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

Using focused ethnography to inform biomedical research infrastructure enhancement at primarily undergraduate institutions

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports 24 IDeA Networks of Biomedical Research Excellence (INBRE) Programs that help develop university-based biomedical research capacity in states that historically receive low levels of extramural grant support. To assess the effectiveness of the Arkansas INBRE in meeting its biomedical research capacity-building goals, we evaluated how the context (i.e., local and institutional settings) at two undergraduate institutions impacted variability in science faculty use of program resources. Data were collected by in-depth interviews with faculty and administrators (N = 9), focused observations, a review of Arkansas INBRE databases, and internet searches. Content analysis was used to code interview transcripts and field notes, and then qualitative data were integrated with data from databases and internet searches to construct two institutional case summaries. Constant comparison was used to identify similarities and differences between the institutions that helped to explain variability in how frequently faculty used Arkansas INBRE resources, including an enrollment crisis at undergraduate institutions in the United States and the presence or absence of a robust research culture at each institution. These findings were used to suggest program improvements (e.g., classroom-based research) that could further strengthen biomedical research capacity in Arkansas. As some barriers to program effectiveness are likely found in other IDeA-eligible states, improvements suggested for the Arkansas INBRE could apply to INBRE programs elsewhere.NEW & NOTEWORTHY This article describes results from an approach to program evaluation (i.e., focused ethnography) that has not been previously used to evaluate grant mechanisms. This "experience near" approach, which involved qualitative interviews and firsthand observations, lent valuable insights into how broader and institutional contexts at two primarily undergraduate institutions hindered or facilitated use of Arkansas INBRE resources. The insights gained can be used to enhance the Arkansas INBRE, which aims to strengthen the statewide biomedical infrastructure.

National Institutes of Health Funding Gaps for Principal Investigators

Importance

Early-stage and established investigators compete for a limited supply of funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Regardless of their previous funding success, many principal investigators (PIs) encounter a funding gap in which they no longer receive ongoing funding from the NIH.

Objective

To determine incidence rates of PI-level funding gaps, the mean funding gap length, and whether these 2 metrics are associated with previous funding success.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study was conducted using data from NIH RePORTER. Historical datafiles for fiscal year (FY) 2011 to FY 2021 were aggregated to generate 2 master datafiles for this period: all NIH awards and only R01 awards. PIs with no funding in FY 2011 or FY 2021 were removed. PIs were sorted by FY 2011 total funding amounts and grouped by quarter of amount.

Results

A total of 39 944 unique researchers were awarded 220 131 NIH awards, of which 103 753 were R01 awards. For all NIH awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (from 27% to 75%), percentage of these gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (from 56% to 68%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.2 years to 3.1 years). For only R01 awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (50% to 74%), percentage of gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (59% to 71%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.4 years to 3.1 years).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study of NIH-funded investigators, PIs with higher NIH funding were less likely to experience a funding gap. Additionally, when these PIs encountered a funding gap, this period without funding was shorter; however, among all PIs, funding gaps typically lasted 2 to 3 years. These associations were found inclusive of all NIH awards and when analysis was limited to only R01 awards. These findings may be useful to PIs and academic institutions as they prepare, structure, and project research resource allocations.

Deciphering the Retinal Epigenome during Development, Disease and Reprogramming: Advancements, Challenges and Perspectives

Retinal neurogenesis is driven by concerted actions of transcription factors, some of which are expressed in a continuum and across several cell subtypes throughout development. While seemingly redundant, many factors diversify their regulatory outcome on gene expression, by coordinating variations in chromatin landscapes to drive divergent retinal specification programs. Recent studies have furthered the understanding of the epigenetic contribution to the progression of age-related macular degeneration, a leading cause of blindness in the elderly. The knowledge of the epigenomic mechanisms that control the acquisition and stabilization of retinal cell fates and are evoked upon damage, holds the potential for the treatment of retinal degeneration. Herein, this review presents the state-of-the-art approaches to investigate the retinal epigenome during development, disease, and reprogramming. A pipeline is then reviewed to functionally interrogate the epigenetic and transcriptional networks underlying cell fate specification, relying on a truly unbiased screening of open chromatin states. The related work proposes an inferential model to identify gene regulatory networks, features the first footprinting analysis and the first tentative, systematic query of candidate pioneer factors in the retina ever conducted in any model organism, leading to the identification of previously uncharacterized master regulators of retinal cell identity, such as the nuclear factor I, NFI. This pipeline is virtually applicable to the study of genetic programs and candidate pioneer factors in any developmental context. Finally, challenges and limitations intrinsic to the current next-generation sequencing techniques are discussed, as well as recent advances in super-resolution imaging, enabling spatio-temporal resolution of the genome.

