March 14, 2008

1. New Report Arms NIH Advocates, Warns Congress

2. Submit Comments on NIH Recommendations for Enhancing Peer Review

1. New Report Arms NIH Advocates, Warns Congress

In response to a potential sixth consecutive year of flat funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a consortium of academic and research institutions released “A Broken Pipeline? Flat Funding of the NIH Puts a Generation of Science at Risk.” Released Tuesday, March 11, 2008, the report is a timely advocacy tool that focuses on the scientific and career development deficiencies caused by flat funding, particularly the lost opportunities for early-career investigators and restrictions on competitive and innovative science.

The report states that the limited purchasing power of NIH has caused scientists at every level of the academic research pipeline to experience “destructive effects.” However, the report notes that limited resources have had the most severe effect on the research ventures of junior investigators. According to the report, in 1990, first-time investigators received 29% of R01 grants, but in 2007, they only received 25% of R01s. The average age of first-time R01 recipients also increased from 39 in 1990 to 43 in 2007. These statistics are reflected in the claims of many senior investigators who have witnessed members of the younger generation drop out of the pipeline due to the difficulty in receiving NIH grants. The report argues that many young researchers are left with little assurances for a successful career in academic science. The report also identifies a serious “catch 22” for early-career investigators—they are unable to receive R01 funding to establish and launch their careers because NIH reviewers claim a lack of sufficient data to support their grant applications; yet such data cannot be gathered without funding.

At a press briefing held to launch the report, young investigators recounted their individual struggles to receive NIH funding. Pampee Young, MD, PhD—who is also featured in the report—recalled that of the 15 students in her MD/PhD program at Rice University, only she and one other entered careers in basic science research. While expressing enthusiasm for their research careers, many young scientists cite the application rejections of their established mentors and senior scientists as added discouragement.

Researchers featured in the report also focused on the effects of inadequate funding on innovation and ingenuity in science as a discipline. The report reiterates that as NIH receives less grants to award, grant application reviewers are becoming increasingly “risk averse in their evaluations,” thereby creating “a fundamental narrowing of scientific vision” as safe and conservative science is funded before cutting-edge research. Although the United States seeks to remain the world leader in medical research, the report suggests this position is in jeopardy as “bold visions” in research may be abandoned completely and researchers may be forced to seek opportunities for advancement overseas.

NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni, MD, addressed several of these concerns before the House Labor, Health and Human Services (HHS), and Education Appropriations Subcommittee Wednesday, March 5, 2008. In his written testimony, Dr. Zerhouni identified some of the many scientific advancements that came as a result of the doubling of the NIH budget between 1998 and 2003. However, he also noted that NIH is currently at a crossroads as health care costs increase and research competition from abroad heightens. Dr. Zerhouni warned Congress that “[NIH] must continually sustain the momentum of US biomedical research, or risk losing it.”

2. Submit Comments on NIH Recommendations for Enhancing Peer Review

The final draft of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) 2007-2008 Peer Review Self-Study is available online for your review. The Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine encourages you to read the draft and take advantage of the public comment period before its deadline of Monday, March 17, 2008. For more information on the recommendations and to submit comments, please visit enhancing-peer-review.nih.gov.

As reported previously (Connection, February 29, 2008), the draft provides recommendations to address challenges the NIH peer review system faces. The draft recommendations address a reduction of administrative burden, enhancement of the grant review and rating system, and an increase in support for varying career stages and pathways.

The Alliance for Academic Internal Medicine—the nation’s largest academically focused specialty organization—consists of the Association of Professors of Medicine, the Association of Program Directors in Internal Medicine, the Association of Subspecialty Professors, the Clerkship Directors in Internal Medicine, and the Administrators of Internal Medicine.

Please contact AAIM Vice President for Policy Charles P. Clayton (cclayton@im.org), AAIM Policy Coordinator Nicole V. Baptista (nbaptista@im.org), or AAIM Policy Assistant Jessica L. O'Hara (johara@im.org) at (202) 861-9351 with questions or comments about this week’s Merlin.