NIH-proposed investigator awards may enhance innovation, but at what cost?

By Elizabeth Little, PhD, PDA Public Affairs Committee


Individual investigator awards are believed to promote creativity by offering long-term funding for established and successful scientists.  However, decreasing support for traditional grant proposals may concern early career researchers.

Following the leads of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), the NIH is encouraging each of its institutes to initiate funding “person” awards similar to those offered by Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) rather than the traditional project-based grant. The most advanced proposal so far is the NCI’s Outstanding Investigator Award, a 7-year-long grant (with a possible 3-year renewal) offering $600,000 in direct costs each year. It’s estimated that Outstanding Investigator Awards will take up approximately 15% of the total NCI grant budget. The debate between investigator awards and project proposals lies in how the new proposals will particularly affect young investigators. 

The benefit of person awards is that they offer funding without stipulations, allowing for increased creativity in designing and implementing projects. With a relatively large amount of money per year and more long-term funding, scientists can pause from grant-writing and focus on research. Furthermore, studies comparing the NIH Pioneer awards (another investigator-based award) to traditional RO1 project grants has shown that Pioneer awards publish more papers overall (although papers/grant-dollar are comparable) and publish more innovative studies in more highly ranked journals.  

On one hand, the “fund people, not projects” theory seems like an excellent plan to finance the nation’s scientific studies. After all, these investigators have already demonstrated their ability to produce good work through peer-reviewed publications. However, while people awards are intended to reward productivity for established researchers, they will take money away from the pool available to more obscure or beginning investigators. As it is, the NIH research project grant review committees already consider the principal investigator’s publication record, and previously successful scientists are more likely to maintain well-funded labs. Even if younger investigators are evaluated by different criteria from their more-established colleagues, their productivity will be largely assessed based on publication records as graduate students or postdocs, which may or may not be indicative of their abilities as independent scientists. 

The individual investigator model will only allow for a select few to receive the awards. NCI estimates that fewer than 50 Outstanding Investigator Awards will be given a year. No doubt this is partly because the NIH does not want to entirely abolish its project-based proposals. While open-ended investigator awards have been highly successful for some groups such as HHMI, other institutions like the Wellcome Trust are planning to restructure their people awards to create more funding prospects for younger researchers. 

Overall, by freeing investigators from constant grant writing, longer-term funding would help boost creativity and scientific progress. Rewarding these grants to proven scientists with superb track records seems like an obvious choice. However, given the current funding situation, now is not the time to test out these theories. Right now, we need to be more concerned about young, promising researchers turning away from the field because of a lack of opportunity.  A 15% decrease in available funding would further hurt our scientific future and, by shutting out new researchers, lead to increased “graying” of investigators and a loss of smart and driven students who see a better future outside of the laboratory. We need to focus on encouraging new, developing labs because, inevitably, that is the long-term future of science; new investigators are vital for increasing scientific creativity and for maintaining the lifeblood of research for future generations. While the current NIH review process is by no means perfect, it seems easier to evaluate project proposals rather than investigator promise. Certainly, established and successful researchers are already favored in this process. It may be difficult to improve a system that already evaluates both the investigator and the proposed research, though research-based proposals tend to rely on less innovative projects. Rather than focus on long-term grants so that a few investigators can reduce grant writing time, we need to streamline the grant process and increase funding so that more scientists can support labs by actually winning grants and not just writing them. This year, the NIH allowed grant applicants with unsuccessful A1 grant resubmissions to apply the same ideas as a new A0 grant, hoping to  “encourage applicants to refine and strengthen all application submissions”. This is the sort of streamlined process that will allow scientists, particularly new investigators, to hone their grant skills and focus their projects for improved lab funding at this difficult financial time. 

http://www.sciencemag.org.proxy.uchicago.edu/content/345/6195/366.full

A close look at federal science policy: Senator Dick Durbin and the American Cures Act

BSD Postdocs with Senator Dick Durbin on March 24, 2014.

By Kyle Dolan, Ph.D., PDA Public Affairs Committee

In a speech Monday at UIC College of Medicine, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) outlined the American Cures Act, a plan to secure and grow federal funding for biomedical research. Four members of the BSD Postdoctoral Association attended his speech and later met with Senator Durbin to discuss the personal effects of stagnant science budgets. For these postdocs, it was an opportunity to witness the workings of US science policy up close.

Federal funds for scientific research currently come out of a discretionary spending fund that Congress and the White House must split up every year for a large group of programs. Unlike legally mandated spending, such as for Social Security, discretionary spending for a program can vary year to year. Thirty years ago, scientific research accounted for 1.3% of the federal budget. Today, it represents 0.8% of the budget. Furthermore, as Senator Durbin pointed out, the discretionary spending pool must fund not only the NIH and other science agencies, but also popular social programs such as Head Start.

