Funny take on "Twas the Night Before Christmas" with a grant-related twist

Everyone has been sharing this tongue-in-cheek Christmas rhyme 'Twas the night before grant deadline in my various social media circles.  In case you missed it on Facebook or Twitter, you can follow the link from here.

Or if you would like a refresher on the original tale, you can watch this cartoon, narrated by Perry Como.

NIH Focused on Maximizing Return on Investments

A recent blog post provides an overview of the methodology currently in use by NIH to look at its return on research grant investments.  Citations per dollar are being examined for R01s as a way to measure impact.  The main take-home from this study is that more funding = greater impact.  Personally, I like that NIH has found a way to use statistical analysis to show the impact of grant funding on research advances.  Perhaps this will help to show our elected officials the importance of the NIH funding portfolio when they make decisions that affect budget allocations and government spending.  Whether we are going to see a President Trump, Sanders, or Clinton, nobody can argue with the numbers.

Difficulties faced by young investigators seeking NIH funding

This interesting article provides somewhat disheartening statistics regarding NIH funding levels for young faculty.  It provides information on what Johns Hopkins University is doing to try and support young investigators who are in the early stages of launching their research careers.  There are many lessons to be learned from this institution's approach.  In the current funding climate, more institutions should follow this lead and provide financial and other support to promising new investigators.  Ultimately, the entire scientific community will benefit from the addition of new ideas and fresh approaches from young investigators.

The science behind Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew

A review of recent published research turned up something very surprising...someone actually decided to pursue a research project that required watching and examing hours of footage of Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew on TV.  This study was based at Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York, a reputable source of scientific research.  The article (abstract here) describes the finding that positive messages regarding methadone treatment for drug addiction were lacking throughout this television series.  Ultimately, portraying methadone treatment in a negative light may discourage addicts from viewing it as reliable or effective.  While this is an interesting finding, is anyone really surprised to learn that watching reality TV is not going to significantly improve your life?

A little academic humor - Suffering from college major remorse?

The headline of this article made me laugh out loud.  It discusses the benefits and pitfalls of several different college majors.  As parents prepare their children for the start of college in a little over a month, the article can provide some important discussion points.  Too often, students major in something that interests them without connecting it to an actual career and paycheck.  Perhaps some are destined to become perpetual graduate students, and some will head to college simply to get an MRS. degree.  However, it is important that, whether as parents or faculty advisors, we provide appropriate advice and guidance to all students that will prepare them to meet their goals. 

As a young college undergrad, I changed my major several times due to sort of an identity crisis during my freshman year.  Ultimately, I ended up majoring in psychology.  As I realized during my senior year of college, a bachelor's degree in psychology qualifies you to do pretty much...nothing.  Sure, there are some direct service positions that are appropriate for someone with this degree, but to get a higher-paying job that will enable you to buy a home and live comfortably, a graduate degree is pretty much a necessity.  I was thankful for my secondary major in biology, which helped to qualify me for different positions in the research and science world until I obtained graduate degrees and ultimately moved on to the grants administration field.  My point here is that, had someone spoken to me early on about what my degree would translate into in the real world, I may have made some different choices, such as pursuing a minor in business or undertaking a few more internships.  College is an expensive undertaking, and the last thing any aspiring student wants to do is spend thousands of dollars and be left with buyer's remorse.

Does your race impact your chances of receiving NIH funding?

A recent study revealed a surprising statistic regarding NIH funding. Black researchers were 10% less likely than whites to receive NIH funding between 2000 and 2006. This statistic holds only for black PhD-level researchers - not other minorities - and the disparity is shown even when controlling for similar academic level and institution.

Predictably, NIH has panicked and is working to understand the cause of this disparity and try to find ways to eliminate it. Some critics have suggested that there are inherent flaws in the review system that can be impacted by bias of reviewers. In some cases, I can understand their point. Perhaps some reviewers believe that historically black colleges and universities have poorer resources, or that an education from an HBCU is inferior. However, other than in proposals involving individuals who attended or are employed by HBCUs, I do not understand how race can become a factor for reviewers. True, there are some ethnic names that are more popular among certain races and ethnicities, but I have known just as many black Michaels, Jasons and Ashleys as I have white ones. What else is at play here?

As you may have guessed from reading this blog, I firmly believe that success in obtaining grant funding is often rooted in the quality and quantity of help received in proposal preparation. So perhaps, in exposing the disparity in NIH funding, the researchers actually exposed a disparity in institutional support provided to black researchers.

What do you think?

NIH funded WHAT??!

