston bombings, the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, or the recent earthquake in China.  View the Rapid Assessment Post-Impact of Disaster R03 funding opportunity here.  There is also an R21 available with the same focus. 

Wasteful government spending on research grants? Depends on what you consider wasteful.

I read with amusement this article regarding the $880,000 grant to researchers to study reproduction in snails.  Reading the post, I was sure that the author must not have a full understanding of the science behind the work. After all, a scientist or team of researchers have clearly devoted years of time and effort into understanding snail reproduction.  Surely, there must be some underlying scientific merit to the project that the post author was incapable of fully appreciating.  So, I looked up the abstract for the project.  According to the abstract, findings from the project will ultimately "illuminate the extent to which the preservation of genetic diversity within populations, species, and ecological communities is integral to the preservation of biological diversity".  (In other words, the significance and impact of this project seems limited.) Also, the abstract goes on to discuss the integration of this project with educational experiences for minority students. 

My take on this?  Rather than having a potential significant impact on human genetics or serious disease, this research project is an expensive way to expose many underprivileged children to various aspects of science and the research process.  While I, like the author of the post, also have difficulty understanding the reasoning for funding this particular project, I believe that ultimately it may inspire some kids from underrepresented segments of the population to pursue research careers.  While this has nothing to do with snail reproduction, it does have potential to impact the broader science field as a whole. 

How to Write Specific Aims

Here are some great resources that I have come across that provide insight into how to develop and refine specific aims for your research project.  This presentation provides an overview and great examples of aims sections.  This article from NIAID also provides some helpful information, geared toward new investigators.  Remember: Specific Aims are NOT Methods!

IRB approval does not protect you from unethical research projects

I was shocked to read this article about a study of premature infants at the University of Alabama-Birmingham.  The study examined outcomes such as blindness in premature infants who were provided with varying levels of oxygen.  This 5-year project found that infants who received higher levels of oxygen were more likely to become blind, while those receiving lower levels were more likely to die.  The reason that DHS is now crying foul is that the researchers provided parents with a consent form that failed to adequately inform them of the foreseeable risks of participating in the study.  My question here is why the researchers, and not the university's IRB, are taking the blame for this.  Isn't the point of an IRB committee to ensure that risks to subjects are properly explained?  Why call out the PI by name and tarnish the name of a researcher who appeared to do everything that was required? Every university and health facility where I have worked requires that consent forms are reviewed and approved yearly by an IRB board. In this particular study, 23 additional separate IRB boards and a Data Safety Monitoring Committee reviewed and used the same consent forms.  If these researchers had the necessary approvals and believed their study had been judged to be ethically appropriate, why not lay the blame on an IRB that appears to have dropped the ball?  Instead of being addressed to one researcher in particular, I think the more appropriate course of action would have been to address it to the head of the IRB and members of the review board. 

Applying for a Kangaroo Grant? Check your eligibility.

NIH recently released changes to the eligibility for K99/R00 "Pathway to Independence" grant awards.  These awards are reserved for more junior researchers who are transitioning from mentored positions into principal investigator roles.  In the past, applicants could have up to 5 years of postdoctoral research experience before applying.  Now, with the new changes that will take effect in February of 2014, applicants will have no less than 1 year of postdoctoral mentored research training but no more than 4 years.  Pay careful attention to the eligibility section if you are planning an application for next year's funding rounds.