The solution proposed by Durbin in the American Cures Act is to create legally mandated biomedical research funding. A pool of money would be set aside each year to fund the research missions of the NIH, CDC, Department of Defense, and VA. The size of the pool would grow at a rate of five percent above inflation over ten years, providing up to $150 billion for these programs. Durbin suggested that a new federal tax on tobacco products would help to fund the Act, though he stipulated that the envisioned revenues from such a tax would pay for only half of the foreseen outlays. The American Cures Act fund would also be protected from sequestration in the event of future budget crises, such as the one this past year which shut down the NIH for weeks.

During the speech, which was attended by an audience of nearly 100 scientists, administrators, and other guests, Durbin pointed out that promoting discovery and innovation has been a government priority dating back to the earliest days of the American republic. He cited Washington’s creation of the Patent Office and the expedition of Lewis and Clark. Turning to modern examples of American scientific achievement, Durbin highlighted the work of Chicago-based researchers whose work had improved the quality of life for people suffering from cancer and other ailments, including The University of Chicago’s own Janet Rowley. He also talked about how federal research had led to the creation of improved prosthetic devices for amputees. Over and over, Durbin connected the American research enterprise with economic growth and enhanced quality of life for all people. Because of this connection, he said, the problem of securing stable funding for biomedical research was not a partisan problem, but rather “an American problem”, and one that he hoped his Republican colleagues in Congress would also stand behind.

Following the speech, members of the BSD Postdoctoral Association met Senator Durbin for a private conversation. We expressed our gratitude for his support of science and explained how the funding climate weighed on current postdocs’ prospects for research jobs. Here are some reflections on the speech and on meeting Senator Durbin from those who were there:

“Attending Senator Durbin's speech and meeting him afterwards inspired us all. On the walk back to the car we were all discussing who we could contact to help generate more support for the America Cures Act. It was a great reminder that we don't work in a vacuum and if we want better funding security, we need to advocate for it.” –Beth Russell, Ph.D., PDA Public Affairs Committee Co-Chair

“I attended to get a better idea of how these policy level decisions are being made that have such broad implications, both for our funding access as individual researchers, and for the direction of our country.  I was struck by Senator Durbin's excellent communication skills. He inspired his audience during his speech. Later, when talking with us personally, he displayed great poise and empathy for the postdoc plight.  His speech was heavy on past success, and the desire to pay it forward to address real needs by continued investment.  I believe that he chose good examples of not only biomedical breakthroughs (e.g. Janet Rowley's 'oh wow' moment) but also for VA and other research that will also be funded by this bill. Perhaps most importantly, he seems to have a potentially feasible roadmap towards getting the American Cures Act passed (i.e. using tobacco money to pay half). This seems to be a realistic way to help reverse our steady decline in biomedical research funding.” –Sean McConnell, Ph.D., PDA Co-President

NIH proposes critical initiatives to sustain future of U.S. biomedical research

NIH proposes critical initiatives to sustain future of U.S. biomedical research

This includes enhancing training of postdoctoral researchers, exploring increased support for training mechanisms designed to accelerate the development of independent research careers such as the NIH Pathway to Independence Awards (K99/R00), increase the emphasis on ongoing assessments of the biomedical research workforce, including a proposed follow-up study on clinician scientists, as well as to identify and track more comprehensively all graduate students and postdoctoral researchers supported by NIH to provide a sound basis for assessing workforce needs and planning future training activities. More comprehensive career outcomes data also would help to inform prospective graduate students and postdoctoral researchers contemplating careers in biomedical research. To read the full brief, please see below:

Future biomedical researchers: http://www.nih.gov/news/health/dec2012/od-07.htm

Dr. Sally Rockey comments on future postdoctoral training strategies

Dr. Sally Rockey comments on future postdoctoral training strategies

….,” as co-chair of the working group on the biomedical research workforce, I’m (Dr. Rockey) excited to share how NIH plans to support this critical component of the biomedical research enterprise, and improve the training experience of graduate students and postdocs alike. We intend to launch a program to support innovative approaches that expand and complement existing research training to include science-related career outcomes, and also encourage the adoption of individual development plans for all trainees. NIH plans to increase the funding of awards that encourage independence like the K99/R00 and early independence awards, and increase the initial postdoctoral researcher stipend. NIH also intends to embark on novel ways of improving the trainee experience, such as looking more closely at, and soliciting community feedback on, postdocs’ access to workplace benefits. To learn more about her thoughts, please see below:

Rockey’s thoughts: http://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/12/07/following-up-on-acd-recommendations/

NIH Promises to Improve Biomedical Research Training

NIH Promises to Improve Biomedical Research Training  by Jocelyn Kaiser on 7 Dec 2012, Science Insider.
"Reacting to a steep rise in the number of young biomedical scientists seeking scarce academic jobs, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) plans to launch programs to prepare scientists for nonacademic careers, move students through their Ph.D.s faster, and bolster the pay of postdocs."  You can also read the NIH report.

