Science Policy For All

Because science policy affects everyone.

Posts Tagged ‘science funding

Science Policy Around the Web – October 6, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Allison Dennis, B.S.

20171006_Linkpost

source: pixabay

Homelessness

An outbreak waiting to happen: Hepatitis A marches through San Diego’s homeless community

San Diego’s homeless population, the fourth largest among US cities, has been battered by a Hepatitis A outbreak since early 2017. The outbreak may have been brought on by the conditions that arose when homeless people were locked out of public bathrooms and further displaced from popular downtown areas by City officials in anticipation of the Major League Baseball’s All-Star Game last summer. The Hepatitis A virus, which is transmitted person-to-person and through the fecally contaminated environment, affects the liver, resulting in fatigue, yellow skin, diarrhea, and discolored urine. Its 50-day incubation period combined with its ability to survive outside the body for months, provides the virus an extensive time frame to spread from a single carrier. So far 481 people have reported infections, and 17 people have died.

The city is now struggling to respond. 54,000 people have already been vaccinated and a state law has been temporarily relaxed, allowing paramedics to administer the vaccine to at risk individuals. New portable bathrooms and hand-washing stations have been installed near homeless encampments. However, providing stable housing for the homeless remains an outstanding obstacle. In July, the San Diego Housing Commission announced an $80 million, 3-year initiative, Housing First-San Diego, which will provide incentives to landlords, 700 housing vouchers, and the construction of additional voucher-eligible housing. Housing First refers to a US government endorsed approach to providing stable housing, free of conditions, as a first step in addressing homeless people’s healthcare needs. Stable housing is fundamental to addressing the health needs of homeless populations both for prevention and treatment.

(Usha Lee McFarling, STATnews)

Science Funding

Does your state get its fair share of federal research dollars?

Representative Bill Foster is proposing a change to the way the National Science Foundation (NSF) distributes funding across the country. Twenty-nine years after it’s creation, NSF began a formal program to address the disparities in its funding across the fifty states, territories, and commonwealths of the United States, recognizing that scientific funding was being predominantly steered towards institutions housed on either the East and West coasts. The Established Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) currently allocates additional funds specifically to the twenty-five states, two territories, and one commonwealth winning less than 0.75% of NSF’s Research and Related Activities budget. Additional funds are supplied to these states for improving infrastructure, funding grants that fell under the cutoff for funding through traditional NSF programs, and supporting workshops and outreach. In fiscal year 2016, $160 million was allocated for the EPSCoR program compared with $5,500 million for the Research and Related Activities budget.

Bill Foster is arguing that EPSCoR is now disproportionately benefiting small states, proposing eligibility should be determined on a per capita instead of per state basis. This seems to be a change of pace from Bill Foster’s previous calls to eliminate the program altogether. Barring the passage of the proposed bill into law, NSF does not have plans to change the way they calculate eligibility, citing the popularity of the current program with congress.

(Jeffrey Mervis, Science)

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

Advertisements

Written by sciencepolicyforall

October 6, 2017 at 10:24 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – September 8, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

20170908_Linkpost_1

source: pixabay

Science funding

Congress Returns and Funding Anxiety Continues for Scientists

The summer recess is over, which means congress needs to get to work and pass funding bills to keep the government running past the end of fiscal year: September 30th. The agenda is full, including funding hurricane Harvey relief, raising the debt ceiling and allocating funds for 2018. The budget fight is bound to be full of surprises, even just last night Trump sided with democrats on these three issues, throwing most conservative GOP members for a loop. It remains to be seen how the 2018 budget will impact research, but here’s what we know so far.

The 2017 budget was considered a positive one for scientists, because the large cuts demanded by the president went unheeded by congress. The president requested to cut most federal agencies, and the EPA (-31%), NOAA (-22%) and FDA (-31%) were the largest targets.  However, most research institutions did not see major cuts, and although the National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget was requested to be reduced by 22%, it received a $2 billion raise.  The upcoming 2018 fight would pit the president’s proposed agenda against senate against house, providing a 3-way fight which leaves scientists in the middle of potentially hostile waters.

Proposed budgets by the house of representatives and senate are still being formulated, but there are already discrepancies between the two proposals. For example, the house proposes increasing NASA’s budget by $94 million (+1.6%), while the senate would reduce funds by $193 million (-3.3%). The discrepancies can be found even deeper in NASA’s budget, with reversed support for planetary science (increased spending from the house) and earth science research (cuts from the house, maintained spending from the senate). These cuts could impact our ability to monitor distant planets and moons which could be sustainable for human life. For example, an unmanned mission to Jupiter’s moon, Europa, slated to launch in 2020 and land in 2024 could be stalled. In flyby missions from 1995-2003, this moon was found to have brown sediment, a warm core and probably a salty ocean under an icy surface, making it similar, albeit colder, to our planet.

