Maximizing the return on taxpayers' investments in fundamental biomedical research

The effectiveness of Japanese public funding to generate emerging topics in life science and medicine

Understanding the effectiveness of public funds to generate emerging topics will assist policy makers in promoting innovation. In the present study, we aim to clarify the effectiveness of grants to generate emerging topics in life sciences and medicine since 1991 with regard to Japanese researcher productivity and grants from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science. To clarify how large grant amounts and which categories are more effective in generating emerging topics from both the PI and investment perspectives, we analyzed awarded PI publications containing emerging keywords (EKs; the elements of emerging topics) before and after funding. Our results demonstrated that, in terms of grant amounts, while PIs tended to generate more EKs with larger grants, the most effective investment from the perspective of investor side was found in the smallest amount range for each PI (less than 5 million JPY /year). Second, in terms of grant categories, we found that grant categories providing smaller amounts for diverse researchers without excellent past performance records were more effective from the investment perspective to generate EK. Our results suggest that offering smaller, widely dispersed grants rather than large, concentrated grants is more effective in promoting the generation of emerging topics in life science and medicine.

An evaluation of programs to support new investigators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Striking a balance with funding for established investigators

As the largest funder of basic biomedical research in the US, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has an interest in maintaining a sustainable, productive workforce of investigators. Over the years, NIH has implemented several programs to attract early-stage investigators and other applicants without prior NIH support. The latest of these is the Next Generation Researchers Initiative. These programs have been shown to be successful in meeting NIH-wide goals but their success for any particular NIH institute or center (IC), and in any particular year, is determined by a variety of factors, some extrinsic to an IC's funding decision process. Each IC must balance support for new investigators with funding for productive ongoing programs of research. We examine historical trends in support of new investigators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) over a 22-year period, as well as trends in some major extrinsic influences on that support. The results indicate that NIH's new investigator programs have succeeded in maintaining a balance between the support for new NIAID investigators while also continuing to support an expanded pool of established investigators. The programs have been particularly effective in providing support to early-stage investigators.

Gender, Racial, and Ethnic and Inequities in Receipt of Multiple National Institutes of Health Research Project Grants

Importance

Diversity in the biomedical research workforce is essential for addressing complex health problems. Female investigators and investigators from underrepresented ethnic and racial groups generate novel, impactful, and innovative research, yet they are significantly underrepresented among National Institutes of Health (NIH) investigators.

Objective

To examine the gender, ethnic, and racial distribution of super NIH investigators who received 3 or more concurrent NIH grants.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional study included a national cohort of NIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) from the NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis, and Coordination (IMPAC II) database from 1991 to 2020.

Exposures

Self-identified gender, race and ethnicity, annual number of NIH grant receipt, career stage, and highest degree.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Distribution of investigators receiving 3 or more research project grants, referred to as super principal investigators (SPIs), by gender, race, and ethnicity.

Results

Among 33 896 investigators in fiscal year 2020, 7478 (22.01%) identified as Asian, 623 (1.8%) as Black, 1624 (4.8%) as Hispanic, and 22 107 (65.2%) as White; 21 936 (61.7%) identified as men; and 8695 (35.3%) were early-stage investigators. Between 1991 and 2020, the proportion of SPIs increased 3-fold from 704 (3.7%) to 3942 (11.3%). However, SPI status was unequal across gender, ethnic, and racial groups. Women and Black PIs were significantly underrepresented among SPIs, even after adjusting for career stage and degree, and were 34% and 40% less likely than their male and White colleagues, respectively, to be an SPI. Black women PIs were the least likely to be represented among SPIs and were 71% less likely to attain SPI status than White men PIs (adjusted odds ratio, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.21-0.41).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cross-sectional study of a national cohort of NIH-funded investigators, the gender, ethnic, and racial gaps in receipt of multiple research project grants among NIH investigators was clearly apparent and warrants further investigation and interventions.

Fund behavioral science like the frameworks we endorse: the case for increased funding of preliminary studies by the National Institutes of Health

Innovative, groundbreaking science relies upon preliminary studies (aka pilot, feasibility, proof-of-concept). In the behavioral sciences, almost every large-scale intervention is supported by a series of one or more rigorously conducted preliminary studies. The importance of preliminary studies was established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2014/2015 in two translational science frameworks (NIH Stage and ORBIT models). These frameworks outline the essential role preliminary studies play in developing the next generation of evidence-based behavioral prevention and treatment interventions. Data produced from preliminary studies are essential to secure funding from the NIH's most widely used grant mechanism for large-scale clinical trials, namely the R01. Yet, despite their unquestionable importance, the resources available for behavioral scientists to conduct rigorous preliminary studies are limited. In this commentary, we discuss ways the existing funding structure at the NIH, despite its clear reliance upon high-quality preliminary studies, inadvertently discourages and disincentivizes their pursuit by systematically underfunding them. We outline how multiple complementary and pragmatic steps via a small reinvestment of funds from larger trials could result in a large increase in funding for smaller preliminary studies. We make the case such a reinvestment has the potential to increase innovative science, increase the number of investigators currently funded, and would yield lasting benefits for behavioral science and scientists alike.

