How Many Researchers, Revisited: A Look at Cumulative Investigator Funding Rates

In May 2016, we posted a blog on “How Many Researchers” NIH supports. We cited the findings of a University of Wisconsin workshop, which concluded that the biomedical research enterprise suffers from two core problems: too many scientists vying for too few dollars and too many post-docs seeking too few faculty positions. We also noted that NIH leadership and others were increasingly interested in describing the agency’s portfolio not only in terms of the numbers of awards and dollars (as we do each year in our “By the Numbers” reports), but also in terms of the numbers of researchers those awards support. Today we show updated figures on how many researchers are vying for NIH support and how many are successful. Continue reading

FY 2017 By the Numbers

We recently released our annual web reports, success rates and NIH Data Book with updated numbers for fiscal year 2017. Looking at data across both competing and non-competing awards, NIH supports approximately 2,500 organizations. In 2017 about 640 of these organizations received funding for competing Research Project Grants (RPGs) which involved over 11,000 principal investigators. Continue reading

Requesting Your Input on the Draft NIH Strategic Plan for Data Science

To capitalize on the opportunities presented by advances in data science, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is developing a Strategic Plan for Data Science. This plan describes NIH’s overarching goals, strategic objectives, and implementation tactics for promoting the modernization of the NIH-funded biomedical data science ecosystem. As part of the planning process, NIH has published a draft of the strategic plan, along with a Request for Information (RFI) to seek input from stakeholders, including members of the scientific community, academic institutions, the private sector, health professionals, professional societies, advocacy groups, patient communities, as well as other interested members of the public. Continue reading

NIH Announces Inclusion Across the Lifespan Policy

Last month, NIH announced a revision (NOT-OD-18-116) to a decades-old policy originally conceived in response to concerns that children were not appropriately included in clinical research. These changes broaden the policy to address inclusion of research participants of all ages, and as discussed at the last Advisory Committee to the NIH Director meeting, will apply beginning in 2019 to all NIH-supported research involving human subjects. Our goal is to ensure that the knowledge gained from NIH-funded research is applicable to all those affected by the conditions under study. Continue reading

Continuing to Strengthen Inclusion Reporting on NIH-funded Phase III Trials

Much has been learned about how sex and race may contribute to differences in health outcomes and physiologic conditions (Clayton, 2014). We know that, for example, a specific drug used to treat insomnia requires different dosing for women and men. African Americans with hypertension are more susceptible to stroke than whites with the same blood pressure levels (Howard, 2013). But in many cases, findings from potentially informative stratified analyses may not be widely available. Less than a third of NIH studies required to analyze sex/gender and race/ethnicity have been found to publish sex-stratified results in peer-reviewed journals (Foulkes, 2011). Continue reading

Further Refining Case Studies and FAQs about the NIH Definition of a Clinical Trial in Response to Your Questions

In August and September we released case studies and FAQs to help those of you doing human subjects research to determine whether your research study meets the NIH definition of a clinical trial. Correctly making this determination is important to ensure you are following the initiatives we have been implementing to improve the transparency of clinical trials, including the need to pick clinical trial -specific funding opportunity announcements for due dates of January 25, 2018 and beyond. Continue reading

Two Years (or so) of “Open Mike”

Last year, as I reflected on finishing my first full year as NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research, I noted five themes that reflected most of the content of this blog: applicant behavior, activity, and outcomes; peer review; basic science; biomedical research workforce and training; and scientific rigor, transparency, and research impact. Looking back on 2017, which was certainly a busy and active year, many of these themes continue to be at the forefront, though one in particular, the make-up and future of the biomedical research workforce, has been the center of much debate. …. Continue reading

Assuring the Integrity of Peer Review

Eight months ago, CSR Director Dr. Richard Nakamura and I posted a blog on “A Reminder of Your Roles as Applicants and Reviewers in Maintaining the Confidentiality of Peer Review.” We asked you to imagine a scenario: you are a reviewer for an upcoming panel meeting, and shortly before the meeting an investigator associated with an application communicates with you, asking for a favorable review in exchange for an academic favor. We asked what you would do – accept the offer, ignore it, or report it?

We used the blog as an opportunity to remind all of us how important it is that we all do our utmost to assure the integrity of peer review. …. Continue reading

The Importance of Timely Grant Closeout

At any given time, NIH staff are monitoring nearly 50,000 active grant awards. This monitoring happens throughout the grant life cycle, including once the award is over. Just as we strive to award meritorious grants as quickly as we can, it is equally important for us to ensure grant awards are taken off the books in a timely manner. A grant that slips past its closeout due date is costly and time consuming. Continue reading