I just read this article and was a little shocked, to say the least. At a time when top cancer researchers and other prominent, productive scientists are finding it almost impossible to get funded, and many labs are shutting down, NIH appears to have money to burn. The article mentions a very large ($9.4 million) grant that included multiple projects. One of these projects examined penis size in the gay community and its relationship to sexual positions. The researchers claim that NIH money wasn't actually used to measure any men- just to pay for the write-up and analysis of the data. It doesn't matter what part of the study the money was used for. This was a complete waste of taxpayer money.

New FDA-approved cell therapy to treat wrinkles

Yes, something life altering has come from years of stem cell research. Nope, it is not the cure for cancer or diabetes. It is something even more ground-breaking: a cure for wrinkles! Last week, the FDA approved the use of cell therapy using blood stem cells to help smooth wrinkles and fine lines. This treatment, called laViv, uses fibroblasts from behind a person's ear, multiplies them in cell culture, and then injects them into his or her wrinkles. Development of this treatment was delayed by lack of funding. Could it be that the individuals interested in backing stem cell research and product development were more interested in funding projects related to cell therapy for cancers than for cosmetic problems?

Who knew that Kmart was doing so much to help the March of Dimes?

I was pleasantly surprised to see the headline "Kmart Marches Into 28th Successful Year of Helping America's Babies". I had no idea that Kmart and the March of Dimes had such a longstanding relationship. Over the course of 28 years, Kmart has raised $98.7 million for the organization, which goes toward prevention of birth defects, prematurity, and infant mortality.

Kudos to Kmart. Even with some of its own financial struggles, it has still managed to be a good corporate citizen and raise funds for a major foundation.

**************************************************************************
On a side note, I do not support the March of Dimes in many of their fundraising techniques. A couple years ago, a coworker of my husband suffered a stillbirth, and we wanted to do something to honor the baby. We made a donation to the March of Dimes in her name. Within 2-3 weeks, our mailbox was inundated with requests for donations from charities, including many we had never even heard of. There were an average of around 10 requests per day. Now, we have been giving to charities such as the Muscular Dystrophy Association for years, and never had this type of onslaught. It was pretty clear that the March of Dimes had sold their mailing list.

Since then, we have been receiving regular requests for donations from the March of Dimes almost monthly, though we have never donated another penny (and don't plan to). Some of these requests are marked with red "Second Request" stamps. This really angers me. It seems to be a trick designed to prey on the elderly, who may think it is a bill or a commitment they have made. This tactic is dishonest and fools people into making a donation.

For these reasons, I do not donate to the March of Dimes, though they do good work and provide important programs. I just can't support their tactics. If you rely on support for your research from a foundation, I suggest that you examine their fundraising strategies. If they are going in a direction that may backfire, you might find yourself looking for other sources of funding.

Interesting commentary on charity walks and athletic fundraisers

While it doesn't pertain directly to NIH research, this article may be of interest to readers who are engaged in research on cancer or other diseases with large foundations that support research. The article discusses the Avon Breast Cancer 3-Day Walk and several other athletic fundraising events and provides information on the actual amount raised after expenses. In some cases as much as 92 cents on the dollar goes directly toward support of programs and/or research, but in others less than 50 cents per dollar goes toward research/program support after expenses. Perhaps of most interest to researchers, the article discusses charity walk "fatigue"- in essence, now that there are myriad races, walks, and similar events, people who were once inclined to sponsor friends and relatives are now being more selective in their giving. The implications for researchers, of course, are that funding levels from these large foundations for research projects may decline unless they create new and innovative methods of fundraising.

At least NIH knows that grant awards are skewed...

In this recent update, NIH continues to try to answer to investigators who complain about the lack of fairness in award distributions, arguing that a small number of experienced investigators hold a disproportionate number of grant awards. I am not sure where I fall in this debate. On one hand, this is taxpayer money, and I think it should be more accessible to younger and less seasoned investigators. On the other hand, if what we are focused on is real, significant advancements in health research, wouldn't we want to give the most resources to those individuals who have the most chance of success and proven track records when it comes to project completion and follow-through?

What are your thoughts on this? Do you believe that some investigators hog too much federal grant money? Or are you happy with the current distribution?

Look for free advice first

I was surprised to see the cost of this instruction manual for NIH grant applications. Don't get me wrong- I understand the value and importance of seeking advice from very experienced NIH grant applicants, especially if you are a new or younger investigator. However, the manual was not developed or approved by NIH. Before you fork over hundreds of dollars for the manual, take a look at some of these great (FREE!) resources provided by NIH. While they are maintained by specific centers and institutes, much of their advice and guidance applies universally to NIH R01, R03, and R21 applications.

