NIH recently funded 106 new awards for high-risk, high-reward research

Recently, NIH announced that 106 grants were funded for innovative, potentially groundbreaking research projects. These grants were funded through the NIH Common Fund's program on High-Risk, High Reward Research. The grants were awarded through several mechanisms, including:

• The NIH Director’s Pioneer Award, which supports scientists with outstanding records of creativity pursuing new research directions to develop pioneering approaches to major challenges in biomedical, social science, and behavioral research.
• The NIH Director’s New Innovator Award, which supports exceptionally creative early career investigators who propose innovative, high-impact projects in the biomedical, behavioral or social sciences within the NIH mission.
• The NIH Director’s Transformative Research Award, which supports individuals or teams proposing transformative projects that are inherently risky and untested but have the potential to create or overturn fundamental paradigms and may require very large budgets.
• The NIH Director’s Early Independence Award, which supports outstanding junior scientists with the intellect, scientific creativity, drive, and maturity bypass the traditional postdoctoral training period to launch independent research careers.

Additional focus areas were added this year, which included projects studying Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) and COVID-19.

Francis Collins announced he is leaving NIH - what comes next?

 Today, Francis Collins announced that he will be stepping down from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by the end of this year. Dr. Collins led NIH for the past 12 years, and although he is leaving his leadership role, he plans to continue his laboratory work at the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI). An interim director has not yet been named.

Will the change of leadership result in a revised research agenda for NIH? The NIH director is appointed by the U.S. president and must be confirmed by the senate. In my opinion, this is unfortunately a case of politics mixing too closely with science, but at least it guarantees an open selection process. Dr. Collins has led the NIH in a way that has been non-partisan and focused on propelling science forward. Many great achievements have occurred during his tenure, and I hope that President Biden will find a suitable scientific mind to continue this great work.

Is NIH closed during the government shutdown?

This question has been coming up quite a bit over the past couple of weeks.  For the record, NIH is open during the partial federal government shutdown.  Don't believe me?  Read it for yourself here. 

Although NIH is not closed, agencies such as NASA and the FDA are experiencing the effects of the shutdown.  This impacts not only research, but also the individual employees who are currently furloughed or working without pay.  My sincere hope is that both parties can come together on a compromise and that President Trump will reopen the government soon so everyone can get back to work.

NINDS will limit awards to well-funded labs

In an effort to focus more resources on junior scientists, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) will now limit awards to laboratories that already have funding at levels of $1 million or more.  Although this policy has great intentions, it remains to be seen whether it will lead to increased levels of funding among new and early state investigators.  This article in Science provides more information about the new policy.

Rare Disease Day- February 28th

Today marks the 11th anniversary of Rare Disease Day.  This day is observed internationally in an effort to bring more attention to rare, understudied diseases.  Here are some events happening today that may be of interest to the academic community:

• The FDA is observing the day by starting a new collaboration with the National Organization for Rare Disorders (NORD) that will include a pilot project to incorporate the experiences of patients with rare diseases into FDA medical reviews.
• A free event at the NIH is being co-sponsored by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) and NIH Clinical Center. The goal of Rare Disease Day at NIH is to increase awareness about rare diseases and ongoing NIH research related to these diseases.

Want to know more about which diseases are classified as rare?  A full list is located here.

The shutdown is over!

Yesterday, President Trump signed a temporary funding bill that ended the shutdown.  It will keep our government open for approximately another 2 weeks, at which point hopefully an agreement can be made that prevents another shutdown.  For now at least, government employees are back at work and systems are up and running.

A recent update in the fight against caps on indirect costs

Although it has not been a top news story as of late, there is still an undercurrent of discussion surrounding limiting the indirect costs paid on federal grants.  As previously mentioned, a cap of 10% indirect costs on all NIH and other federal awards would decimate the research infrastructure of most academic institutions.  In a recent move, an important legislator began to lay the groundwork for prevention of indirect cost limits in 2018.  You can read the full article here.

An important message in time for the upcoming flu season

This campaign, sponsored by the North Carolina Quality Center, features young children conveying an important message.  It amazes me how many educated people still try to talk their way into receiving antibiotics for something as simple as a runny nose.  Perhaps other states should follow North Carolina's lead and pursue aggressive campaigns to educate the public about the dangers of overprescription of antibiotics.  As a researcher interested in public health, I applaud this type of outreach.

Why would we lay people off and send our money overseas?

The recent sequestration has been all over the news.  Universities, hospitals, and research institutions are scrambling to determine how they will hold on to the thousands of jobs that may be lost due to budget cuts.  For this reason, it came as more than a minor annoyance when today I saw this grant opportunity. If our country is in fiscal crisis mode and our own researchers on U.S. soil are in danger of losing their jobs, why do we need to send money to Rwanda to improve their media program?  I can understand the other opportunity posted today for a project aimed at preventing HIV in Mali. That project has the potential for saving lives.  I get it.  Improving the media and elections program in a far-away country, though?  Shouldn't the jobs of the people who are working to cure or prevent serious diseases matter more than helping with media matters when financial resources are scarce?  Are we going to set the health of our own population back because we are too busy helping other nations with other matters to worry about our own people?  Given the cuts in availability of funding, our government officials should undertake a serious review of all programs and prioritize by funding those that have the most significant impact on human life, whether in the U.S. or abroad. 

