Posts Tagged ‘Grants’

Toaster Sized Machine Detects COVID-19

Reporter: Irina Robu, PhD

DnaNudge, a small UK-based DNA testing company designed a toaster sized machine that can detect COVID-19 in 90 min without lab analysis. The machine invented by Christofer Toumazou, professor at Imperial College was designed to aid people tailor their diet based on heredity, but changed the design due to the pandemic. The machine needs a nose swab or some saliva to detect traces of coronavirus. It can even spot other diseases such as the flu and a common virus infection called Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV). It will also notify the operator if a proper sample has been taken or if a test needs to be retaken.

Currently, the UK National Health Service ordered 5,000 of the machines, as well as cartridges to start testing coronavirus patients, as part of a $211 million contract. They are hoping that the machine designed by DNANudge states that can prove helpful in triaging potential COVID patients.



Read Full Post »

Funding Research by Lottery?: How Lucky Do You Feel After Submitting a Grant

Reporter: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

A recent article in Nature: “Science Funders Gamble on Grant Lotteries” discusses an odd twist to the anxiety most researchers feel after submitting grants to an agency.  Now, along with the hours of fretting over details and verbiage in a grant application, it appears that not only great science, but the luck of the draw may be necessary to get your work funded.  The article, by David Adam, discusses the funding strategy of the Health Research Council of New Zealand, which since 2015, has implemented a strategy of awarding grants through random selection.  Although limited in scope and size (mainly these grants are on very highly speculative and potentially transformative research and awards are usually less that $150,000 NZD) was meant to promote the applicants in submitting more risky ideas that are usually submitted in traditional peer reviewed grants.

Random chance will create more openness to ideas that are not in the mainstream

–  Margit Osterloh, economist at University of Zurich

Margit also mentions that many mid-ranking applications which are never funded could benefit from such a lottery system.

The Swiss National Science Foundation (SSFS) is also experimenting with this idea of random selection.  The Health Research Council states the process in not entirely random.  A computer selects the projects at random based on a random number generator.  A panel then decides if they are a reasonably good and well written application.

Some researchers have felt this random process could help eliminate much bias that can be baked into the traditional peer review process.  However there are many who feel the current process of peer review panels are a necessary and rigorous step in the granting process, analyzing applications which would most likely have the best chances to succeed based on the rigor of the proposed science.

However Osterloh feels that the lottery idea produces a humbling effect. As Margit said

If you know you have got a grant or a publication which is selected partly randomly, then you will know very well you are not the king of the Universe

Humility in science: a refreshing idea.  However the lottery idea will not mean that scientists need not prepare a careful and well written application.  Applications that are ranked very low would not be in the lottery.  However, if one feels lucky, maybe the obscene hours of worrying about each sentence written, or that figures for preliminary data should be altered at the 11th hour before submission might be a thing of the past.

Of course if you are a lucky person.



Read Full Post »

Tycho Brahe, where art thou? Today’s Renaissance of the Self-Funded Scientist!

Curator: Stephen J. Williams, Ph.D.

Every scientist usually can describe an event or an admired historical figure as their pivotal point of inspiration which led them to embark on a scientific career.

I will admit there were two points of inspiration: the first was Jacques Cousteau while watching his program Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau.

The other (and please don’t laugh) was reading about the intellectual duel and collaboration between two of the greats in astronomy and mathematics: Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler, two historical figures responsible for our modern-day understanding of the universe and planetary motion.  For some reason I had romanticized the study of science, envisioning days in the laboratory wearing renaissance garb while striking medieval vogue poses (just kidding). But back then, accurately determining planetary motions and mapping the stars was a real big deal, as trade ships would rely on the positioning of stars as their heavenly GPS system.  Otherwise you might be trying to establish a new trade route to India and wind up somewhere… say America.


Tycho Brahe (1546-1601; born Tyge Ottesen Brahe) was a Danish nobleman and scientist who made the most accurate measurement of planetary motion and positioning of the stars, which enabled another great astronomer, Johannes Kepler, to deduce the laws of planetary orbits.  His measurements allowed Kepler to prove Copernicus’s sun centered theory (Earth revolves around the sun). An interesting history of Brahe, The crazy life and crazier death of Tycho Brahe, history’s strangest astronomer, gives some in-depth look at this intriguing historical figure.

