E-Letter responses to:

n-focus: Jennifer Couzin and Greg Miller NIH BUDGET: Boom and Bust Science 2007; 316: 356-361 [Summary] [Full text] [PDF]

E-Letters: Submit a response to this article

Published E-Letter responses:

Time for a Paradigm Change at NIH

Nejat Düzgünes   (31 July 2007)

NIH Misery in 2007 and Beyond

Wolfgang B Liedtke   (24 May 2007)

Time for a Paradigm Change at NIH 31 July 2007
Nejat Düzgünes Department of Microbiology, University of the Pacific Respond to this E-Letter: Re: Time for a Paradigm Change at NIH	The article “Boom and bust” and the accompanying sidebar “Peer review under stress” (J. Couzin, G. Miller, News Focus, 20 Apr., p. 356) reveal an NIH funding system that needs to be completely overhauled. Even if the peer review process is improved, for example, by enabling prominent scientists to submit online reviews, it will not provide more funds for scientists in the trenches. It is likely that the multiple applications submitted by investigators on different subjects to maximize their chances of success will simply overwhelm the review system. The current system can reward 5 or more R01 grants to a single investigator, despite the shortage of money and the inability of innovative scientists to obtain even a small grant. In 1999, I proposed awarding 10-year grants limited to $300,000/year to well-established investigators who choose not to apply for additional NIH funding, making use of the impending doubling of the NIH budget (1). I have now revised this proposal to include stable funding for young investigators and a cap on indirect costs (2). I had also proposed a comparison of the 10-year productivity of scientists on the new system with those who choose to struggle through traditional NIH peer review to have a chance to obtain large sums of money (1). My proposal was obviously not implemented. I believe, however, that the current distress of the NIH funding system may be healed by giving my proposal a chance. Nejat Düzgünes Department of Microbiology, University of the Pacific, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA. References 1. N. Düzgünes, The Scientist 13, 13 (12 April 1999). 2. N. Düzgünes, The Scientist 21 (no. 8), 24 (August 2007).
NIH Misery in 2007 and Beyond 24 May 2007
Wolfgang B Liedtke, Head-of-Lab; Attending Physician Duke University, Center for Translational Neuroscience Respond to this E-Letter: Re: NIH Misery in 2007 and Beyond	This characterization is absolutely to the point (News Focus, J. Couzin and G. Miller, 20 Apr., p. 356). I have not much to add, except perhaps my personal situation: overall, I spend definitively 2/3 of the time grant-writing, in addition to clinical duty. There is one characterization I have to object to. The head of the National Cancer Institute, John Niederhuber, expresses the hope that mega-projects' financial windfall would reach people who would otherwise write even more R01s. It would be nice if this were true. From what I have seen and heard, it is not matching the reality of 2007. In view of the situation and the prospect for years to come, I propose the following. We can hope for an increase in the NIH budget over the years, and in case it happens, that will be a good day for the United States. But more likely than not, it will not happen. To be realistic, the odds are very bad. We have to plan for a flat or reduced NIH budget under whoever inherits the disaster caused by this administration. In that case, which is far more likely, it will be vital to protect the R01 mechanism and lead it back toward the 20% threshold. Maintenance of the <10% threshold over the years will do unimaginable damage to our system and hence to our nation. As stated in the article, right now, results from study sections are cutting into the meat, not the fat. How does one feel having submitted an application that receives a score of 87% but is not funded? Certainly, winning applications are extremely well-polished, but they could contain risk-averse, more pedestrian science, as compared to a more raw, yet more exciting application that ends up scoring 85%—thus in reality equaling a triaged application. This was not a problem some years ago, and that is what we must revert the system back to—if need be by prioritizing the individual investigator with her/ his R01s over the big-buck mega-projects. This means we will have to have people in leadership positions who understand this conflict to successfully overcome the calamity. To end on a more realistic and pessimistic note, how can one muster the time and energy to go against the big-buck mega-projects when you have 14 to 16-hour days all focused on the <1/10 chance of survival? Wolfgang B. Liedtke Head-of-Lab; Attending Physician, Duke University, Center for Translational Neuroscience