NIH funding of COVID-19 research in 2020: a cross-sectional study

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study aims to characterise and evaluate the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH’s) grant allocation speed and pattern of COVID-19 research.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingCOVID-19 NIH RePORTER Dataset was used to identify COVID-19 relevant grants.Participants1108 grants allocated to COVID-19 research.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was to determine the number of grants and funding amount the NIH allocated for COVID-19 by research type and clinical/scientific area. The secondary outcome was to calculate the time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date.ResultsThe NIH awarded a total of 56 169 grants in 2020, of which 2.0% (n=1108) wwas allocated for COVID-19 research. The NIH had a US$45.3 billion budget that year, of which 4.9% (US$2.2 billion) was allocated to COVID-19 research. The most common clinical/scientific areas were social determinants of health (n=278, 8.5% of COVID-19 funding), immunology (n=211, 25.8%) and pharmaceutical interventions research (n=208, 47.6%). There were 104 grants studying COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions, of which 2 grants studied the efficacy of face masks and 6 studied the efficacy of social distancing. Of the 83 COVID-19 funded grants on transmission, 5 were awarded to study airborne transmission of COVID-19 and 2 grants on transmission of COVID-19 in schools. The average time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date was 151 days (SD: ±57.9).ConclusionIn the first year of the pandemic, the NIH diverted a small fraction of its budget to COVID-19 research. Future health emergencies will require research funding to pivot in a timely fashion and funding levels to be proportional to the anticipated burden of disease in the population.

Scholarly Productivity of US Medical Schools Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic

“…COVID-19, however, was not the exclusive topic driving growth in scholarly activity during this time. For example, <5% of the NIH budget was allocated to COVID-19–related research in 2021 36 . Furthermore, an analysis of 10 high-impact medical and infectious disease journals found that in 2020, COVID-19–related publications accounted for 25% of research publications 26 .…”

“…For example, <5% of the NIH budget was allocated to COVID-19-related research in 2021. 36 Furthermore, an analysis of 10 high-impact medical and infectious disease journals found that in 2020, COVID-19-related publications accounted for 25% of research publications. 26 This was similar to our analysis of medical schools' experiencing the most rapid growth in publications, in which most of this growth was not driven by the number of articles produced about COVID-19.…”

US public health after covid-19: learning from the failures of the hollow state and racial capitalism

“…In 2020, a mere 2% of NIH's external grant funding went to covid-19 research, and only a handful of these grants were related to disease transmission or nonpharmaceutical interventions. 35 Furthermore, US research policy had, by the time of the pandemic, produced generations of public health scientists with little experience in public health practice. While there are notable exceptions of academic engagement with health departments, 36 little has changed since a 1988 Institute of Medicine report identified the separate silos of academic public health and government agencies as a problem.…”

Organizing Crisis Innovation: Lessons from World War II

“…Bush and others noted that the fact that OSRD was a new agency, with clear lines of command and little red tape, allowed it to move quickly. During the COVID-19 crisis, agencies including the NIH were unable to pivot as quickly to focus on new problems (Balaguru et al 2022), in part because of dominance of the investigator-initiated peer review model in biomedicine, but also due to the bureaucratic hurdles that are now associated with grantsmanship.…”