NIH to Begin Enforcing Open-Access Policy on Research It Supports

NIH to Begin Enforcing Open-Access Policy on Research It Supports.  Posted on November 16, 2012 by Sally Rockey, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research.   
"...as of spring 2013 at the earliest, we will begin to hold processing of non-competing continuation awards if publications arising from grant awards are not in compliance with the public access policy."

Sequestration may lead to policies that would hurt postdocs

Sequestration may lead to policies that would hurt postdocs
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) is rallying the biomedical research community to advocate against devastating funding cuts facing the nation’s  research agencies unless Congress acts before the end of the year. Under sequestration, the National  Institutes of Health (NIH) could lose $2.8 billion and would fund 25 percent (2,300) fewer grants. The  National Science Foundation (NSF) could be cut by nearly $600 million. More than 5,800 emails have  been sent to Congress in response to a FASEB e-action alert urging individuals to let their Senators and  Representatives know why federal funding for NIH, NSF, and other agencies is critical to local research institutions and state economies. “Labs will be forced to close, resulting in layoffs of tens of thousands of researchers. It will take generations to recover the lost talent, as dedicated young scientists and engineers will be driven from science by the disruption of their training and lack of jobs,” said FASEB President Judith S. Bond, PhD. To read more, please see: http://faseb.org/Portals/0/PDFs/opa/11.12.12%20Alert%20and%20Advocacy%20press%20release.pdf

NIH Director starts blogging

NIH Director starts blogging
For those that do not know, Dr. Francis Collins, the current NIH Director, has started a blog. To read his comments and posts, please see below.
NIH Director’s blog: http://directorsblog.nih.gov/

The Obligation for Biologists to Commit to Political Advocacy

The Obligation for Biologists to Commit to Political Advocacy by: Thomas D. Pollard,  Cell Volume 151, Issue 2, 12 October 2012, Pages 239–243.   

The failure of Congress to adopt a deficit reduction program in 2011 resulted in a fall-back option called sequestration, which may reduce federal funding across the board by 8% on January 1, 2013. If this comes to pass, we face widespread unemployment in the biological research community and the loss of many valuable research programs.

Clearing Up Confusion about Postdoc Salaries and Training Activities

Read this blog by Dr. Sally Rockey, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research for more information about NIH-supported postdoctoral activities.

NIH Biomedical Workforce Working Group on Postdocs

On June 14^th the Biomedical Workforce Working Group at the NIH released their draft report detailing the steps they recommend the NIH take in the coming years to improve and support the personnel aspects of biomedical research.  The report which can be found here http://acd.od.nih.gov/bmw_report.pdf examines the involvement of the NIH in the financial support and training of graduate students, postdoctoral trainees, staff scientists, and physician scientists. 

As pertains to postdocs the NIH working group makes several recommendations, among them to:

·      Increase the number of training grant and fellowship slots and decrease the number of postdocs supported by research project grants in order to ensure that the postdoctoral period includes the training and mentoring opportunities that are afforded by the former slot types. 

·      Start a pilot program for extramural funding of training-based initiatives run by institutional postdoctoral offices

·      Increase stipend support to $42,000 per year with 4% increases in years 2-3 and 6% increases for years 4-7 in order to encourage PIs to move senior postdocs into more stable positions. This also aims to reduce the years spent in the postdoctoral training period.

·      Ensure that NIH supported postdocs receive the same benefits as all other employees at their institution.

·      Double the number of K99 and early independence awards and make earlier career postdocs eligible for K99 awards.

·      Require individual development plans (IDPs) of all NIH supported postdocs. 

The report also recommends that NIH study sections be encouraged to be receptive to grant applications from staff scientists, an important step in the professionalization of these ambiguous careers that fall in-between PI and postdoctoral status. 

Additionally, the report recommends that institutions receiving NIH funding be required to report and publically post career outcomes data of graduate and postdoctoral trainees.  This is much like recent pushes for accountability of law schools to claims of student success; publication of such data could be very useful to postdocs choosing between different institutions. 

You can also read about it in Science Careers: http://sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_magazine/previous_issues/articles/2012_06_22/caredit.a1200069

While the recommendations of the NIH working group are sure to garner much interest this year, it is clear from the report that they may not be implemented simply due to funding concerns.  As always, NIH funding remains of paramount interest in our community.  The BSD Postdoctoral association public affairs committee plans to keep you informed on the status of these recommendations and on NIH funding issues in the future.  Please feel free to post a blog or otherwise comment on these recommendations and other community wide concerns.  What do postdocs at U of Chicago think are the most important steps to sustaining and improving the biomedical workforce and the postdoctoral experience?  We would love to hear your thoughts!