The "'Crisis' Crisis" in psychology

The recent trend to label dilemmas in psychology as "crises" is insidious. The "'Crisis' Crisis" in psychology can distract us from actionable practices. As a case in point, "The Generalizability Crisis" offers the valuable central thesis that verbal-quantitative gaps imperil psychological science. Focusing on the key issues rather than crisis narratives can lead to progress in our discourse and research.

[A critique of the managerial model of research]

To be a scientist is to make an implicit ethical commitment: to try to tell the truth about the world. The managerial model of research, which is the ideological foundation of modern political reforms of the research system around the world, stands in direct conflict with this assertion. It consists in identifying the scientist with a homo economicus looking to maximize its own profit, which a bureaucracy is tasked to align with performance objectives. This model is incoherent and destructive. Science is made possible by curiosity, emulation and intellectual ethics. These are the human traits that a rational research organization should try to favor and exploit.

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.

NIH funding trends for neurosurgeon-scientists from 1993-2017: Biomedical workforce implications for neurooncology

INTRODUCTION

Neurosurgeons represent 0.5% of all physicians and currently face a high burden of disease. Physician-scientists are essential to advance the mission of National Academies of Science (NAS) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) through discovery and bench to bedside translation. We investigated trends in NIH neurosurgeon-scientist funding over time as an indicator of physician-scientist workforce training.

METHODS

We used NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORTER) to extract grants to neurosurgery departments and neurosurgeons from 1993 to 2017. Manual extraction of each individual grant awardee was conducted.

RESULTS

After adjusting for U.S. inflation (base year: 1993), NIH funding to neurosurgery departments increased yearly (P < 0.00001). However, neurosurgeon-scientists received significantly less NIH funding compared to scientists (including basic scientists and research only neurosurgeons) (P = 0.09). The ratio of neurosurgeon-scientists to scientists receiving grants was significantly reduced (P = 0.002). Interestingly, the percentage of oncology-related neurosurgery grants significantly increased throughout the study period (P = 0.002). The average number of grants per neurosurgeon-scientists showed an upward trend (P < 0.001); however, the average number of grants for early-career neurosurgeon-scientists, showed a significant downward trend (P = 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Over the past 23 years, despite the overall increasing trends in the number of NIH grants awarded to neurosurgery departments overall, the proportion of neurosurgeon-scientists that were awarded NIH grants compared to scientists demonstrates a declining trend. This observed shift is disproportionate in the number of NIH grants awarded to senior level compared to early-career neurosurgeon-scientists, with more funding allocated towards neurosurgical-oncology-related grants.

The modified lottery: Formalizing the intrinsic randomness of research funding

Competition for research funds has, in the recent decade, become hypercompetitive. Commonly, to determine which proposals receive funding, a system of peer review is used, which is broadly accepted, easily understood, and broadly trusted among researchers. It is often considered the best system in use, but it suffers from important shortcomings, and adaptations to overcome these shortcomings have small and often short-lived effects. Hence, the preference for peer review does not mean it necessarily outperforms all other systems. In fact, it is time for an open discussion about alternative allocation mechanisms. Random allocation of research funding may be a viable alternative to the current peer review system. In particular the "organized randomness" of a modified lottery is interesting, combining the benefits of randomization with some of the most valuable aspects of peer review. Still, many questions remain and this is certainly not a plea to allocate all research funds using lotteries without further research. But we need to be prepared to consider alternatives, even though they are not perfect, and modified lotteries should be part of the solution.

Authorship inequality: a bibliometric study of the concentration of authorship among a diminishing number of individuals in high-impact medical journals, 2008-2019

OBJECTIVE

Authorship and number of publications are important criteria used for making decisions about promotions and research funding awards. Given the increase in the number of author positions over the last few decades, this study sought to determine if there had been a shift in the distribution of authorship among those publishing in high-impact academic medical journals over the last 12 years.