Back on earth, our ability to design new ways to produce renewable, sustainable energy could also take a hit, as funding may be cut from the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency – Energy (ARPA-E). This department funds “high-risk, high-reward” projects and has only been in operation for 8 years, which makes it difficult to determine if the investment is worth the so far limited outputs. The senate proposes increasing this funding by 1.1%, while the house would scrap the project entirely.

Finally, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is on the chopping block, with the house following the president with a 22% decrease in funding, while the senate only seeks to cut the budget by 1%. Controversial projects overseen by NOAA include the Polar Follow-On programme, which monitors weather in collaboration with NASA. Cutting this program could impact our ability to predict hurricanes, something not likely to sit well with voters and representatives in states impacted by current weather catastrophes.

Although there are big discrepancies in proposed budgets between the president, the house and the senate, time will tell how much cooperation the republicans and democrats can achieve by the end of the month to avoid a government shut down. On a positive note, the NIH can hope for a boost from the house and the senate, as funding human health is an issue which usually enjoys bipartisan support.

(Rachael Lallensack, Nature News)

The science of education

School’s Back in SessionGet your learning on!

School is back in session; teachers are teaching, students are learning, and education is supposed to be breaking down socioeconomic barriers. What can science do to help educators have the greatest impact on students? There’s an intersection between teaching strategy, learning, and education policy which can be implemented for better student outcomes.

A recent report by Science News describes new strategies developed in the lab to enhance student learning. However, researchers are finding that studies performed in a lab setting with college kids do not yield the same results for optimizing student performance when applied to a bustling classroom of younger students. For example, when college students were asked to read a passage and jot down notes, their recall of the reading assignment was improved a week later. However, younger grade school students were shown to need an extra cue to help connect associations and make memories “stick”. This strategy helps teach students how to recall information, providing an extra support link until they can perform this task without a second thought. Another ongoing study is helping students improve executive function in students as young as middle school. Researchers designed a video game which requires players to shift strategies as rules change mid-game, which thus far has positively impacted the students’ performance on cognitive tests.

Being able to adapt to new situations is a cornerstone of learning, and neuroscience has long been searching for the magic that makes this task easy sometimes but challenging othertimes. The methods to study this process are becoming more sophisticated. Researchers can now view single synapses coming and going, and in some cases receptors on those synapses popping in and out. But understanding brain-wide learning requires zooming out and looking at neural network activity. It seems intuitive that to learn something new, connections must be formed between brain areas. These associations “stick” that memory or fact somewhere in the brain. Indeed, people who are learning something new display greater “brain flexibility”: the ability to not only make new connections, but let some others fall apart. Children with low math performance actually had higher connectivity during brain scans while doing math problems. It seems forgetting unimportant information to make room for new ideas is as important as making just more new connections.  In addition, a researcher scanned himself three times per week for a year, and found his brain displayed greater flexibility on days when he was in a good mood. The balance between making new connections and letting others go may be the key to better learning.

As science puts more pieces together on how learning best occurs, we can see some things coming into focus to enhance student learning. People who can make new connections and loose old ones in a dynamic fashion can be better learners. Being in a good mood, meaning a stable home and school environment with food and housing security can lead to better brain flexibility. Teachers trying new strategies to enhance brain flexibility with their students could help the students learn how to absorb and use new information. All of this information can be used to inform policy on what makes for a successful student as we proceed through the academic year.

(Susan Gaidos, Science News; Laura Sanders, Science News )

 

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 8, 2017 at 3:54 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – September 1, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Kseniya Golovnina, PhD

linkpost-170901

source:pixabay

Science funding

Priorities emphasize both military and civil uses in R&D spending

On August 17, 2017, the White House established Research and Development (R&D) budget priorities for Pentagon’s 2019 fiscal year (FY).  According to an Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo outlining these priorities, the Pentagon should emphasize investments in technology that have both military and civilian uses in its next budget.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is evidently under a similar push. DHS guidelines state that special attention should be paid to R&D in the field of safety, and that integration of new technologies can significantly contribute to U.S. economic and technological leadership. Moreover, the need to develop new technologies to protect critical infrastructure and to increase border security is a key Trump administration priority.