Biosketch, Bibliography, and Facilities/Resources Advice from NIAID: http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part06.aspx

NIH Tips for Avoiding Common Errors in Electronic Submission: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/ElectronicReceipt/avoiding_errors.htm

Research Plan Advice from NIAID (geared toward R01s, but useful for other mechanisms): http://funding.niaid.nih.gov/researchfunding/grant/cycle/pages/part05.aspx

NIH Takes a Tough Stance on A2 Elimination

Under the old NIH proposal rules, PIs had three chances to obtain funding for their projects. This was helpful because in many cases a good proposal would need 2 rounds of reviewer comments before becoming a great, and fundable, proposal. In 2009, NIH did away with the A2 (second resubmission) for grant proposals. This means that PIs now have only 2 chances to obtain funding before they must completely rework the entire proposal and start the process over.

In this article, NIH provides a letter that was sent in response to a petition from a large group of scientists that requested a return of the "3-strike" system.

I do find the line "the proportion of funded A1 applications has remained constant while the proportion of funded A0s has risen dramatically" and the accompanying figure very interesting. While the proportion of funded A0s has risen, I wonder how much these numbers are impacted by PIs who rework their proposals and submit variations after not being funded as A0s. It is often difficult to improve from a mediocre score to fundable range from the A0 to A1 submissions. Many PIs that I have worked with in the past 2 years have chosen to not spend the time resubmitting for A1s and instead change their proposals significantly enough to count as new submissions. How widespread is this practice and what has its effect been on this data?

When it comes to science, Leno just doesn't get it

Last night, I watched the Tonight Show monologue as I usually do before bed. Jay Leno did his usual bits about current news topics, joked about Paris Hilton's cocaine arrest, etc. Then he asked the audience to decide whether the project "Studying Stoned Monkeys" was a government-funded project or a "wise-ass student" project. The audience seemed to find it hilarious that it was actually a government-funded research project.

I took to the NIH RePORTER database to try to find the project that Leno was poking fun at. I found one NIH-funded R01 study based at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio (Lance R. McMahon, PI) that may be the basis for Leno's joke. The study, "Pharmacotherapy of Cannabinoid Withdrawal: Pre-Clinical Studies" aims to use pre-clinical symptoms of cannabinoid (marijuana) withdrawal in primates to find pharmacotherapies that may help to prevent withdrawal symptoms and help to decrease dependence on marijuana. Yes, referring to the project as "Studying Stoned Monkeys" is quite funny. (Imagine seeing that as the proposal title in a review session?) However, this really is an important study with public health implications. Leno's joke at the expense of this project shows just how little the general public knows and understands the science that is funded by taxpayer dollars. The NIH Public Access Policy was a step in the right direction. Now the public has access to manuscripts of publications resulting from all recent NIH-funded projects. However, the relevance of these projects needs to be more widely conveyed, in terms that individuals with non-scientific backgrounds can understand. The New York Times and other publications seem to do a great job of bringing current research into the mainstream media. It is my hope that other news publications will follow suit. How amazing would it be if, alongside photos of major celebrities, People Magazine profiled a new researcher every week? It might happen....as long as that researcher looks good in a bathing suit...

Life after ARRA funding

This article on Bloomberg.com underscores the importance of planning for your research beyond ARRA funding. If you were lucky enough to obtain funding through the stimulus act, you know that it was designed to jump-start the economy, and that the grants could not be renewed. With many ARRA-funded projects coming close to ending, it is important to consider where your future funding will come from.

We all should have seen this coming. The Recovery Act/Stimulus Act/ARRA/Whatever you want to call it was only supposed to be a temporary fix, to keep research and innovation going until the economy rose out of its depression. Unfortunately, almost 2 years into the Recovery Act, the economic outlook, while improving, is still quite gloomy. Who will be there to step in and replace the money when the ARRA funding runs out? NIH will not have its permanent budget increased. Many of those temporary ARRA-funded jobs created by the stimulus will disappear, and more Americans will be out of work.

Rather than pray for a second wave of ARRA funding, it is time to be proactive. If you have already been working on an idea, consider devoting more time to a proposal and submitting for the October deadline. Or begin to work on your writing and gather preliminary data so that you can submit in February. My hunch is that next year's June and October deadlines will be full of people who are nearing the end of their ARRA funding who are trying to get their projects funded via other mechanisms, so there may be some advantage to being ahead of the curve.

Incidentally, I am happy to see that Matt State at Yale has had such tremendous success in obtaining funding for his laboratory. He is a brilliant researcher who has contributed extensively to the field of neurogenetics and, specifically, to research on genetics and autism. It is nice to see that the stimulus money has helped this type of important work.

The National Institutes of Health - 1965

This is a very interesting video from NIH. It looks like a PR video of some kind from 1965. It is very interesting to see some of the history of NIH.