Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘NIH grants

Science Policy Around the Web – June 13, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Nivedita Sengupta, PhD

By Mikael Häggström, used with permission. [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Stem Cell Therapy

Texas on Track to Become First State to Explicitly Back Stem Cell Therapies

On 30th May, Texas passed a bill  authorizing unapproved stem cell therapies, making Texas the first state to openly recognize experimental treatments. The bill will make the use of unapproved stem cell therapies legal for patients and is currently awaiting the approval of Governor Greg Abbott, who already supports the measure. Experimental stem cell therapies for terminal and chronic conditions have struggled for years to gain support without much success. Until now, no state has provided legal validation for these kind of therapies and the current stem cell procedures are mostly done under strict regulations.

Amendments were added to the bill, which require that the treatments be delivered by doctors with the approval of an institutional review board, which deals with human research. It will also add another amendment that will allow patients to have authority to sue in case the treatments go wrong. Many scientists and advocates opposed the measure stating that unapproved stem cell therapies can be harmful rather than beneficial. They state that though the amendments add protection to the patients, there are a few aspects of the bill that make them uncomfortable. Two other bills focused on patient access to experimental therapies, also known as “right-to-try” policies, failed to pass in the Texas Senate. (Andrew Joseph, STATNews)

Research Funding

NIH Scraps Plans for Cap on Research Grants

US National Institutes of Health (NIH) decided to drop the controversial proposal of capping the number of grants that an investigator can have at a time. The initial capping attempt was suggested to gather funds for younger researchers by NIH in May. The proposal was based on studies that suggested that a lab’s productivity decreases once it holds too many grants. Younger scientists often face more difficulties in obtaining NIH RO1 grants compared to their older more experienced colleagues. As a result, many researchers applauded the NIH’s effort to provide more funding for younger scientists. Yet the capping proposal received major adverse response from the scientific community stating that the NIH’s interpretation of the productivity study data does not apply to all labs, especially to the collaborative lab groups with four or five R01s that are more productive than labs with only one. Researchers also complained that the proposed point-based scoring system will also make collaborations difficult thus hampering productivity in the long run.

NIH director Dr. Francis Collins stated that the original idea was still a work in progress and NIH is going to put a hold on it. Instead of the cap, on 8th June, NIH announced the creation of the special fund, the Next Generation Researchers Initiative (NGRI), starting with US$210 for funding young researchers. The initiative will focus on investigators with less than 10 years of experience as NIH- funded principal investigators, and on high score grant proposals that were rejected because of lack of money. The initiative will grow up to $1.1 billion over the next five years. According to NIH principal deputy director Larry Tabak, NIH will immediately start creating an inventory of investigators who meet these criteria and expects that this approach will allow more than 2,000 additional R01 grants to be funded to younger scientists compared to the cap-based plan, which would have supported only 1600 awards. Nonetheless, the current proposal is still going to generate controversy as it will affect the older researchers because of NIH’s diversion of funding. (Sara Reardon, Nature News)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

June 13, 2017 at 7:08 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – May 5, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Thaddeus Davenport, PhD

Healthcare Policy

House Passes Bill to Repeal and Replace the Affordable Care Act

Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear reported for the New York Times yesterday that Republicans in the US House of Representatives voted to pass a bill that would undo a number of central elements of the Affordable Care Act. Only six weeks ago, House Republicans failed to gather enough support to even vote on the first version of this bill, which was predicted to eliminate insurance coverage for twenty-four million Americans over the next decade. Since that time, Republican lawmakers have modified the so-called American Health Care Act (AHCA) bill to appeal to the more conservative members of the House – including provisions that would limit federal support of the Medicaid program, allow states to opt out of requiring that insurance cover services like maternity and emergency care, and also enable states to apply for waivers that would let insurance companies charge higher premiums for some individuals with pre-existing conditions. Like the first version, the bill that passed the House on Thursday does away with the ‘individual mandate’, which imposes a tax on people who can afford to buy insurance but do not – an aspect of the Affordable Care Act that was relatively unpopular but critical to ensure sustainability of the insurance markets. It also replaces government-subsidized insurance plans with tax credits between $2,000 and $4,000, depending on age. Other provisions in the bill would stop federal funding to Planned Parenthood for one year as well as eliminate taxes on high-income individuals, insurance companies, and pharmaceutical companies that helped to fund the Affordable Care Act. Yesterday, 217 Republicans voted in favor of the revised AHCA bill that will certainly  not provide healthcare insurance for everyone, without waiting for a non-partisan Congressional Budget Office analysis of the bill’s impact on the federal deficit or on the American people. These representatives’ haste reveals that they care little about how the AHCA will actually affect their constituents’ lives, and Democrats are counting on voters remembering this in upcoming elections. (Thomas Kaplan and Robert Pear, The New York Times)