Now back then science, as is the case now, costs money; and the two ways to get that money was either find a wealthy backer (like a king) or have a rich uncle who leaves a great inheritance.  Well Tycho did have a rich uncle who left him a lot of money, but instead of just sitting around spending it on jewelry, he used a great portion of his inheritance to build his 1st observatory to make his important measurements and also discover a supernova (published in De Nova Stella), breaking the dogma at the time that stars never changed their appearance or position.

(Photo Credit: Wikipedia)

There have been other examples of self-funded scientists including:

i.            Luther Burbank (b:1845) who led the way for plant genetics.  After developing the Burbank potato he used the money from his nursery business to buy a farm to conduct plant breeding experiments

ii.            Dr. Edward Jenner who used his own funds to develop the first smallpox vaccine and later awarded money from Parliament for his development

iii.            Ritu Levi Montalcini, M.D.:  Dr. Montalcini discovered nerve growth factor together with Stanley Cohen (both awarded Nobel Prize).  After earning an MD in Turin, Italy in 1938 she was unable to work as Mussolini banned Jews from holding professional positions.  So she moved to Belgium but when the Nazi’s took over she fled back to Turin and made a secret lab to study the development of neurons in chick embryos.

Now as many government science budgets are tightening some scientist are returning to self-funding and alternative models in order to continue their research.

The Ronin Institute

One such example is the Ronin Institute, founded by Dr. Jon Wilkins, Ph.D., where scientists who may not have institutional support, band together in a sort of virtual Institute which supports publication and grantsmanship.  The mission and values of the Ronin Institute (which can be found here) includes creating new models for the conducting, funding, collaboration, and dissemination of scholarly research to get researchers back to what they do best: RESEARCH.

A wonderful and inspiring article, written by Samuel Arbesman and co-authored by Jon Wilkens, can be found in Wired magazine.

The following is an excerpt from the article about independent researchers:

One of us (Jon Wilkins), has set out to promote and support independent scholarly research through the founding of the Ronin Institute. The Ronin Institute acts as an aggregator for the fractional scholars of the world, providing an institutional affiliation, connection with other fractional scholars, and support for conference travel and grant applications.

When people are doing something that they are passionate about, they work harder and produce a better product. Thus, underemployed scholars represent in some sense a good that is currently trading well below its actual value. By providing a mechanism for those who wish to conduct research, we can allow these people to engage in their passions while growing the base of scholarly knowledge, which in turn has the potential to create further economic growth.

Through the Ronin Institute, we will be harnessing the skills and talents of thousands of underemployed researchers.

Some more articles on the Ronin Institute can be found on their site at http://ronininstitute.org/press/

Two other great articles on “gentlemen scientists” or self-funding scientists can be found at the Singular Scientist blog post entitled “Self-Funding in Science” and a 1998 Science article by Jon Cohen entitled Scientists Who Fund Themselves.  In each case, scientists felt freed up from the financial overhead accompanied with big institutions and realized more time for their research.

Alternate Funding Source: CROWDSOURCING

The passage of the JOBS act has relieved some of the pressures off obtaining funding for companies through crowdfunding mechanisms.  Scientists are also turning to crowdsourcing mechanisms to fund their research.  An article in the Washington Times (Scientists discover ‘crowdfunding’ as a way of replacing research grants) highlights some of the successes and science-related crowdfunding sites that exist.

Science-related Crowdfunding sites include:

i.            Rockethub

ii.            SciFund Challenge

iii.            Microryza

iv.            Kickstarter

v.            Petridish.org

Digital Tools and Lab Space for the Self-Funding Scientist

Dr. Elizabeth Iorns, breast cancer researcher and founder and CEO of Science Exchange, an online marketplace for ordering science experiments from various nationwide and worldwide labs, explains in a three-part Nature blog post “Research 2.0.1: The future of research funding” how the traditional government-based grant-funding model may transition into a more crowdfunding model.  For example Science Exchange allows you to order common laboratory procedures (for example immunohistochemistry or bioinformatics analysis or gene sequencing) from a list of participating labs in the marketplace.  Prices are usually reasonably priced.