An important emphasis in the OMB memo states that Defense Department R&D investments should continue to be spent in a way to support the military of the future. the document urges the Pentagon to develop and utilize new quantitative metrics to evaluate effectiveness of R&D. Monitoring these statistics aims to eliminate any redundancies with effective private sector R&D programs. Thus if research can be done more effectively in the private sector, thereby attracting private investments, Federal involvement should not longer be considered needed or appropriate, providing a mechanism for transforming or closing redundant programs. these changes would allow priorities in R&D funding to be given to basic and early-stage applied research with too high a risk and level of uncertainty for private sector.

Two agencies will definitely benefit from new Budget Priorities, the Pentagon’s Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental (DIUx) group, which has the lead role in interacting with the commercial sector, specifically in Silicon Valley, Boston and Austin, and the Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO) that is charged with taking existing technologies and developing new capabilities for their use. With the newly received authorities these agencies will get private companies on contract more quickly.

(Aaron Mehta, DefenceNews)

Science education

State-by-state interest in STEM indicators revealed by draft education plans

STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) is a curriculum that emphasizes educating students in four specific disciplines using an interdisciplinary and applied approach. This education is becoming an important part of K-12 schools in United States. According to the U.S. Department of Education (DOEd), 14 out of 17 submitted State’s draft education plans (82%) include STEM-related school performance indicators. The proposed programs have been developed to meet the requirements of the ESSA (2015 Every Student Succeeds Act). That law, signed by former President Obama, is the successor to the Bush-era No Child Left Behind program, which encouraged the establishment of science-oriented performance metrics to augment school achievement metrics. ESSA also directed new federal funding streams for STEM education and established a new professional development program for teachers – the STEM Master Teacher Corps.

Including STEM indicators to evaluate the school program gives states the flexibility to incorporate science metrics into accountability systems along with the option to launch new STEM initiatives through ESSA funding programs. However, currently only a small minority of school districts are leveraging ESSA dollars to fund innovative STEM education efforts, mostly due to the small amounts of money available. Despite increased awareness of the need, the US primary and secondary education system has relatively few established and successful STEM educational initiatives.

The future of new STEM initiatives is unclear due to ongoing congressional negotiations over the fiscal year 2018 budget. On one side, the Trump administration has proposed the elimination of three major DOEd grants, they deem duplicative, poorly structured, or showing little impact. On the other, the House Appropriations Committee is recommending both cuts and increases to relevant education programs.

In early September, when the remaining (34) states have submitted their draft education plans, it will be more clear how much interest each state has in STEM education and how much funding they will get based on an accepted 2018 budget.

(Alexis Wolfe, Science Policy News from AIP)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

September 1, 2017 at 1:52 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – August 29, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Allison Dennis, BS

Linkpost_8292017

Source: pixabay

Science funding

1 Million fewer dollars available for studying the health impacts of coal mining

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, was instructed to stop its ongoing research into the potential health effects of surface mining by the U.S. Department of the Interior on August 18, 2017. The US$1 million study was established on August 3, 2016, “at the request of the State of West Virginia,” by the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE). OSMRE, an office within the U.S. Department of the Interior, selected the National Academy of Science to systematically review current coal extraction methods, the framework regulating these methods, and potential health concerns. Critics of the study point to the findings of a similar review undertaken by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences that were made public on July 21, 2017, which determined that the current body of literature was insufficient to reach any conclusions regarding the safety of mountaintop removal on nearby communities.

Mountaintop removal, a form of surface mining, employs the use of explosives to efficiently expose coal deposits that would otherwise require a large number of workers to extract over time. The excess soil and rock that has been blasted from the mountain is placed in adjacent valleys, leading to alterations of stream ecosystems, including increases in selenium concentrations and declines in macroinvertebrate populations.

The people of rural Appalachia experience significantly higher rates of cancer than people in the rest of the U.S., of which environmental exposures are only one potential risk factor. Widespread tobacco use, obesity, and lack of accessible medical care are all believed to underlie the cancer epidemic in Appalachia, culminating in a tangled web of risk.

It is unclear how the money from this study will be repurposed. The Obama administration cancelled a study of surface mining to redirect funds towards examining the little known effects of hydraulic fracturing.

(Lisa Friedman and Brad Plumer, The New York Times)

Cancer treatments

For breast cancer patients the cost of peace of mind may be both breasts

Between 2002 and 2012 the rates of women with a breast cancer diagnosis opting for a double mastectomy increased from 3% to 12%. In a majority of these cases, a lumpectomy may be medically sufficient. However for many women, this choice may stem from a personal pursuit of peace of mind rather than the advice of their doctors. The mastectomy procedure can extend time of recovery from a few days, in the case of a lumpectomy, to 4 to 6 weeks. Yet for many women, undergoing a lumpectomy followed by 5 to 7 weeks of radiation therapy would offer the same long-term survivorship. Additionally, 1 in 8 women with invasive cancer in a single breast is electing to remove both breasts.

