In November, NIH announced the publication of new funding opportunities specifically for Basic Experimental Studies Involving Humans (BESH). Need help determining if your research fits within the scope of a BESH funding opportunity announcement (FOA)? Check out these new resources.
Students in institutions with significant amounts of NIH funding, whether they be undergraduate or graduate students, generally have plenty of opportunities to gain exposure to biomedical research. This early exposure is key to engendering interest in exploring careers in science and enhancing understanding of the value of the research process. Institutions with little NIH funding often offer significantly fewer opportunities for students to do hands-on research. That’s where NIH’s AREA program comes in.
Over the past year, since we published an essay in Nature Human Behaviour on “NIH policies on experimental studies with humans,” NIH has engaged in a discussion with the basic science community to find ways to meet our shared obligations to study participants and taxpayers, while respecting the unique goals and outcomes of basic science. While we are still in the midst of that conversation, we are pleased to announce real progress in the form of new funding opportunity announcements for Basic Experimental Studies involving Humans.
For decades, NIH has required valid analysis, also known as stratified analysis, to explore how well interventions work across sex/gender and race/ethnicity for all applicable clinical trials. After revising the policy last year, NIH now requires the findings from these stratified analyses to be reported on ClinicalTrials.gov after an applicable NIH-Defined Phase III clinical trial has completed. Wondering about how this impacts your research?
We have written several blogs and articles over the past two years about our efforts to enhance stewardship and transparency in clinical trial research. Indeed, earlier this year Congress applauded our efforts thus far and reaffirmed its commitment to ensuring public access to the results of the NIH-funded clinical trials through timely registration and results information reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov. However, we have heard concern about how the NIH’s Policy on the Dissemination of NIH-Funded Clinical Trial Information applies to fundamental studies involving human participants.
Are you submitting a K application? Check out some new frequently asked questions (FAQs).
The Human Subjects System (HSS) system was launched in June 2018 and replaced the Inclusion Management System (IMS). Learn about HSS at a glance by viewing the new graphic on the HSS page. The graphic orients users at different stages of the grants process to how and when they can use HSS to update study information on human subjects and clinical trials to NIH.
At NIH, we maintain a broad and diverse portfolio of biomedical and behavioral research. To turn discovery into health, promising technologies must move from the laboratory into clinical trials, into the marketplace, into the doctor’s office, and into our every-day lives. A key way to transition promising technologies out of the laboratory is through the commercialization process.
Over two years ago, NIH rolled out a policy to enhance reproducibility of its supported research through rigor and transparency. Applicants and reviewers were required to devote more attention to four areas: the rigor of the prior research (scientific premise), the rigor of the proposed research (scientific rigor), consideration of biological variables including sex, and the authentication of key biological and/or chemical resources.
When the 21st Century Cures Act was passed later that same year, we were required, amongst other things, to assemble a working group of the Advisory Council to the NIH Director (ACD). These experts were charged with recommending ways to further enhance reproducibility of the research we fund, while being informed by the current policy.
Almost 11 years ago, Stefan Duchy, Benjamin Jones, and Brian Uzzi (all of Northwestern University) published an article in Science on “The Increasing Dominance of Team in Production of Knowledge.” They analyzed nearly 20 million papers published over 5 decades and 2.1 million patents and found that across all fields the number of authors per paper (or patent) steadily increased, that teams were coming to dominate individual efforts, and that teams produced more highly cited research.
