As I’ve written before here on Rock Talk, peer review is the keystone of the scientific process. I’m excited to call your attention to a website update that connects the what, when, why, and how of NIH’s peer review process. …. Continue reading
One topic of frequent interest to NIH leadership is how R01-equivalent awards compare to other research grant awards. The R01 is the standard mainstay of NIH’s research portfolio, and the oldest grant mechanism in use by NIH. As those familiar with the blog and RePORT know, we usually look at R01s in conjunction with other awards providing similar support analogous to an R01, which includes R37s or MERIT program awards. Of the R01-equivalent pool however, R01s make up the overwhelming bulk of these grants so while we call them R01-equivalents for accuracy-in-reporting reasons, it is highly appropriate to consider R01-equivalent data as representative of R01 trends. Over the past years we’ve been looking at trends in R01-equivalents compared to trends in awards through the R21 activity code. …. Continue reading
An important, recurring discussion topic on our blogs is ways to maximize the impact and sustainability of NIH-funded biomedical research. In 2011, a Rock Talk post on managing NIH’s budget in fiscally challenging times solicited many comments and led, in part, to an NIH-wide policy on special council review for applications from PIs who have more than $1 million in NIH funding. We have also implemented new programs that provide more stable support for investigators over longer time periods. A more recent example of the “maximizing impact and sustainability” theme is an NIGMS Feedback Loop post that discussed ideas for how to optimize the biomedical research ecosystem. …. Continue reading
There has been a lot of discussion in the community about the age of NIH supported researchers. As I’ve mentioned here on the blog before, we continue to examine how best to sustain the biomedical workforce. There are many ways to characterize our workforce or the biomedical research ecosystem, and many factors that contribute to successfully obtaining an NIH award. Since the topic of age is a popular one right now, I’d like to share with you some recent analyses that my office looked into regarding the distribution of research funding by age group.
We examined total and direct costs of NIH research project grants from 1998 through the last full fiscal year, and graphed the distribution of research funding by age group. The full data is posted on RePORT, and since the patterns are similar, I’ll post the graph of direct cost funding distribution below: …. Continue reading
It’s spring and that means it’s time for the NIH Regional Seminar. This year, I’m especially excited that I will have more than 50 of my NIH and HHS colleagues joining me in Baltimore to share the latest updates and guidance on NIH initiatives, policies, and updates on the NIH grants process. If you are new to working with NIH – or maybe just in need of a brush-up on NIH funding and grant policy-related topics – consider joining us May 7-8, 2015. …. Continue reading
On February 5, NIH announced its “NIH Interim Grant General Conditions”, our first step toward implementing Fed-wide administrative requirements for the use of Federal funds.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)’s “Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards” (2 CFR part 200), (you may also hear it referred to as the “Uniform Guidance” or “UG”), published in December 2013, provided a government-wide framework for administrative requirements, cost principles, and audit requirements when …. Continue reading
Last year we highlighted a new section of the NIH Data Book that provides statistics about peer review across NIH, including peer review organized by the Center of Scientific Review as well as peer review organized by NIH institutes and centers. Then, and now, these data truly demonstrate how you, our peer reviewers, are the lifeline of the scientific process. During 2014 nearly 24,000 reviewers participated in more than 2,500 peer review meetings to assess the scientific and technical merit of NIH applications, and many of those reviewers participated in multiple meetings. Your service to NIH expands our capacity to fund the best science, and provides an essential breadth of perspectives on the research projects and research training that NIH supports. In the lab and in the study section, we’re grateful for the myriad ways you work with us to advance human health and benefit the health of our nation, and the world. …. Continue reading
From enhancing diversity to supporting training in emerging fields, over the past three years NIH has continued to examine the needs of the biomedical workforce and create initiatives that will sustain the amazing work being performed by you, the extramural research community. Our efforts place a lot of focus on trainees and early stage investigators through policy changes and new programs, but there are two sides to every equation. We have many well-established research programs run by senior investigators. We want to explore how …. Continue reading
Since 2008, NIH’s Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools, better known as RePORT, has provided easy access to info on NIH funded research. My office continues to look at new ways to enhance your access to important information through robust search tools, data visualization dashboards, and more. I’d like to highlight one of our newer tools today: Matchmaker.
Matchmaker allows you to enter manuscript abstracts, research bios, …. Continue reading
In the rapidly evolving world of modern medicine, it is important that the transition of basic scientific discoveries into new medical treatments takes place with both precision and speed.
NIH’s Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs – which I’ve discussed a few times on the blog before – are a key part of NIH’s translational research portfolio. …. Continue reading