A response to NIH request for information on optimizing funding policies and other strategies to improve the impact and sustainability of biomedical research.

Pai, Vaibhav P.

doi:10.15200/winn.143135.51381

The Winnower

2015

DOI: 10.15200/winn.143135.51381

|View full text |Cite

A response to NIH request for information on optimizing funding policies and other strategies to improve the impact and sustainability of biomedical research.

Vaibhav P. Pai¹

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2015

Publication Types

Select...

Article2

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent2

Authors

Journals

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…decided to openly publish our responses to the most recent NIH RFI, NOT-OD-15-084, "Optimizing Funding Policies and Other Strategies to Improve the Impact and Sustainability of Biomedical Research." (NIH, 2015b; responses can be found here Pai, 2015;Polka, 2015;Kryazhimskiy, 2015;McDowell, 2015). At the time of writing, comments can still be submitted by the end of May 17 th on the web at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/rfi/rfi.cfm?ID=42.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Response to the NIH RFI " Sustaining the Biomedical Workforce and a Potential Emeritus Award for Senior Researchers"

McDowell¹

2015

The Winnower

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The NIH issued a Request for Information (NOT-OD-15-064) (NIH, 2015a) looking for responses by March 6 th on a proposal for an "emeritus award" allowing senior investigators to transition out of running a lab and perhaps pass the projects to a junior investigator. Citing calls from the community for such an award (FASEB, 2015), Sally Rockey's "Rock Talk" blog post, "Seeking Your Input on Sustaining the Workforce Through an Emeritus Award" (Rockey, 2015) provided a forum for discussion, with further analysis in other venues (Berg, 2015a; Drugmonkey, 2015). The proposal received press coverage at the time in Nature (Deng, 2015), and subsequently in an article on "The Retirement Debate" (Scudellari, 2015) where the "emeritus award" was described as having "met with overwhelming disapproval". Or was it? Jeremy Berg subsequently submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for the response to the RFI on the "emeritus" award (Berg, 2015b), after rumors circulated that the response was more positive than what was publicly perceived. Responses were received from only 195 individuals, and 3 scientific societies; less than 200 entities in all of the U.S. biomedical research system (Berg, 2015c). Berg has provided some preliminary analysis (Berg, 2015c) from the primary data (with names, but not institutions, redacted (Berg, 2105d); direct link to the data here), as well as the observation that an "emeritus" award renamed as a "Capstone" award has been included in a reading of the 21 st Century Cures Act, currently under discussion in the U.S. Congress (Berg, 2015d). Jessica Polka at Harvard Medical School and I previously published a call for the voice of early-career researchers (McDowell and Polka, 2015) based on aspirations of this community to have a greater voice in these debates (McDowell et al., 2014). Discouraged by the low response rate, others and we

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Response to the NIH RFI " Sustaining the Biomedical Workforce and a Potential Emeritus Award for Senior Researchers"

McDowell¹

2015

The Winnower

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A Response to the NIH RFI "Optimizing Funding Policies and Other Strategies"

McDowell¹

2015

The Winnower

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Below are the comments I submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Request for Information (RFI) NOT-OD-15-084, "Optimizing Funding Policies and Other Strategies to Improve the Impact and Sustainability of Biomedical Research." Comments are due by May 17 th and can be submitted on the web at http://grants.nih.gov/grants/rfi/rfi.cfm?ID=42. Other RFI responses have been published by Vaibhav Pai (Pai, 2015), Jessica Polka (Polka, 2015), and Sergey Kryazhimskiy (Kryazhimskiy, 2015) which have also influenced aspects of my comments below. COMMENT 1 Key issues that currently limit the impact of NIH's funding for biomedical research and challenge the sustainability of the biomedical research enterprise. We welcome responses that explain why these issues are of high importance. The impact of NIH's funding is severely affected by the hyper-competition caused by too little funding for too large a pool of investigators, and in particular the competition of early career researchers at junior faculty and postdoctoral researcher levels. The percentage of biomedical PhDs holding tenuretrack appointments was estimated in 2010 to be 10.6 % (table 3-18 in the 2014 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators) and is estimated to have declined yet further, whilst the number of biomedical postdoctoral researchers continues to increase (Figure 5, NIH 2012 Biomedical Research Working Group Report). The levels of competition are by far exceeding the level required for selection for the best science and scientists, and are instead resulting in a decrease in the time available for original thinking, creativity and enjoyment of the collaborative scientific experience (Alberts et al., 2014). Faculty are spending 42% of their time carrying out bureaucratic tasks and not focusing on research (Schneider et al., 2014). The desire to remain in a biomedical research career is declining over time spent in academic research (Sauermann and Roach, 2012) and this effect is particularly acute for under-represented minorities and women (Gibbs Jr. et al., 2014) and extends also to faculty at academic medical centers (Pololi et al., 2012). Investigators are therefore spending more time carrying out bureaucratic tasks using excessively complex grant-application mechanisms and are unable to devote time to creative thought, whilst their postdoctoral researchers and postgraduate students are SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

hi@scite.ai

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

A response to NIH request for information on optimizing funding policies and other strategies to improve the impact and sustainability of biomedical research.

Cited by 2 publications

References 6 publications

A Response to the NIH RFI " Sustaining the Biomedical Workforce and a Potential Emeritus Award for Senior Researchers"

A Response to the NIH RFI " Sustaining the Biomedical Workforce and a Potential Emeritus Award for Senior Researchers"

A Response to the NIH RFI "Optimizing Funding Policies and Other Strategies"

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About