The ripple effects of funding on researchers and output

Using unique, new, matched UMETRICS data on people employed on research projects and Author-ity data on biomedical publications, this paper shows that National Institutes of Health funding stimulates research by supporting the teams that conduct it. While faculty-both principal investigators (PIs) and other faculty-and their productivity are heavily affected by funding, so are trainees and staff. The largest effects of funding on research output are ripple effects on publications that do not include PIs. While funders focus on research output from projects, they would be well advised to consider how funding ripples through the wide range of people, including trainees and staff, employed on projects.

Professional development and career-preparedness experiences of STEM Ph.D. students: Gaps and avenues for improvement

This study presents the experiences of current science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) Ph.D. students and alumni with respect to professional development opportunities in their Ph.D. training. Specifically, it investigates if and how the Ph.D. training supports graduates to pursue non-academic and non-R&D roles, which have become increasingly common career paths post-graduation. A mixed-methods questionnaire was developed to obtain quantitative and qualitative data regarding the graduate school experiences of current Ph.D. students and recent Ph.D. graduates pursuing diverse career paths. The study investigates the values, needs, and conceptions of professional development from the student perspective, as well as the contributions of peers and mentors in graduate school towards their professional development. Experiences of Ph.D. alumni are used to identify the barriers for transitioning to the first job post-graduation and to provide an assessment of the current professional development opportunities in Ph.D. programs. It is reported that although Ph.D. training allowed alumni to develop a robust skillset that includes research, teaching, and scientific writing; some common barriers associated with obtaining a job post-graduation were lack of awareness about career options, limited or no professional networks outside academia, and a lack of preparation and support for non-academic job transitions. Through analyzing the student perspective on various aspects of professional development, the study identifies gaps and avenues for improvement for professional development in Ph.D. training, including increased awareness of diverse career paths for STEM PhDs, increased networking opportunities for PhD students with sectors outside academia, embedding professional development in the PhD curriculum, and others; so that programs can support students in entering the labor market in a variety of careers that extend beyond academia and traditional R&D jobs, using interventions that resonate with the students and meet their needs.

Increasing evidence-based substance use interventions globally: The National Institute on Drug Abuse postdoctoral fellowships

As of April 2020, 121 individuals from 47 nations had completed 124 NIDA International Program INVEST Drug Abuse Research Fellowships. This is the first comprehensive effort to assess the fellowships from the combined perspectives of career outcomes, migration patterns, publications, cost per publication, and funding. We searched electronic sources such as university websites, ResearchGate, LinkedIn, PubMed, and NIH databases to find current curriculum vitae, journal articles published in 2018 and 2019, and funding records. We found electronic records for 94.2% of former NIDA INVEST fellows (n = 114); 55.5% were male (n = 67). The majority are at least partially involved in addiction research, prevention, or treatment (85.9%; n = 98), primarily at academic institutions (73.7%, n = 84) as faculty members (65.8%, n = 75) conducting research (86%, n = 98). Nearly three-fourths (74.6%, n = 85) are still working in their home countries; and 74.6% (n = 85) coauthored at least one research article indexed in PubMed during 2018 or 2019. Of the 656 unique research articles, 52.4% (n = 344) were published by multinational groups. The average cost to NIDA for each peer-reviewed publication was $19,677. More than half (53.5%, n = 61) of the fellows received funding through 431 unique grants-led by NIDA (55), other NIH Institutes and Centers (57) and other U.S. funders (55). Using the measures of career outcomes, migration patterns, publications, cost per publication, and funding INVEST fellowships are cost-effective mechanisms to advance scientific knowledge, build addiction research capacity, foster international cooperation, and promote adoption of evidence-based addiction policies and interventions around the world.

