Transcript Funding opportunities in integrative and systems (I&S) biology

Funding opportunities in integrative and
systems (I&S) biology
Gregory D. Fink, Ph.D.
Michigan State University
Where do federal research and
development dollars to universities go?
Summary of trends in government
funding for research (FY 1990-2001)
Summary of trends in government
funding for research (FY 2000-2002)
Summary of trends in NIH funding for
biomedical research (FY 1995-2001)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NIH budget: $11.3 to $20.3 billion (+79.6%)
Funding for RO1s: $4.3 to $8.2 billion (+90.7%)
# RO1s funded: 20,415 to 27,127 (+32.9%)
Number of RO1 apps: 22,296 to 21,805 (-2.2%)
Number of new RO1s: 5,618 to 6, 817 (+21.3%)
RO1 success rate: 25.2% to 31.3% (+19.8%)
Ave size of RO1: $212.2K to $302.1K (+42.4%)
28000
300
250
200
26000
1st YEAR COST
NUMBER OF GRANTS
24000
22000
I&S biology research
20000
18000
150
?
100
16000
14000
12000
50
10000
8000
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
YEAR
Number of grants
1st year cost (thousands $)
Total NIH support for biomedical
research--trends (1968-2001)
What is the evidence that funding for
I&S biology is decreased?
On April 19, 1996 the NHLBI hosts a Special Emphasis
Panel on Integrative Research. Recommendations included:
• Scientific review groups need greater awareness and
sensitivity to I&S research
• I&S research can be promoted by “coupled” NIH grants
involving PIs with molecular and I&S expertise
• Need training grants that focus on I&S research training
• A training course in I&S research should be developed
cooperatively by NIH, industry and professional societies.
What is the evidence that funding for
I&S biology is decreased?
• American Physiological Society
• American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental
Therapeutics
• American Association of Anatomists
• American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and
Therapeutics
• Society of Toxicology
• Others
What is the evidence that training for
I&S biology research is decreased?
“Many can genotype, but few can phenotype”
-- Dr. Sam Enna
How can NIH support for I&S research
be identified and quantified?
• Major differences in opinion about what
constitutes I&S research
• Investigators doing I&S research don’t
usually say so explicitly
• Much I&S research is done as part of larger
projects with molecular / cellular emphasis
• NIH has no mechanism to identify I&S
research projects
Percentage of funded grants identified in
CRISP using the phrase “whole animal”
% of all funded grants
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
1972-1981 1982-1991 1992-2001
Do MDs do more I&S research?
Funding success rate versus PhDs
50
% success rate
45
MDs
PhDs
40
35
30
25
20
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Is clinical research more I&S than basic
research?
% of NIH grants involving clinical research
% of all competing awards
50
40
Awards
Dollars
30
20
10
0
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
More PhDs do clinical research than do MDs
Data from the year 2001
# doing clinical research
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
MD
MD/PhD
PhD
What factors might contribute to
decreased funding for I&S biology?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Retirement of I&S researchers
Hiring practices
Study sections
Journal “impact factors”
Media
Paradigm fatigue?
Do NIH study sections really devalue
I&S research?
•
•
•
•
•
•
“Innovation” as a specfic critique item
Quest for the “modern”
New technologies
Rapid publication
Animal use issues
New convert zeal
What factors might contribute to
decreased funding for I&S biology?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Retirement of I&S researchers
Hiring practices
Study sections
Journal “impact factors”
Media
Paradigm fatigue?
Impact factors (1999)
40
Impact factor
30
20
10
0
Cell
Nature Nature Gen Science Molec CellJ Cell Biol J Physiol
JPET
AJP:Reg
What factors might contribute to
decreased funding for I&S biology?
•
•
•
•
•
•
Retirement of I&S researchers
Hiring practices
Study sections
Journal “impact factors”
Media
Paradigm fatigue?
Conclusions
• Widespread belief that I&S research
funding has decreased over the last decade
• Hard evidence is difficult to extract from
existing databases
• Perception affects research and training
activities anyway
• New emphasis on “translational” research