The reasons for this increase is unknown. While the procedure has not been demonstrated to increase survivorship, the procedure itself is relatively risk free. Breasts are not vital organs, and improvements in reconstruction methods have provided women with a natural-looking, cosmetic replacement. For many women the cost of feeling their struggle with breast cancer is behind them is the removal of both breasts. Double mastectomies, along with the reconstruction surgeries they normally require, are usually covered by insurance.

Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer type in the U.S. Mortality from the disease decreased by 1.9% per year from 2003 to 2012. Yet, for many women facing breast cancer, the choice of a double mastectomy may feel like the only empowering choice, one their doctors are willing to let them make.

(Catherine Caruso, STAT News)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

August 30, 2017 at 8:57 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – August 22, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Leopold Kong, PhD

20170822_Linkpost_1

Image: By Tkarcher [CC BY-SA 4.0], via Wikimedia Commons

Zika

The case of the disappearing Zika

Early last year, there were over 35,000 suspected and confirmed cases of Zika virus infection per week in South America. This year, the number has plummeted below 1,000 per week. In the United States, only a single case of local Zika transmission has been reported this year in contrast to 224 in 2016.  Neither improved mosquito control nor climate change can explain the good news.  Experts attribute the drop in Zika cases to the development of immunity against the virus, which has spread rapidly.  Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), says he is not “entirely surprised” by this trend, but is “impressed by how steep it has been”.  A vaccine is still needed to curb potential future epidemics, but its development is now complicated by lack of populations susceptible to infection.  Increased Zika cases have been reported in Mexico this year, which could lead to outbreaks in Texas. Currently, a vaccine developed by NIAID is entering a placebo-controlled study of 2400 people in Zika-affected areas.

(Jon Cohen, Science)

The Scientific Workforce

Graduate Student immigration in the US and the UK shifting to Canada and Australia

In 2015-16, the United States and United Kingdom hosted nearly 384,000 and 200,000 international graduate students respectively. The two countries have been the world’s top two hosts for graduate students since the 1970s.  However, since the travel ban in the United States and the Brexit referendum in the United Kingdom, the numbers have been dropping.  In contrast, universities in Canada and Australia are reporting spikes in their application numbers.  Joint surveys conducted in February and July found that about a third of US universities have decreased international graduate student applications, particularly from India, the Middle East and China.  Sayed Mashaheet, a native of Egypt who earned his PhD in crops science at North Carolina State University, says that many international students see the United States as a riskier investment since the election.  With its friendly citizenship pathways, Canada maybe benefiting from these changes. The University of Toronto received 27% more international-student applications this year for a total of 15,000 compared to 11,951 in 2016.  Sofia Solar Cafaggi chose to pay her way through medical school at the University of Toronto instead of attending the Cleveland Clinic in Ohio for free because she will be eligible for Canadian citizenship after three years.  “In the US, I would have stayed an alien for at least the next decade, and that made me nervous about career prospects given the current political drama,” she says.  If the shift continues for the US and the UK, “some programmes will simply collapse,” says Anita Gopal, international officer for the US national Postdoctoral Association in Rockville, Maryland.

(Virginia Gewin, Nature News)

Science Funding

Trump’s list of Science Priorities aims to steer federal agencies’ focus

On August 17, the White House issued a memo to federal agencies outlining how their research money should be used.  Written jointly by the White House Office of Management and Budget and Office of Science and Technology Policy, the document sets the White House’s priorities for the next budget request.  This year, the memo lists five priorities in this order: military superiority, security, prosperity, energy dominance, and health.  The list greatly contrasts with Obama’s research priorities that included global climate change, clean energy, Earth observations, advanced manufacturing, and innovations in the life sciences, biology and neuroscience.  The list also appears to contradict President Trump’s own 2018 budget requests.  For example, the memo focuses on support for breakthroughs in military technologies and for helping older Americans remain healthy despite large cuts for those same areas in previous proposals.  Notably, the memo supports research in precommercial technology in energy, which would presumably include the Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.  However, President Trump has previously called for this agency to be shut down.  The budget for the 2019 fiscal year are due next  month.