Science Funding

NIH Funding Changes to Support More Early Career Investigators

The NIH budget has gradually declined over the last fourteen years, from $40 billion in 2003 to about $32 billion in 2017. Given that a proposed budget from the Trump administration for fiscal year 2018 would further cut funding for NIH by $5.8 billion, it is unlikely that funding for the NIH will increase dramatically in the coming years. To address these budget limitations, and in an attempt to do more with less, Jocelyn Kaiser reported for ScienceInsider this week that the National Institutes of Health will impose a cap on the number of grants awarded to investigators. In an open letter announcing the decision, NIH director, Francis Collins, writes that 40% of NIH funding is concentrated in the hands of 10% of NIH-funded investigators. He notes that this is not inherently problematic, except that many studies indicate that there are diminishing scientific returns on each additional dollar that is granted to any individual investigator. Under the new guidelines, investigators will be limited to a maximum of three R01-equivalent grants in order to support approximately 1,600 more grants to early career and mid-level researchers, who have been particularly affected by the declining NIH budget. While it is difficult to quantify scientific impact, the NIH decision is admirable for its intent to support diversity and efficiency in funding research. (Jocelyn Kaiser, ScienceInsider)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

How Much Neuroscience Funding is the Right Amount?

leave a comment »

By: Brian Russ, PhD

Source: pixabay

       Scientific funding can be a very tricky proposition. Unfortunately, there is a finite amount of money that is put towards science each funding cycle. This means that at any given time funding agencies need to decide where they believe their funds will be best spent. Every funding cycle, one can find different groups lamenting that their favorite topic is “being underfunded” while some other group is getting “too big a piece of the pie”. There is often no right answer to the question of how much is the right amount of funding to provide different topics, and the likelihood is that at the end of the day every group will feel that they are not getting the right amount of respect and funding.

This debate has come to the forefront recently in the fields of psychiatry and neuroscience with a change in the leadership at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH). In September, Dr. Joshua Gordon became the new director of the NIMH. Dr. Gordon’s directorship of the NIMH comes after a 13-year period of leadership by Dr. Tom Insel. During the previous administration, there had been an increasing focus on funding neuroscience related work, often at the expense of purely behavioral work, such as cognitive behavioral therapies for psychiatry patients. It is important to point out that the NIMH’s definition of neuroscience research includes basic, translational, and clinical neuroscience research. This direction led to a new research framework for studying mental health disorders termed the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC), which has a very strong neuroscience component. The goal of RDoC is to provide a new framework in which researchers and clinicians can study and treat mental health disorders. The RDoC framework involves neuroscience components of brain circuits and physiology, and cognitive components of behavior and self-reports. The end goal is to provide a more comprehensive description of mental health disorders with the intention of developing cures and treatments. This push toward RDoC, and more neuroscience in general, has led to both praise and criticism of where the NIMH is directing its funding opportunities.

Recently, an opinion piece was published in the New York Times stating that the NIMH needs to reverse their push towards more neuroscience. Specifically, Dr. Markowitz, a research psychiatrist from Columbia University, believes that the NIMH has been funding neuroscience at the expense of clinical psychological research, in the absence of a brain oriented component. His argument is that in the current funding environment only 10% of the NIMH’s research budget is going towards clinical research. From the content of his article the research he is speaking of involves behavioral studies and interventions that contain no neuroscience component. Dr. Markowitz brings up many important points, and his main thesis that we cannot forget about behavioral interventions while pursuing the biological bases of clinical disorders is critical. For example, he makes the strong point that neuroscience research is unlikely to help solve the problem of suicide. And his final argument is for a “more balanced approach to funding clinical and neuroscience research.”

However, one can argue what that balance should actually look like. Is ten percent of the budget actually a small amount? And does that number include the multitude of basic neuroscience studies that are investigating the neural underpinning of a given disease? For example, based on the NIH reporter, schizophrenia research has been funded for approximately 250 million dollars for each of the last three years. A quick look at the total budget (32.3 billion in 2016, with ~25 billion going to research grants) suggests that that would be on the order of about 1% of the total NIH research budget. This is only one disease, and is being calculated from the whole NIH budget, not just from the NIMH budget. Only a portion of that funding is going towards clinical research, as Dr. Markowitz would define it, however the rest of that funding is going to research that will in all likelihood provide clinical benefits to patients down the road, in the form of new physiological targets or potentially new drugs.