DESIGN

This study analysed the distribution of authorship across 312 222 original articles published in 134 medium-impact to high-impact academic medical journals between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2019. Additionally, this study compared the trends in author distributions across nine medical specialties and a collection of cross-specialty high-impact journal articles.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The distribution of authorship was assessed using the Gini coefficient (GC), a widely used measure of economic inequality.

RESULTS

The overall GC for all articles sampled across the 12-year study period was 0.49, and the GCs for the first and last authorship positions were 0.30 and 0.44, respectively. Since 2008, there was a significant positive correlation between year and GC for the overall authorship position (r=0.99, p<0.001) the first author position (r=0.75, p=0.007) and the last author position (r=0.85, p<0.001) indicating increasingly uneven distribution in authorship over time. The cross-specialty high-impact journals exhibited the greatest rate of increase in GC over the study period for the first and last author position of any specialty analysed.

CONCLUSION

Overall, these data suggest a growing inequality in authorship across authors publishing in high-impact academic medical journals, especially among the highest impact journals. These findings may have implications for processes such as promotions and allocation of research funding that use authorship metrics as key criteria for making decisions.

From bench to bedside: trends in National Institutes of Health funding for neurosurgeons from 1991 to 2015

OBJECTIVE

Neurosurgeons play an important role in advancing medicine through research, the funding of which is historically linked to the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The authors defined variables associated with neurosurgical NIH funding, prevalence of funded topics by neurosurgical subspecialty, and temporal trends in NIH neurosurgical funding.

METHODS

The authors conducted a retrospective review of NIH-funded American Association of Neurological Surgeons members using NIH RePORTER (http://report.nih.gov/) for the years 1991-2015.

RESULTS

The authors followed 6515 neurosurgeons from 1991 to 2015, including 6107 (94%) non-MD-PhD physicians and 408 (6%) MD-PhDs. NIH grants were awarded to 393 (6%) neurosurgeons, with 23.2% of all first-time grants awarded to the top 5 funded institutions. The average total funded grant-years per funded neurosurgeon was 12.5 (range 1-85 grant-years). A higher percentage of MD-PhDs were NIH funded than MDs (22% [n = 91] vs 5% [n = 297], p < 0.0001). The most common grants awarded were R01 (128, 33%), K08 (69, 18%), F32 (60, 15%), M01 (50, 13%), and R21 (39, 10%). F32 and K08 recipients were 9-fold (18% vs 2%, p < 0.001) and 19-fold (38% vs 2%, p < 0.001) more likely to procure an R01 and procured R01 funding earlier in their careers (F32: 7 vs 12 years after residency, p = 0.03; K08: 9 vs 12 years, p = 0.01). Each year, the number of neurosurgeons with active grants linearly increased by 2.2 (R2 = 0.81, p < 0.001), whereas the number of total active grants run by neurosurgeons increased at nearly twice the rate (4.0 grants/year) (R2 = 0.91, p < 0.001). Of NIH-funded neurosurgical grants, 33 (9%) transitioned to funded clinical trial(s). Funded neurosurgical subspecialties included neuro-oncology (33%), functional/epilepsy (32%), cerebrovascular (17%), trauma (10%), and spine (6%). Finally, the authors modeled trends in the number of active training grants and found a linear increase in active R01s (R2 = 0.95, p < 0.001); however, both F32 (R2 = 0.36, p = 0.01) and K08 (R2 = 0.67, p < 0.001) funding had a significant parabolic rise and fall centered around 2003.

CONCLUSIONS

The authors observed an upward trend in R01s awarded to neurosurgeons during the last quarter century. However, their findings of decreased K08 and F32 training grant funding to neurosurgeons and the impact of these training grants on the ultimate success and time to success for neurosurgeons seeking R01 funding suggests that this upward trend in R01 funding for neurosurgeons will be difficult to maintain. The authors' work underscores the importance of continued selection and mentorship of neurosurgeons capable of impacting patient care through research, including the MD-PhDs, who are noted to be more represented among NIH-funded neurosurgeons.

Concentration of Danish research funding on individual researchers and research topics: Patterns and potential drivers

The degree of concentration in research funding has long been a principal matter of contention in science policy. Strong concentration has been seen as a tool for optimizing and focusing research investments but also as a damaging path towards hypercompetition, diminished diversity, and conservative topic selection. While several studies have documented funding concentration linked to individual funding organizations, few have looked at funding concentration from a systemic perspective. In this article, we examine nearly 20,000 competitive grants allocated by 15 major Danish research funders. Our results show a strongly skewed allocation of funding towards a small elite of individual researchers, and towards a select group of research areas and topics. We discuss potential drivers and highlight that funding concentration likely results from a complex interplay between funders’ overlapping priorities, excellence-dominated evaluation criteria, and lack of coordination between both public and private research funding bodies.