(Jeffrey Mervis, Science)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

August 22, 2017 at 5:36 pm

Science Policy Around the Web – August 4, 2017

leave a comment »

By: Emily Petrus, PhD

20170804_Linkpost_1

source: pixabay

CTE Research

National Football League Backs out of Funding Brain Research

A new study released this week added more fuel to the fire surrounding the health problems associated with playing contact sports, most notably American football. The study found signs of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in the brains of 110 out of 111 former National Football League (NFL) players. Repetitive head trauma is thought to cause CTE, which can result in behavioral and mood disorders and cognitive impairment. Football players donated their brains to the Concussion Legacy Foundation so that scientists could evaluate the impact of playing contact sports on their brains. Currently CTE is only diagnosed post-mortem, so developing effective diagnoses and treatments for living patients would benefit NFL players, soldiers and others at risk of head trauma.

Advancing the science to benefit these groups in theory should serve in the NFL’s interest, however the initial damaging reports demonstrating the dangers their players face didn’t sit well. In 2012 the NFL pledged $30 million to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for brain research, however the partnership is set to expire this year with about half the money unspent. A 2016 New York Times article revealed some unsettling interactions between the NFL and NIH, when a congressional study found that the NFL tried to direct their funding away from research performed by certain scientists. The NIH was set to award a $17 million grant to Dr. Robert Stern at Boston University to study the link between repeated concussions and CTE, however representatives from the NFL attempted to discredit Dr. Stern’s work. The NIH chose to fund Dr. Stern’s highly ranked proposal, and reserve the NFL’s money for future research. It seems now that future research funded by the NFL and distributed by the NIH is unlikely to happen.

Eliminating conflicts of interest is important for research to remain unbiased and evidence based. Concussion research conducted by the NFL or clinical trials performed by pharmaceutical companies can produce bias results. There is a need for the NIH and FDA to act as fair and unbiased grant reviewers and funding distributors. Even among players at the NFL there is a spectrum of how people feel about the dangers of playing football, best exemplified by the following quotes:

“We live and breathe it and this is what we’re so passionate about. Literally, I would — if I had a perfect place to die, I would die on the field.” – Jamal Adams Jet’s Rookie

“I hope All these young cats that are willing to die for the game of football find a higher purpose in life. Look football is great but I ain’t dying for this sh*t. Lol.” – Martellus Bennett Green Bay Packers Tight End (Twitter)

(Laurel Wamsley, NPR)

 

Human Genetic Engineering

No Super-Babies Yet

The United States has had a long history with avoiding research using stem cells. Since in vitro fertilization (IVF) became possible in the 1970’s we have been debating the ethics of using human stem cells and embryos for research. During George Bush’s tenure as president, stem cell research was explicitly un-fundable with public tax dollars (i.e. from NIH). As scientists found new ways to create stem cells without fetal tissue and Barack Obama’s presidency began, the US finally embraced stem cell research. However, researchers are still not permitted to use public funding to create and destroy human embryos – they can only use already fertilized embryos donated by patients from IVF clinics. If the research is privately funded, then researchers can both make and dispose of human embryos.

This little history lesson sets the stage for a discovery made in America and published this week in Nature, where researchers in Oregon (with collaborators in South Korea and China) were able to use gene editing to remove a heart defect-causing gene in human embryos. This technique is called CRISPR-Cas9, which uses prokaryotic (bacterial) DNA to target desired genes to be deleted or replaced and has already been used to edit embryos (human, other vertebrates, invertebrates and plants) with mixed results. There are reports of both off-target mutations (editing occurring in the wrong place) or mosaic embryos, meaning some cells are edited while others are not. What sets this new paper apart from the pack is the researchers inserted the CRISPR-Cas9 complex at the same time as the sperm, thus the editing began at fertilization. The inserted Cas9 protein was degraded too quickly to be effective at producing off-target mutations, and since the editing happened at conception only one out of 58 embryos was a mosaic. In contrast, waiting as little as 18 hours after fertilization to edit the embryo resulted in 13 out of 54 mosaic embryos.

For those worried about the production of designer babies, this study alleviates some of these concerns as well. Although researchers in this study provided a synthetic DNA template for the CRISPR-Cas9 system to rewrite the faulty gene, the cells ended up using the healthy mother’s DNA strands. This means scientists aren’t yet able to create babies to specifications, just strongly favor the existing but healthier parental gene to be passed on to the offspring. There are obvious ethics issues involved in creating human embryos and destroying them in the name of scientific discovery. However, getting rid of fatal diseases by gene editing could be music to the ears of parents who long to have children of their own but don’t want to risk having children affected with lethal conditions. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine have launched the Human Gene-Editing Initiative to tangle with these issues as they arrive to policy forums.

(Heidi Ledford, Nature News)

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

Written by sciencepolicyforall

August 4, 2017 at 3:31 pm

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