So how can one make a determination about the correct of amount of funding that should go towards different mental health fields? Should 25% or 50% of the budget go towards clinical research? It seems that comparing the percent of money going to clinical research versus neuroscience is simply a bad comparison. Neuroscience is not one homogenous topic; it includes tens of, if not over a hundred, different fields. The various mental health fields fighting each other over funding doesn’t help anyone. Both neuroscience and clinical research need to be funded. It seems that the best way to divide the funding from NIMH would not be to specify what field gets priority but instead to fund the best grants regardless of whether there is a specific component involved. This would open the door to more clinical research while not requiring a shift in the priorities of the NIMH, whose mission is to understand and treat mental illnesses though both basic and clinical research. For instance, RDoC already contains both behavioral and self-report components. These components should be given as much priority as the other neuroscience components. If 10% of the budget is given to behavioral work, in this way, that would seem reasonable, possibly even greater than other areas might be getting.

On a final note, while we should always be looking internally at how we are funding different types of science, and if we, the public, are getting our money’s worth out of projects, it is also important for us to ensure that science funding as a whole is increasing. The current funding environment has been relatively static for years. We need, through advocacy and outreach, to get the public and government to provide more funding opportunities to the NIH. As the saying goes “a rising tide raises all boats”.

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

November 17, 2016 at 6:53 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – January 20, 2015

leave a comment »

By: Amanda Whiting, Ph.D

photo credit: pixbymaia via photopin cc

Women in STEM Research

Hidden hurdle for women in science

Whether success in a given field is believed to be due more to a raw, innate talent or to an industrious work ethic could be one explanation for the discrepancy in gender representation within certain academic disciplines. That is the conclusion of a recent paper in Science that looked at the number of PhD degrees granted in the United States in 2011 and compared that to the distribution of male and female PhD holders in academic positions.

Despite the fact that women receive half of all math and science doctorates awarded in the United States, their representation in these fields is notoriously low. While the study discounted a number of hypotheses for the skewed PhD ratio, such as total working hours or whether a field emphasized abstract versus empathic thinking, the greatest correlation came from a belief about men and women. “Pervasive cultural associations” link men, but not women, with traits such as brilliance or genius, says Sarah-Jane Leslie, a co-author of the paper. The authors found that disciplines (such as mathematics and science) which most highly associated raw talent with success were also the most likely to be underrepresented in female PhDs. This effect extended into the humanities as well, with female philosophers and musicians also being underrepresented compared to their number graduated.

The authors posit an academic “attitude change” to retain more women in these fields by placing less emphasis on aptitude and more on work ethic as indicators of potential success. How this knowledge could (or even should) translate into academic hiring policy or decisions remains to be seen.  (Boer Deng, Nature News)

Bioethics – Clinical Trial Policy

Informed consent: U.S. considers new rules for taking part in medical research

The U.S. government is currently in the process of updating federal guidelines for informed consent in clinical research, specifically related to disclosing risks to patients with respect to comparing current standards of care. The information to be disclosed will now include all possible risks and harms that the patient could face in the trial, even if those same risks would be present by getting the standard treatment outside of the trial. While the government aims to make possible risks more clear, researchers are worried that the new guidelines will create overly complicated consent forms describing every possible risk, discourage patients from enrolling in trials and prevent some trials from even being conducted.

Conducting a clinical trial to determine which treatment protocols are safe and effective against a given disease is a key cornerstone of medical research. Running a clinical trial requires recruiting volunteers of both sick and healthy people to act as human test subjects. To be ethically sound, all research involving human subjects requires that participants give “informed consent” – that is, that they understand and accept the facts, implications and consequences of participating including any benefits and risks to themselves.

The US government has long regulated the use of human subjects in research. The current update to informed consent stems from controversy over a 2009 study involving administering oxygen to extremely premature babies. While both treatment groups received oxygen post-birth within standard concentration ranges, there were potential patient outcomes involving blindness and/or death that were not adequately conveyed to the parents of the children involved.  (Shefali Luthra, Washington Post)

Federal Research Funding

A one-grant limit: NIH institute puts squeeze on flush investigators

Effective January 2016, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) will be imposing a one-grant limit on certain scientists who receive funding from them. This new rule, announced in a January 13th notice, is primarily directed at scientists who already receive substantial, long-term, and unrestricted funding from other sources in excess of $400,000 per year.

NIGMS, which funds basic science research, aims to better distribute its limited funding resources to more investigators. The new guidelines “will enable NIGMS to fund additional labs, increasing the likelihood of making significant scientific advances” and supporting more outstanding biomedical scientists, says NIGMS. A large group of scientists affected by this new rule include those that receive substantial funding from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), or others with endowed chairs at research universities, for example. As NIGMS Deputy Director Judith Greenberg told ScienceInsider, there are over 20 HHMI instigators who currently hold two or more NIGMS grants, potentially freeing up to $6 million in funding to be awarded to less well-funded but equally scientifically important research.

In an era of restricted funding for scientific research, taking from the rich to fund the poor could be one way to ensure that all deserving research gets a chance at being done.  (Jocelyn Kaiser, ScienceInsider)

Have an interesting science policy link?  Share it in the comments!

Written by sciencepolicyforall

January 20, 2015 at 9:00 am