Since launching in 2017, NIH’s Next Generation Researchers Initiative (NGRI) is continuing to address longstanding challenges faced by researchers trying to embark upon and sustain independent research careers as well as to promote the stability and diversity of the biomedical research workforce. Today, we are sharing data on our progress towards increased support for ESIs and other targeted groups.
NIH is committed to ensuring that study participants are equal partners in research and have input into how their data and biospecimens are collected and used in the future. At the heart of any research effort lies the need for transparent and clear conversations between researchers and prospective participants about mutual goals and expectations regarding sharing practices.
To assist in facilitating this dialogue, NIH has been working with stakeholders to identify informed consent language “best practices” capable of effectively describing how data and biospecimens will be stored and shared for future research. From these conversations, NIH has developed a new resource that we are seeking the community’s feedback on. The resource describes points to consider when addressing this issue, and provides sample consent language that researchers can tailor based on their own unique study needs…read on for more…
In our continued effort to address sexual harassment, the NIH has implemented some of the recommendations of the NIH Advisory Committee to the Director (ACD) Working Group on Changing the Culture to End Sexual Harassment.
Common Data Elements (CDEs) are a type of health data standard that is commonly used and reused in both clinical and research settings. CDEs provide a way to standardize data collection—ensuring that data are collected consistently, and otherwise-avoidable variability is minimized.
We have embarked on a series of initiatives at NIH in recent years to enhance the quality, efficiency, accountability, and transparency of our supported clinical research. While we are all making great progress, our concerns about clinical trials that are overly complex, have small sample sizes, or rely on surrogate end points that lack clinical relevance remain. One resource to help address these concerns is the NIH Research Methods Resources website that NIH’s Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) launched in 2017. Since the site was recently revamped, we wanted to spotlight the new available tools and resources that can help you better plan the design, conduct, and analysis of rigorous NIH-defined clinical trials.
In a previous post, we looked at the gender distribution of designated principal investigators (PI’s) of R01 and RPG applications submitted before and after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we look at NIH R01 and RPG application patterns for January 1 through April 8 over the past 6 years; these applications patterns may well reflect longer-term pandemic effects.
An NIH peer reviewer was approached by a well-known professional grant writing service to assist a client in preparing an NIH grant application. The service advertised phenomenal success in securing NIH funding for its clients. What would you do? …
Now that fiscal year (FY) 2020 grants data are available in the NIH Data Book, let’s see how many unique scientists sought support on NIH research project grants. The “cumulative investigator rate,” a person-based metric that looks at the likelihood that unique investigators are funded over a five-year window, has moved in a positive direction in recent years, and we were pleased to see the trend mostly continue into FY 2020.
To fully benefit from the exponentially growing body of biomedical data, we need cutting-edge approaches that foster data access, analysis, sharing, and collaboration so novel scientific questions can be pursued. But the sheer volume, sometimes siloed nature, along with the costs and time associated with analyzing large datasets, can be difficult for some researchers. Recognizing these concerns, NIH is helping by hosting large data sets and bringing together computational tools and cloud technologies in ways that support open access, interoperability, and collaborative analyses. We encourage you to explore how these resources may help accelerate your research in ways not possible before. Read on for more…
You likely know that for human-participant research funded wholly or in part by NIH, we automatically issue Certificates of Confidentiality (CoCs) as a term and condition of award. CoCs protect identifiable, sensitive information of people who participate from being disclosed to others not associated with the study. But, for human-participant research funded by an entity other than NIH, did you know that you can reach out to us to request a CoC as well? Read on for more!