The multiple meanings of translational research in (bio)medical research

Translational research is a buzzword which dominates discussions about the quality, the utilization, and the benefits of (bio)medical research. Yet, although translational research has become a prominent topic, no commonly agreed definition of this terminology exists. Instead, experts from different contexts such as biomedical research, clinical practice or nursing discuss translational research in multiple ways depending on how they define the problem that translational research is supposed to be the solution to. In this paper, we do not seek to find a 'correct' definition of translational research, but instead ask how actors using this terminology for describing their own research make sense of it. To do so, we asked three questions: Which actors are engaged in the debate about translational research? What kind of different meanings of translational research exist? And, which actors refer to which meaning of translational research when using the term? In answering these questions, we highlight the role this terminology plays in defining what medical science is about today.

Concentration or dispersal of research funding?

The relationship between the distribution of research funding and scientific performance is a major discussion point in many science policy contexts. Do high shares of funding handed out to a limited number of elite scientists yield the most value for money, or is scientific progress better supported by allocating resources in smaller portions to more teams and individuals? In this review article, we seek to qualify discussions on the benefits and drawbacks of concentrating research funds on fewer individuals and groups. Based on an initial screening of 3,567 articles and a thorough examination of 92 papers, we present a condensation of central arguments. Further, we juxtapose key findings from 20 years of empirical research on the relation between the size of research grants and scientific performance. Overall, the review demonstrates a strong inclination toward arguments in favor of increased dispersal. A substantial body of empirical research also exhibits stagnant or diminishing returns to scale for the relationship between grant size and research performance. The findings question the rationale behind current funding trends and point toward more efficient ways to allocate resources. In addition, they highlight the need for more research on the interplay between science-internal mechanisms and policy priorities in accelerating concentration of funding.

Vom Sinn des Verfahrenskonzepts und der Verfahrensvielfalt – und warum das Baukasten-System in der Psychotherapie nicht funktioniert

Why the concept of distinct psychotherapeutic approaches is indispensable - and why the tool box concept of psychotherapy cannot work Background: In Germany, the official psychotherapy guidelines are oriented towards the model of distinct psychotherapeutic approaches. Within the German health care system this also applies to the training in psychotherapy. Some critics, however, are presently pleading in favour of abolishing the model of distinct psychotherapeutic approaches, which also implies to abolish the concept of the so called "Richtlinienverfahren" in Germany - approaches of psychotherapy which proved to be efficacious and whose costs are reimbursed by the insurance companies. Objective: The arguments put forward such as the heterogeneity of the approaches as well as the proposed alternatives, for example, an "integrative" model of both mental disorders and psychotherapeutic treatment are critically discussed. Results: Both the arguments and proposed alternatives are found to be not convincing, neither from a scientific nor from a psychotherapeutic perspective. From a scientific perspective, there is no evidence for efficacy of a "general" or "integrative" model of psychotherapy - which is in contrast to the Richtlinienverfahren for which evidence for efficacy exists. From a psychotherapeutic perspective psychotherapy cannot be taught, learnt and applied by use of tools or modules without a theoretical orientation. Conclusions: The concept of distinct psychotherapeutic approaches proves to be an in dispensable principal for orientation in psychotherapy, for both therapists and patients.

The NIH must reduce disparities in funding to maximize its return on investments from taxpayers

New data from the NIH reveal that the scientific return on its sponsored research reaches a maximum at around $400,000 of annual support per principal investigator. We discuss the implications of this 'sweet spot' for funding policy, and propose that the NIH should limit both the minimum and maximum amount of funding per researcher.

The argument for diversifying the NIH grant portfolio

The United States has been a leader in biomedical science for decades, in large part because of the strategy used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to invest its budgetary portfolio. They identified talented young scientists from each generation and gave them the resources they needed to initiate and maintain strong research programs. However, recently this investment has become less diversified, with a larger fraction of grant dollars in the hands of a smaller fraction of researchers. This threatens the future of our field, as many productive early and midcareer scientists are facing having to close their labs. NIH and others have studied this problem, gathering data that suggest that over a certain level of funding to an individual investigator, there are diminishing returns in scientific output. Here I review these data and examine the issues that led NIH to propose and then reverse a cap on funding to individual investigators, the Grant Support Index. I consider other proposed solutions, and call on all in the field to examine whether the status quo is acceptable, and if not, urge them to propose and advocate for concrete alternatives.

