And will it keep postdocs for asking my advice about careers in science writing? Crom, I hope so.
The NIH is slated to get $10 Billion. That’s American dollars and, roughly, three times what they were originally slated to get in the stimulus bill. Thanks to Arlen Specter, that’s not a problem anymore. (Go Arlen, I told all my hyper-Dem friends that he was worth keeping around, for the sake of Pennsyltucky, at least!)
The NIH famously doubled its budget a few years back, but then the budget stabilized and, in fact, failed to keep up with inflation. I have heard said that it would have been better if the doubling hadn’t happened, since so many institutions invested heavily in new programs and infrastructure that a level NIH budget just couldn’t sustain.
So now the question is, I guess, what the hell will they do with all this money? How much of this will go to fulfilling research grants? How sustainable will this be…or should the scientific community just take this and run with it best they can knowing that this will be a one-time respite from their regularly scheduled budget woes?
Um, the best I can figure is, take it and run! Here is the briefing we got (and feel free to re-post if you want). I attempted to bold the parts I think are most important.
“Key points include: Funds must be used to create jobs and facilitate economic recovery. There will be unprecedented reporting requirements, perhaps on a quarterly basis . Information about the progress of all awards will be placed on a public website.
As part of the American Recovery Act (ARA) the NIH received $10.4 billion. The funds must be obligated within a two-year period . There will be no out-year expenditures.
Of the $10.4 billion,
1. $400 million is for Comparative Effectiveness research.
2. $500 million is for NIH intramural construction.
3. $300 million is for the NCRR Shared Instrumentation Grant Program. The standard institutional matching requirements will probably be relaxed for these new funds. The “buy American†restriction will not apply to this equipment.
4. $1 billion is for NCRR new programs for repair, renovation and new construction. There will be no requirement for matching funds. A new RFA will be issued shortly. The usual five-year time period will be followed.
The remaining $8.2 billion will be applied to scientific research programs. Of that $8.2 billion, $800 million will go to the NIH Director, while the remainder of the funds will be divided among the Institutes based on the current proportion of their budget relative to the NIH.
The main distribution of funds for scientific research will be in the following three areas. The exact amount directed to each area needs to be determined, and this will be done on an Institute-by-Institute basis. Support for New Investigators will be emphasized. The three main program areas are:
1. Funding for R01s from 2008 and 2009 that did not make pay line. NIH will be reviewing these proposals closely to determine if they would be able to accomplish their goals within 2 years. Clinical trials that require patient recruitment and multi-year trials (i.e., beyond two years) will probably not be funded. No grants will be funded beyond two years. An important aspect of decisions on funding for any proposal will be the extent to which the scientific goals of the proposals fit in with the institute’s mission.
2. Supplemental funding for existing grants with at least one year remaining. Some of this funding will be handled competitively (i.e., traditional Revised Applications), and some will be awarded administratively (i.e., traditional Administrative Supplements). NIH has a broad degree of flexibility in this area. Two areas that may merit expansion are research training and additional equipment for the project. In addition, requests for funds to continue support for existing postdoctoral fellows who have not secured a permanent position is also a possibility.
3. New program of Challenge Grants. Challenge Grants are grants of up to $500,000 per year for 2 years that focus on specific scientific challenges that have been identified by NIH institutes and centers. Some Challenge Grant opportunities will be involve collaboration among several Institutes.
Dr. Kington emphasized that “If you do not think that you can spend the money within two years, you should not submit.†The NIH does not wish to have any “out-year†commitments. The NIH must “obligate†funds by the end of September, 2010. He strongly urges that recipients “spend†the funds by that time because of the intense scrutiny that these grants will receive from the public.
So, as far as I can see, most individual investigators aren’t going to see a huge benefit from this. Primarily because of the “two-years’ worth of funding” thing. In the past, RO1’s funded you for 5 years, which is enough time to really get your program going. Two years? Not so good.
They seem to be focusing on the equipment grants and facilities funding, most likely because that will have the largest “trickle-down” effect of getting more people involved. However, that won’t save individual lab groups, and we’re still going to lose good paying jobs for the techs and the research scientists.
The “more accountability” and quarterly progress report requirement is, quite frankly, terrifying. The paperwork is crazy onerous as it is, and quarterly progress reports? Ugh.
Oh, and I also should add that research foundation grants (traditionally a source of money in lieu of NIH) are also drying up thanks to the market crash. The investment income that funded a lot of these is gone.
@Keri
Thanks Keri, this is helpful. Where did it come from?