Double Dipping, Research Style

A new article in Nature brings up the practice of double dipping in research funding, where researchers obtain multiple grants for nearly identical projects.  While this practice is discouraged and technically not permitted, the plain truth is that it happens all the time.  This article points out that very little is done to check for duplication of funding between federal agencies.  It is up to researchers to report the duplication or overlap of funding.  Interestingly, more than one individual mentioned in this article admitted to submitting the exact same materials to multiple federal agencies.  Having a little more background knowledge than what is written in this article, I can attest to the fact that the duplicate submissions may have something to do with lack of time or motivation on the part of the PI to make edits or changes before submitting a modified version of an application to a different funding agency.  In other words, while some materials such as the budget may be different, researchers who duplicate submissions of projects focused on the same aims often fail to take the time to modify the abstract and other materials when seeking additional sources of funding for their projects.   

Researchers Explain Why You Should Avoid Cranky Colleagues

Reading this article today on CNN Money instantly reminded me of more than a few past and present coworkers.  Every office or laboratory has at least one person who is perpetually angry and/or dissatisfied with their job in general or particular work responsibilities.  Nothing ever goes right, and every day is a bad day.  Recent research shows why avoiding and ignoring this negativity will help you to be more satisfied in your current position.  Perhaps this will also serve as a wake-up call to some of you who might be the office crankypants.

Research Focus: Duke University studies of exposure to flame retardants

In recent months, some well-publicized findings have come out of Duke University regarding children's exposure to flame retardants.  In April, news articles highlighted research conducted by Dr. Heather Stapleton that found a variety of toxic chemicals, including flame retardants, in many widely-used baby products.  Dr. Stapleton likened the presence of the chemicals in these products to lead paint exposures that occured before the use of lead paint was banned.  She further suggests that it is possible to avoid flame retardant-laden products by avoiding products with labels that state that the product is compliant with California's flame retardant requirements.  (As a parent, this is very helpful, as I will now actively seek out products online and in catalogues that are labeled "Not available in California".)

Another study coming out of Duke has been in the news in recent days.  In this study, also overseen by Dr. Stapleton, exposure to toxic chemicals including flame retardants was shown to vary by socioeconomic status and race.  In other words, kids who are poor or minorities were significantly more likely to have higher concentrations of toxic chemicals in their bodies.  In fact, compared to white children, minority children were shown to have almost double the amount of polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) in their blood.  Even more fascinating is that the disparitiy could not be explained simply by differences in the children's current home environments. 

For more information about this and other similar research studies at Duke, visit this link.  Of course, from a grants perspective, I am very impressed that so much press and public awareness has been generated by a project that was started with only a $2.2 million NIH grant.

Don't crack under the pressure!!!

The feds regularly release reports of findings of research misconduct. Obviously, this is in an effort not only to spread awareness of retractions of publications, but also to shame those who fabricate data in front of those peers. Hopefully, making findings of misconduct public helps to deter some researchers from falsifying data or plagiarizing others' work. This recent notice, however, was particularly shocking. Most of the disciplinary actions I have read about usually involve a trainee or other junior researcher. This case actually involved someone who was a department chair and had held several grants. Moral of the story: even at the highest levels, the pressure to succeed and bring in funding can get to anyone. Keep yourself in check. If you are unsure whether you are getting off the correct path, take an ethics course to remind yourself of the true intent of your work.

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?

Longitudinal Studies in Action

A recent publication from a team led by Dr. Kathleen Mullan Harris at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill suggests that as many as 19% of young adults have high blood pressure. This is an alarming statistic, and one that underscores the importance of obesity prevention programs, and the need for better nutrition in United States children.

This statistic was derived from an analysis of data collected by the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (known as "Add Health"). The study has collected 4 waves of data on a large sample of children who have been followed into adulthood. Various social and medical information has been collected on this group. The study data is used by researchers around the country, and hundreds of publications are developed each year.

The Add Health study has received most of its funding from NICHD, though it has also received ancillary funding and additional funding for supplemental work from various other agencies.

Complaint about researcher terminology

One of the news articles that just popped up in my random search was a letter to the editor from an Alabama newspaper complaining about the terminology used by NIH-funded researchers. The letter-writer apparently can not understand the research papers he is attempting to read and complains that all researchers should publish in "lay terms".

This complaint made me chuckle. If all researchers starting publishing articles that could be understood by the general public, it would take double the amount of writing to explain the same thing. If people want to read about current research findings, they can visit PubMed and view abstracts for almost anything they want to read. After all, that is the point of the abstract, and the reason NIH instructs us to write it clearly and concisely, right?

I do agree with part of the writer's argument, though. The media could certainly do a better job covering the amazing scientific research studies and findings that happen on a daily basis around the globe. Maybe they should spend less time reporting on Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears and more time showcasing our scientific accomplishments.

I can dream, can't I?

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?

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...