Finding Lab Space: Biohacker Labs

The last piece of the puzzle is finding rented space and equipment to do research.  A new type of laboratory space, small, nimble, and priced and equipped to fit the independent researcher is cropping up.  Termed biohacker labs or hackubators, these small rented communal spaces are different from the traditional bio-incubators or science centers which sprang up decades ago to foster the biotech revolution.  This phenomenon is explained quite nicely in a Science article by Virginia Gewen “Biotechnology: Independent Streak”.  These spaces can go for $100-400 a month, much less than $900 a month for incubator space. Most of the investigators highlighted in the article get funds through crowdsourcing.

One such hackubator lab is Bio, Tech and Beyond, a DIY lab in San Diego which supports numerous projects using 3D printing, cell culture, and sequencing.  These type of DIY biolabs are springing up all over, based on the idea from tech hacker DIY labs, although before the expense seemed to be the limiting factor.  Now it appears the internet is once again revolutionizing another industry, namely that of the independent bio researcher

…. Sans the 16th century fashion (what a shame!)

Other posts on this site about Science Funding, Crowdsourcing, and Open Innovation include:

10 heart-focused apps & devices are crowdfunding for American Heart Association’s open innovation challenge

Importance of Funding Replication Studies: NIH on Credibility of Basic Biomedical Studies

Digital Health: SXSW Interactive 2014, March 9, 2014, Startup Village, Hilton Austin Downtown, 4th Floor


Fourth Annual QPrize Competition to Fund the World’s Next Groundbreaking Startups by Qualcomm Ventures

Gamification of Genomics and Proteomics Research

Collaborations and Open Access Innovations – CHI, BioIT World, 4/29 – 5/1/2014, Seaport World Trade Center, Boston

The Fatal Self Distraction of the Academic Publishing Industry: The Solution of the Open Access Online Scientific Journals

e-Recognition via Friction-free Collaboration over the Internet: “Open Access to Curation of Scientific Research”

Investing and inventing: Is the Tango of Mars and Venus Still on

2013 Genomics: The Era Beyond the Sequencing of the Human Genome: Francis Collins, Craig Venter, Eric Lander, et al.

conceived: NEW Definition for Co-Curation in Medical Research

Read Full Post »

Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN

UPDATED 6/5/2013

GenomeWeb Feature: Researchers Weigh in on Grants in the Time of Sequester

June 05, 2013

NEW YORK (GenomeWeb News) – When Nicholas Navin’s R01 grant to use single-cell sequencing to study tumor evolution in breast cancer was first funded in 2012, it was funded at 83 percent of the requested budget.

Because of the sequester, Navin’s grant now will be cut a further 6 percent. In addition, he has only been given funding for the next three months.

“After those three months, I assume that it will continue to be funded for the rest of the year,” said Navin, an assistant professor at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, “but they only give you enough funding to support you for three months.”

The sequester — the across-the-board cuts to the US budget that were implemented at the beginning of March — has led to budget decreases across the federal government, including at research funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. The cuts exacerbated what was seen by many as an already tight funding situation that was not keeping pace with inflation, making it increasingly difficult for researchers to fund their work.

Steven Salzberg, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, recently had a grant rejected that was ranked in the top 11th percent of applications. In the past, he’s had grants funded that were in the 16th percentile or 17th percentile.

“They are funding, one would hope, grants at the 11th percentile, but not this particular one,” he said. “So you have to resubmit it or you can give up. Those are your two choices.”

As budgets decline and competition for grants increase, researchers are submitting more proposals and are beginning to look elsewhere for funding. At the same time, they are wondering what the effect of sequestration will be on science and scientists, particularly early career investigators. Still, there are steps investigators can take to try to get their proposal to stand out.

Cuts and effect

Because of the sequester, both NIH and NSF have seen their budgets fall about 5 percent. For this fiscal year, NIH’s budget is about $29.15 billion, as compared to $30.86 billion for fiscal year 2012. At the same time, NSF has about $6.9 billion for 2013, compared to last year’s $7.0 billion.

To cope with these decreases, NIH has cut all noncompeting renewals by 4.5 percent, but other changes were mostly left up to the various institutes that comprise NIH. For example, NHGRI, like other parts of NIH, is cutting noncompeting renewals, but it is not touching small grants, which it defines as ones with commitments of $250,000 or less and that typically are funded through R03 or R21 mechanisms. In addition, NHGRI won’t be giving future inflationary increases to competing applications.

“NHGRI deals with such a relatively small number of grants that we can look at each one individually and make decisions on the basis of how that particular application addresses institute aims and what the application needs in order to be successful,” Mark Guyer, the deputy director of NHGRI, told GenomeWeb Daily News. “Almost everything we do is really on a case-by-case basis beyond the across-the-board cuts to non-competing.”

