NIH Funding and FIFA Soccer

At first glance, NIH funding does not appear to have much relationship to FIFA. How does research funding in the United States compare to the international governing body for soccer (or "football" as non-Americans call the sport)?

However, looking at the current corruption scandal, I do see some comparisons. For those who do not follow international soccer, let me explain that FIFA has been plagued in recent months with allegations of bribery, and several FIFA officials have been suspended or removed over these incidents. The latest allegation made by a whistleblower is that Qatar, the wealthiest nation competing to host the World Cup games, used bribery to be awarded the 2022 World Cup over the United States and Australia. Qatar officials, of course, deny that anyone was bribed into voting for Qatar, and insist that the country merely "leveraged its immense wealth" in a way that helped it to be awarded the games.

It is the leveraging of wealth that made me quickly think of NIH funding. Surely, with the rigorous peer review process, it is highly unlikely that anyone can be bribed into funding a specific research proposal, and that is not what I am suggesting. Rather, the larger and resource-rich universities are able to leverage their wealth and resources to receive some of the largest grants. These insitutitions have the money to hire seasoned researchers and grants management personnel, and are rich with resources such as large medical schools and libraries. When they do obtain funding, they receive a much larger NICRA (indirect rate) than smaller and less wealthy institutions, which gives them more money to further improve their programs. It is a self-perpetuating cycle and one that I believes makes it more difficult for excellent researchers at smaller, less known institutions, to be awarded major projects. In the same way that it is unfair for Qatar to be awarded the World Cup simply because it can do great things with its wealth, it is unfair for smaller institutions to be competing on an uneven playing field with large research meccas. Qatar's fit as a World Cup host should have been evaluated based solely on its ability to host a top notch competition, just as NIH proposals should be evaluated based on the merits of the research plan and the investigators' ability to successfully complete the project.

My suggestion? Give less weight to Resources and Environment in the peer review process. This will help to give a boost to researchers from less-known institutions that are fully capable of successfully completing research projects.

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?

This is NSF, not NIH, but still an important read

A new report issued by the Senate points out research studies and practices that is considers wasteful at NSF. Aside from the typical complaints about unimportant studies (Studying shrimp walking on a treadmill? Pervasive porn watching by NSF employees?- really?) the report also suggests that NSF should abolish its social sciences program entirely.

You can read the entire report here. Though it does mention some major accomplishments using NSF funds, it is mostly shocking in its description of money wasted by NSF. Ladies and gentlemen, your taxpayer dollars at work!

If you can't read the directions, don't bother applying

NIH just released a reminder that, in essence, states that PIs should read the directions before applying. You can read this groundbreaking announcement here.

Though in some ways I find it ridiculous that NIH has chosen to spend precious time creating and releasing this document, I can understand why it is needed. When the page limits for research plans were shortened last year, several study section members told me stories of extra information "hidden" in various other parts of the application. "Resources and Environment" sections turned into "Methods and Resources" and dribbled on for pages about methods instead of libraries and office space. One proposal that came across my desk had a "Background and Significance" section brazenly planted in the Appendix.

There is a lesson to learn here, folks: YOU ARE NOT THAT CLEVER. For every trick that you think you have invented to circumvent the page limits, hundreds of others have probably tried (and failed). The people submitting NIH grant applications are scientists- meaning that they, like you, are creative thinkers who are trying desperately to convey the importance of their research in 6 or 12 pages.

For your sake, and to protect the integrity of the review process, spend your time developing new ways to be less verbose in your writing, and stop wasting your time trying to find ways to avoid following the rules.