Latinx Mental Health Scholars' Experiences with Cultural Adaptation and Implementation of Systemic Family Interventions

An increasing number of culturally adapted family-level interventions address mental health disparities with marginalized populations in the United States. However, with these developments many barriers have arisen, such as challenges with degree of cultural fit, engagement, and sustainability. We conducted 12 elite phenomenological interviews with mental health scholars involved in prevention and intervention family research with various Latinx communities within and outside of the United States. These scholars discussed their experiences of overcoming barriers in their research. We used thematic analysis to code and analyze participant responses, and our findings support the gaps in previous literature and highlight potential pathways to overcoming barriers in cultural adaptation research. Themes included the need for: (a) better understanding of the intersection between culture and context; (b) community-centered approaches to addressing implementation challenges; and (c) structural changes within institutional, governmental, and political levels. We discuss implications for researchers and practitioners working with Latinx families.

The Participation and Motivations of Grant Peer Reviewers: A Comprehensive Survey

Scientific peer reviewers play an integral role in the grant selection process, yet very little has been reported on the levels of participation or the motivations of scientists to take part in peer review. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) developed a comprehensive peer review survey that examined the motivations and levels of participation of grant reviewers. The survey was disseminated to 13,091 scientists in AIBS's proprietary database. Of the 874 respondents, 76% indicated they had reviewed grant applications in the last 3 years; however, the number of reviews was unevenly distributed across this sample. Higher review loads were associated with respondents who had submitted more grant proposals over this time period, some of whom were likely to be study section members for large funding agencies. The most prevalent reason to participate in a review was to give back to the scientific community (especially among frequent grant submitters) and the most common reason to decline an invitation to review was lack of time. Interestingly, few suggested that expectation from the funding agency was a motivation to review. Most felt that review participation positively influenced their careers through improving grantsmanship and exposure to new scientific ideas. Of those who reviewed, respondents reported dedicating 2-5% of their total annual work time to grant review and, based on their self-reported maximum review loads, it is estimated they are participating at 56-87% of their capacity, which may have important implications regarding the sustainability of the system. Overall, it is clear that participation in peer review is uneven and in some cases near capacity, and more needs to be done to create new motivations and incentives to increase the future pool of reviewers.

A bibliometric analysis of the top 50 NIH-Funded colleges of pharmacy using two databases

BACKGROUND

Scholarly productivity is an essential component of college of pharmacy activities and may depend on university rank, faculty type, faculty rank and department. Bibliometric measures provide a means to analyze scholarly productivity from colleges of pharmacy while accounting for these various factors.

OBJECTIVES

To analyze bibliometric data from two databases based on Carnegie Research Classification and NIH-funding rank; provide descriptions of bibliometric data based on department type and faculty classification; and examine the distribution of publications in the top 50 NIH-funded Colleges of Pharmacy.

METHODS

Faculty rosters were gathered for the top 50 NIH-funded colleges of pharmacy, and names were searched in Scopus and Web of Science to establish bibliometric records. Bibliometric indices were compared based on Carnegie Basic Classification and between the NIH funding ranks 1-25 versus 26-50 using WOS bibliometric data. Descriptive statistics were presented, and Pareto distributions were developed for total publications across all schools included.

RESULTS

Schools in the top 25 for NIH funding and schools with a Carnegie R1 classification had significantly higher bibliometric measures compared to schools ranked 26-50 and schools classified as R2, respectively. For faculty members with a bibliometric record (i.e., at least one publication), 20% provide approximately 60% of the publications. Additionally, approximately 90% of publications are provided by 50% of faculty records. Faculty records from basic science departments, as compared to clinical pharmacy departments, represent the highest contributing groups in the Pareto analysis.

CONCLUSION

Bibliometric indices are higher at colleges of pharmacy with greater NIH funding or an R1 Carnegie classification. A minority of faculty provides most publications in colleges of pharmacy, which is composed of members from basic science departments. The descriptive data provided here is useful for understanding readily available bibliometric data based on department type and faculty classification and rank.