The sequester, though, comes on the heels of years of small increases to funding agencies’ budgets. While the NIH budget went through an unprecedented doubling between about 1998 and 2003, it has since languished, with increases that typically did not keep pace with inflation.

“The field generally was in dire straits [heading into the sequester], given the very low payline by NIH, for example, and even NSF,” said Sarah Tishkoff, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania.

Salzberg noted that the two NIH R01 grants that he already has — awarded prior to the sequester — were cut about 15 percent to 20 percent. This, he added, was done “administratively because of budget reasons, not because of the peer review.”

“Now [the sequester] comes along and makes it even worse,” Tishkoff added.

Overall, NIH has estimated that it will fund nearly 8,300 competing research grants for FY2013, a decrease of about 700 from last year.

NHGRI also said that, in the face of the sequester, it is aiming to keep the average size of the awards it makes for FY2013 similar to the sizes of those it gave out in FY2012 — meaning that it will be giving out fewer total awards. Competition for grants, then, will become increasingly competitive.

“The [scientific] opportunities over the last decade at least and certainly into the foreseeable future are increasing hand over fist … and available funding is not keeping up with that,” Guyer said. “So necessarily things have gotten more competitive, and the sequester approach to managing the federal budget has only exacerbated the competitive aspects of things.”

As fewer proposals get funded and there’s less money to go around, many investigators may find themselves submitting more proposals to a number of funders.

“I am looking at submitting [more] proposals because it looks like funding is tight, and it is going to remain tight,” Salzberg told GWDN. “Unfortunately this produces a vicious cycle where many of us feel like our chances of getting funded are lower, therefore we should submit more proposals, but that then in return reduces the percentage that gets funded.”

It also increases the amount of time researchers spend reviewing proposals.

Others are looking to supplement their funds by turning to alternative funding sources. Navin, for example, is looking at private foundations and other organizations that fund cancer research, such as the Susan G. Komen Foundation or the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation.

There, he said, he may have a few options given that he studies breast cancer. Other researchers, he noted, may not have such options. “I know some of my colleagues that work on colon cancer or some of the more rare cancers like testicular cancer or bladder cancer, they really have a hard time finding funding now,” he said.

In addition, cuts and uncertainty about future reductions in funding could make a lab a precarious place. After such budget cuts or in anticipation of cuts, some labs have slowed down their growth or have even begun to let people go.

Salzberg said that, as a computational biologist, his main expenses are the salaries of the students, postdocs, and staff who power his lab.

“[The funding situation] also makes me much more reluctant to hire postdocs or any new staff because I don’t have any more money coming in. You need more money to hire new people,” he said. He added that he still gets a number of requests from people looking for positions, but “I don’t have the funding for a new postdoc. Until I get some new funding that’s what I’ll keep saying.”

“I’ve seen [colleagues’] grants just get slashed by huge amounts,” Tishkoff added, noting that she’s seen technicians beginning to lose their jobs.”[Investigators] either have to cut some of the staff or they have to cut one of the aims.”

And as grant budgets are cut, researchers have to accomplish their research aims with less, and this often means cutting back on some of the science they would like to have done.

“Because they cut the budget, you have to cut the scope,” Salzberg said. “You still do the work, but you don’t do all the things that you want to do.”

Navin, for example, is looking to use a smaller study size, even though that’ll affect the statistical power of his work.

And that’s for the grants that get funded.

“Some projects just aren’t getting done,” Salzberg added. “[My grant] that wasn’t funded was a different project and we’re not going to do it.”

This, he said, may lead to delays in improvements to healthcare. New treatments and drugs will come, he said, but it may be in 20 years rather than in 10 years or 15 years.

Concern for new investigators

One common fear is that the sequester will disproportionately affect new investigators as they try to start labs and fund them or even dissuade them from pursuing a career in academia.

“It looks like it is disturbing a lot of young people and influencing the way that they are thinking about a potential career,” Guyer said.

Tishkoff added that she is worried that junior scientists will see how the more senior people are struggling to find funding, and opt out. “[New investigators] have to get grants if they want to get tenure. They have to get grants to be successful and to continue to be a scientist in the future,” she said.

“That’s the question that I get over and over again” from students and postdocs, Navin added. “What’s it going to be like in … five to 10 years?”