Enhancing Graduate and Postdoctoral Education To Create a Sustainable Biomedical Workforce

PhD-trained biomedical scientists are moving into an increasingly diverse variety of careers within the sciences. However, graduate and postdoctoral training programs have historically focused on academic career preparation, and have not sufficiently prepared trainees for transitioning into other scientific careers. Advocates for science have raised the concern that the collective disregard of the broader career-development needs for predoctoral and postdoctoral trainees could drive talent away from science in upcoming generations. A shift is occurring, wherein universities are increasingly investing in centralized career development programs to address this need. In this Perspective, I reflect on the movement that brought biomedical PhD career development to the spotlight in recent years, and how this movement has influenced both the academic biomedical community and the field of career development. I offer recommendations for universities looking to establish or strengthen their career development programs, including recommendations for how to develop a campus culture that values career development as part of pre- and postdoctoral training. I also suggest steps that faculty might take to facilitate the career development of their mentees, regardless of the mentee's career aspirations. Finally, I reflect on recent national efforts to incentivize innovation, evaluation, and research in the field of biomedical PhD career development, and propose actions that the scientific community can take to support biomedical career development further as a scholarly discipline. These investments will enable new approaches to be rigorously tested and efficiently disseminated to support this rapidly growing field. Ultimately, strengthening biomedical career development will be essential for attracting the best talent to science and helping them efficiently move into careers that will sustain our nation's scientific enterprise.

Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research

Young researchers are crucially important for basic science as they make unexpected, fundamental discoveries. Since 1982, we find a steady drop in the number of grant-eligible basic-science faculty [principal investigators (PIs)] younger than 46. This fall occurred over a 32-y period when inflation-corrected congressional funds for NIH almost tripled. During this time, the PI success ratio (fraction of basic-science PIs who are R01 grantees) dropped for younger PIs (below 46) and increased for older PIs (above 55). This age-related bias seems to have caused the steady drop in the number of young basic-science PIs and could reduce future US discoveries in fundamental biomedical science. The NIH recognized this bias in its 2008 early-stage investigator (ESI) policy to fund young PIs at higher rates. We show this policy is working and recommend that it be enhanced by using better data. Together with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) Maximizing Investigators' Research Award (MIRA) program to reward senior PIs with research time in exchange for less funding, this may reverse a decades-long trend of more money going to older PIs. To prepare young scientists for increased demand, additional resources should be devoted to transitional postdoctoral fellowships already offered by NIH.

The reproducibility issue and preclinical academic drug discovery: educational and institutional initiatives fostering translation success

INTRODUCTION

Drug discovery depends critically upon published results from the academy. The reproducibility of preclinical research findings reported by academia in the peer-reviewed literature has been called into question, seriously jeopardizing the value of academic science for inventing therapeutics.

AREAS COVERED

The corrosive effects of the reproducibility issue on drug discovery are considered. Purported correctives imposed upon academia from the outside deal mainly with expunging fraudulent literature and imposing punitive sanctions on the responsible authors. The salutary influence of such post facto actions on the reproducibility of discovery-relevant preclinical research data from academia appears limited. Rather, intentional doctoral-scientist education focused on data replicability and translationally-meaningful science and active participation of university entities charged with research innovation and asset commercialization toward ensuring data quality are advocated as key academic initiatives for addressing the reproducibility issue.

EXPERT OPINION

A mindset shift on the part of both senior university faculty and the academy to take responsibility for the data reproducibility crisis and commit proactively to positive educational, incentivization, and risk- and reward-sharing practices will be fundamental for improving the value of published preclinical academic research to drug discovery.

Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research

The ability of the United States to most efficiently make breakthroughs on the biology, diagnosis and treatment of human diseases requires that physicians and scientists in each state have equal access to federal research grants and grant dollars. However, despite legislative and administrative efforts to ensure equal access, the majority of funding for biomedical research is concentrated in a minority of states. To gain insight into the causes of such disparity, funding metrics were examined for all NIH research project grants (RPGs) from 2004 to 2013. State-by-state differences in per application success rates, per investigator funding rates, and average award size each contributed significantly to vast disparities (greater than 100-fold range) in per capita RPG funding to individual states. To the extent tested, there was no significant association overall between scientific productivity and per capita funding, suggesting that the unbalanced allocation of funding is unrelated to the quality of scientists in each state. These findings reveal key sources of bias in, and new insight into the accuracy of, the funding process. They also support evidence-based recommendations for how the NIH could better utilize the scientific talent and capacity that is present throughout the United States.

Healing the NIH-Funded Biomedical Research Enterprise

Many feel that the R01 grant system supporting biomedical research in the U.S. is broken, discouraging entry of young investigators into the system and inadequately supporting more established investigators. Here, I argue for a "person-not-project"-based scheme that would permit creative, unfettered research by new investigators, better tie ongoing research contributions to continued funding, and help match the number of investigators seeking support with available funds.