“I try to stay optimistic and tell them that there will be funding, but it is hard to predict the future,” he said.

Still, junior scientists may look for careers in industry or outside of the research realm.

“I think that when they hear all of this gloom and doom talk going on, it is really discouraging them. And that makes me really worried that we are losing talented scientists,” Tishkoff said. She added that she’s noticed that people with computational biology or bioinformatic backgrounds seem to be heading to industry.

Salzberg added that the field may never even know what it is losing. “People will leave the field — they won’t announce it — they just go get a job doing something else,” he said. “Generally, you lose that [talent] forever because that person doesn’t come back.”

Funding agencies like NIH do have mechanisms in place to try to help new investigators get grants. For example, proposals from new investigators are reviewed separately from ones submitted by established PIs. That way, early-career researchers compete against each other, rather than against those with more experience.

Further, in its policy statement for this fiscal year, NIH said that it would continue to support new investigators applying for R01 grants with success rates similar to those of established PIs.

“I really think they are doing as much as they can, but there is a bottom line,” Tishkoff noted. “If you do not have the money to give out, then it is going to be more and more and more competitive. That’s just how it is.”

NHGRI, in its own policy statement, said that it is “very flexible” in supporting early-stage investigators by not reducing recommended budgets if possible, by giving special consideration when applying for renewals to avoid gaps in funding, and by its Pathway to Independence Awards, which are targeted to postdocs who are moving toward running their own lab.

Outside of federal support, there are also a number of grants that specifically fund new investigators, such as the David and Lucile Packard Foundation Fellowships for Science and Engineering, Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Awards, or the Sloan Research Fellowship, among others.

Tips for getting a grant

With increased competition for a smaller pot of money, submitting a well-crafted grant proposal might help it stick out from the rest in the pile. While some researchers may be quickly churning out as many proposals as they can, Tishkoff said that approach may not be the best one.

“The fact is it’s now even more competitive, it is even more important that people are taking time to really work on the grants carefully and not try to rush through them,” she told GWDN.

Still, submit a proposal quickly. “Don’t wait to apply for your first grant,” Salzberg said. “Very few people get funded on their first time around. You learn a lot from the reviews you get back.”

For his first grant, Salzberg partnered with a senior colleague to be a co-PI on the grant. “You can learn a lot about grantsmanship that way,” he said. “And then if the senior colleague gets funded, then you get some money out of that.” In addition, “you also learn some of the administrative hoops.”

Once on a grant, investigators begin to be invited to review panels that evaluate such grant proposals. “That’s a very valuable experience,” Salzberg said. “The first couple of times you are on a review panel, you learn a tremendous amount because you see a lot of other people’s grant applications and you see what the reviewers are saying about them.”

Tishkoff said one common problem she’s seen, particularly among new investigators, is that the proposals can feel hurried and too full of jargon. “You’ve got to take your time, write clearly in a manner that a general scientist can understand,” she said, adding that investigators have to sell their idea to a “broad scientific audience [and] make the point of why it is cutting edge and important and advances the field.”

Having other, more senior people look over a proposal is often a key step, she added, saying that she’s seen applications in which there were simple errors like numbers not adding up that could have easily been avoided by having someone else take a look at it.

An oft-overlooked step, by new and established PIs alike, is getting in touch with their program officers. “Start out talking to NIH program people as soon as possible,” Guyer said.

Program officers can provide information on funding mechanisms, initiatives, and budgets, and offer feedback on how project ideas fit within institutes’ priorities. “And we think, at least we tell ourselves, that it can help save people a lot of wasted time,” he added.

Tishkoff said that she typically calls up her program officer when she’s thinking about and applying for a grant to see how her idea fits with what the institute is interested in funding and to discuss a potentially reasonable budget.

“You could say, ‘I am thinking about applying for this, this, and this. Is that something that you or this institute would be interested in funding?'” she said. “And so you can try to aim to make your proposal fit with what their goals are at the moment.”

“Secondly, I always tell them, ‘OK, here’s the budget I have in mind. Is that going to be realistic or not?'” she added.

And once, she said, she was told her budget for what she called an “all-in-one, big giant grant” was too high to be funded. Instead, Tishkoff broke that large, all-inclusive grant into smaller, more focused projects, and she stripped the budgets to the bare bones.

However, not all proposals will be funded, even well-written ones. “There’s no magic bullet here, though, it’s just times are tough,” Salzberg added. “If they are only funding 10 percent of proposals, then whatever happens, 90 percent of them are going to be rejected, so try to be in the top 10 percent, but we can’t all be in the top 10 percent all the time.”

Navin added that those who get rejected should not give up and should keep submitting. “I just think you have to be very optimistic, be an eternal optimist and just keep submitting your grants to as many different funding agencies as possible,” he said. “And eventually, if it is a good idea, it’ll get funded.”

The next fiscal cycle

While fiscal year 2013 is more than half over, the US federal budget for fiscal year 2014 isn’t yet set, so what is in store for research funding — and whether the sequester will continue —isn’t clear.

The Obama administration released its budget proposal for FY 2014 in April, which would replace the sequester. It called for $31.3 billion for the National Institutes of Health — an increase of 1.5 percent over the FY 2012 budget — and $7.6 billion for the National Science Foundation — an 8.4 percent increase over its FY 2012 appropriation.

The budget, though, needs to pass Congress.

“We’re making plans for FY ’14 on the basis of what the administration presented as a budget,” Guyer said. “We’re hoping the Congress can do better than that. On the other hand, we are realistic.”

Ciara Curtin is GenomeWeb’s science features editor as well as the editor of the Daily Scan and Careers blogs. E-mail Ciara Curtinand follow @DailyScan, and @CareersGW on Twitter.

Fact sheet: Impact of Sequestration on the National Institutes of Health

The National Institutes of Health is the nation’s medical research agency and the leading supporter of biomedical research in the world. NIH’smission is to seek fundamental knowledge about the nature and behavior of living systems and apply that knowledge to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce the burdens of illness and disability. Due in large measure to NIH research, a person born in the United States today can expect to live nearly 30 years longer than someone born in 1900.

More than 80 percent of the NIH’s budget goes to over 300,000 research personnel at more than 2,500 universities and research institutions throughout the United States. In addition, about 6,000 scientists work in NIH’s own Intramural Research laboratories, most of which are on the NIH main campus in Bethesda, Md. The main campus is also home to theNIH Clinical Center, the largest hospital in the world totally dedicated to clinical research.


On March 1, 2013, as required by statute, President Obama signed an order initiating sequestration. The sequestration requires NIH to cut 5 percent or $1.55 billion of its fiscal year (FY) 2013 budget. NIH must apply the cut evenly across all programs, projects, and activities (PPAs), which are primarily NIH institutes and centers. This means every area of medical research will be affected.

NIH FY2013 operating plans:

NIH FY2013 Operating Plan

NIH FY2013 Operating Plan Mechanism Table

NIH Guide Notice: Fiscal Policy for Grant Awards FY2013

NIH Institutes and Centers FY2013 Funding Strategies

The estimated numbers:

(FY 2013 figures compared to FY 2012)

While much of these decreases are due to sequester, NIH funding is always a dynamic situation with multiple drivers:

  • Approximately 700 fewer competitive research project grants issued
  • Approximately 750 fewer new patients admitted to the NIH Clinical Center
  • No increase in stipends for National Research Service Award recipients in FY2013

The impact:

  • Delay in medical progress:
    • Medical breakthroughs do not happen overnight. In almost all instances, breakthrough discoveries result from years of incremental research to understand how disease starts and progresses.
    • Even after the cause and potential drug target of a disease is discovered, it takes on average 13 years and $1 billion to develop a treatment for that target.
    • Therefore, cuts to research are delaying progress in medical breakthroughs, including:
      • development of better cancer drugs that zero in on a tumor with fewer side effects
      • research on a universal flu vaccine that could fight every strain of influenza without needing a yearly shot.
      • prevention of debilitating chronic conditions that are costly to society and delay development of more effective treatments for common and rare diseases affecting millions of Americans.
  • Risk to scientific workforce:
    • NIH drives job creation and economic growth. NIH research funding directly supports hundreds of thousands of American jobs and serves as a foundation for the medical innovation sector, which employs 1 million U.S. citizens. Cuts to NIH funding will have an economic impact in communities throughout the U.S. For every six applications submitted to the NIH, only one will be funded. Sequestration is reducing the overall funding available for grants. See the history of NIH funding success rates.

Frequently asked questions:

How many fewer grants will be awarded?
Approximately 700 fewer research project grants compared to FY 2012.

Have the institutes and centers announced their adjusted paylines based on these cuts?
The adjusted NIH Institute and Center (IC) paylines and funding strategies can be found here:http://grants.nih.gov/grants/financial/index.htm#strategies

What percent cut will be made to existing grants?
Reductions to noncompeting research project grants (RPG) vary depending on the circumstances of the particular IC. The NIH-wide average is -4.7 percent.

Will the duration of existing grants be shortened to accommodate the cuts?
In general, no.

Will all grants receive the same percentage cut or will some grants be cut more than others?
Institutes and centers have flexibility to accommodate the new budget level in a fashion that allows them to meet their scientific and strategic goals. As noted above, there are different percentages for different ICs, and in some cases for different mechanisms within an IC (RPGs, Centers, etc.). In addition, there may be reductions to grants for reasons other than sequestration, as is the case every year.

Will certain areas of science that are at a critical juncture be affected by these cuts? 
All areas of science are expected to be affected.

Will some areas of science be affected more than others?
The sequester does not stipulate the precise reduction to each scientific area. However, it is likely that most scientific areas will be reduced by about 5 percent because the sequester is being applied broadly at the NIH institute and center level.

What will be the impact of these cuts to NIH’s intramural research at its Bethesda campus and off-campus facilities?
The impact on NIH’s intramural research is substantial, especially because it applies retroactively to spending since Oct. 1, 2012. That can double the effect — a full year’s cut has to be absorbed in less than half a year.

Will NIH be furloughing or cutting employees at its NIH campus and off-campus facilities?
There are no current plans to do so. At present, HHS is pursuing non-furlough administrative cost savings such as delayed/forgone hiring and reducing administrative services contracts so that furloughs and layoffs can be avoided. Additionally, employee salaries at NIH make up a very small percentage (only 7 percent) of the NIH budget.

How will current patients at the NIH Clinical Center be affected?
Services to patients will not be reduced.

Will the NIH Clinical Center see fewer patients because of the cuts?
Approximately 750 fewer new patients will be admitted to the NIH Clinical Center hospital in 2013 or a decrease from 10,695 new patients in 2012 to approximately 9,945 new patients in 2013. While much of this decrease is due to funding, clinical activity is always a dynamic situation with multiple drivers.

Will the sequester cut need to be applied to the FY 2014 budget?
The President’s FY 2014 Budget would replace sequestration and reduce the deficit in a balanced way. The President is ready to work with Congress to further reduce deficits while continuing to make critical investments.

About the National Institutes of Health (NIH): NIH, the nation’s medical research agency, includes 27 Institutes and Centers and is a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. NIH is the primary federal agency conducting and supporting basic, clinical, and translational medical research, and is investigating the causes, treatments, and cures for both common and rare diseases. For more information about NIH and its programs, visit www.nih.gov.

NIH…Turning Discovery Into Health®

Read Full Post »

Reported by: Dr. Venkat S. Karra

Two bills collectively called the America Innovates Act of 2012 were introduced in Congress, one in the Senate and the other in the House of Representatives, in April that have the potential to help universities that need funding to create spinout companies, says Patent Docs’ Kevin Noonan. “The bill provides for the US to establish an American Innovation Bank as an ‘independent agency,’ that will ‘promote the commercialization of science and engineering discoveries’ by ‘provid[ing] grants, loans, and other assistance to eligible entities and individuals to enable the entities and individuals to perform the necessary research and development to make research discoveries attractive for private investment that will lead to the development of new companies, products, and jobs,'” Noonan says.

The grants would be available to institutes of higher learning and non-profit research institutions, and would be awarded on a competitive basis. Further, Noonan adds, the bill also provides for grants to be awarded directly to individuals. “The Bank is intended, among other things, to help companies navigate the ‘valley of death’ where university-related start-up companies go through initial funding monies before having sufficient experimental results to attract venture capital or large company investment or commercialize their products,” he says.

However, though the bills have been referred to the respective committees in the House and Senate that would need to approve them, it is unlikely they will receive any attention until after the election, Noonan says.

Kirsten Gillibrand, Congresswoman.

But one of the bill’s sponsors, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), is working hard to promote it. “That kind of promotion … could be the ticket for accelerating consideration of the bills before November,” Noonan adds.




Read Full Post »

%d bloggers like this: