Transition From Mentored to Independent NIH Funding by Gender and Department.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nguyen M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10300699 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Transition From Mentored to Independent NIH Funding by Gender and Department.
Nguyen Mytien M Panyadahundi Aanya A Olagun-Samuel Christine C Chaudhry Sarwat I SI Desai Mayur M MM Dardik Alan A Boatright Dowin D
JAMA 20230601 24
Similar Datasets
Project description:Women have achieved parity with men among biomedical science degree holders but remain underrepresented in academic positions. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-the world's largest public funder of biomedical research-receives less than one-third of its new grant applications from women. Correspondingly, women compose less than one-third of NIH research grantees, even though they are as successful as men in obtaining first-time grants. Our study examined women's and men's NIH funding trajectories over time (n = 34,770), exploring whether women remain funded at the same rate as men after receiving their first major research grants. A survival analysis demonstrated a slightly lower funding longevity for women. We next examined gender differences in application, review, and funding outcomes. Women individually held fewer grants, submitted fewer applications, and were less successful in renewing grants-factors that could lead to gender differences in funding longevity. Finally, two adjusted survival models that account for initial investigator characteristics or subsequent application behavior showed no gender differences, suggesting that the small observed longevity differences are affected by both sets of factors. Overall, given men's and women's generally comparable funding longevities, the data contradict the common assumption that women experience accelerated attrition compared with men across all career stages. Women's likelihood of sustaining NIH funding may be better than commonly perceived. This suggests a need to explore women's underrepresentation among initial NIH grantees, as well as their lower rates of new and renewal application submissions.
| S-EPMC6077749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAn analysis of NIH funding in 1996 found that the strongest predictor of funding, disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs), explained only 39% of the variance in funding. In 1998, Congress requested that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) evaluate priority-setting criteria for NIH funding; the IOM recommended greater consideration of disease burden. We examined whether the association between current burden and funding has changed since that time.MethodsWe analyzed public data on 2006 NIH funding for 29 common conditions. Measures of US disease burden in 2004 were obtained from the World Health Organization's Global Burden of Disease study and national databases. We assessed the relationship between disease burden and NIH funding dollars in univariate and multivariable log-linear models that evaluated all measures of disease burden. Sensitivity analyses examined associations with future US burden, current and future measures of world disease burden, and a newly standardized NIH accounting method.ResultsIn univariate and multivariable analyses, disease-specific NIH funding levels increased with burden of disease measured in DALYs (p?=?0.001), which accounted for 33% of funding level variation. No other factor predicted funding in multivariable models. Conditions receiving the most funding greater than expected based on disease burden were AIDS ($2474 M), diabetes mellitus ($390 M), and perinatal conditions ($297 M). Depression ($719 M), injuries ($691 M), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ($613 M) were the most underfunded. Results were similar using estimates of future US burden, current and future world disease burden, and alternate NIH accounting methods.ConclusionsCurrent levels of NIH disease-specific research funding correlate modestly with US disease burden, and correlation has not improved in the last decade.
| S-EPMC3044706 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The National Institutes of Health (NIH) plays a critical role in funding scientific endeavors in biomedicine. Funding innovative science is an essential element of the NIH's mission, but many have questioned the NIH's ability to fulfill this aim. Based on an analysis of a comprehensive corpus of published biomedical research articles, we measure whether the NIH succeeds in funding work with novel ideas, which we term edge science. We find that edge science is more often NIH funded than less novel science, but with a delay. Papers that build on very recent ideas are NIH funded less often than are papers that build on ideas that have had a chance to mature for at least 7 y. We have three further findings. First, the tendency to fund edge science is mostly limited to basic science. Papers that build on novel clinical ideas are not more often NIH funded than are papers that build on well-established clinical knowledge. Second, novel papers tend to be NIH funded more often because there are more NIH-funded papers in innovative areas of investigation, rather than because the NIH funds innovative papers within research areas. Third, the NIH's tendency to have funded papers that build on the most recent advances has declined over time. In this regard, NIH funding has become more conservative despite initiatives to increase funding for innovative projects. Given our focus on published papers, the results reflect both the funding preferences of the NIH and the composition of the applications it receives.
| S-EPMC7275727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This work examines the contribution of NIH funding to published research associated with 210 new molecular entities (NMEs) approved by the Food and Drug Administration from 2010-2016. We identified >2 million publications in PubMed related to the 210 NMEs (n = 131,092) or their 151 known biological targets (n = 1,966,281). Of these, >600,000 (29%) were associated with NIH-funded projects in RePORTER. This funding included >200,000 fiscal years of NIH project support (1985-2016) and project costs >$100 billion (2000-2016), representing ∼20% of the NIH budget over this period. NIH funding contributed to every one of the NMEs approved from 2010-2016 and was focused primarily on the drug targets rather than on the NMEs themselves. There were 84 first-in-class products approved in this interval, associated with >$64 billion of NIH-funded projects. The percentage of fiscal years of project funding identified through target searches, but not drug searches, was greater for NMEs discovered through targeted screening than through phenotypic methods (95% versus 82%). For targeted NMEs, funding related to targets preceded funding related to the NMEs, consistent with the expectation that basic research provides validated targets for targeted screening. This analysis, which captures basic research on biological targets as well as applied research on NMEs, suggests that the NIH contribution to research associated with new drug approvals is greater than previously appreciated and highlights the risk of reducing federal funding for basic biomedical research.
| S-EPMC5878010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Research Project Grant (R01) is the oldest grant mechanism used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Receiving an R01 award is often taken as a sign of scientific success. We presented normative data on multiple productivity and impact metrics for a more objective assessment of funded grants' scientific success.MethodsAll initial R01 grants awarded by NIH in the year 2000 were prospectively followed and evaluated using the numbers of publications and citations, as well as the h-indices at the grant level. We examined the variability, time trends, and relations among these metrics to better understand the funded projects' cumulative output and impact.ResultsIn the 20 years since initial funding, 4451 R01 grants generated a total of 55,053 publications. These publications were cumulatively cited 3,705,553 times over 736,811 citation years. The median number of publications was 8 (25th, 75th percentiles 4, 17) per grant for the entire 20-year duration. The median number of citations and the median h-index were 441 (25th, 75th percentiles 156, 1061) and 7 (25th, 75th percentiles 4, 13) per grant, respectively. The time courses of publication, citation, and accumulation of h-index were highly variable among the awarded grants. Although the metrics were correlated within an award, they reflected the grant's success in different domains.ConclusionNumbers of publications, citations, and h-indices vary greatly among funded R01 grants. When used together, these metrics provide a more complete picture of the productivity and long-term impact of a funded grant.
| S-EPMC8738817 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aims to characterise and evaluate the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) grant allocation speed and pattern of COVID-19 research.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingCOVID-19 NIH RePORTER Dataset was used to identify COVID-19 relevant grants.Participants1108 grants allocated to COVID-19 research.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was to determine the number of grants and funding amount the NIH allocated for COVID-19 by research type and clinical/scientific area. The secondary outcome was to calculate the time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date.ResultsThe NIH awarded a total of 56 169 grants in 2020, of which 2.0% (n=1108) wwas allocated for COVID-19 research. The NIH had a US$45.3 billion budget that year, of which 4.9% (US$2.2 billion) was allocated to COVID-19 research. The most common clinical/scientific areas were social determinants of health (n=278, 8.5% of COVID-19 funding), immunology (n=211, 25.8%) and pharmaceutical interventions research (n=208, 47.6%). There were 104 grants studying COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions, of which 2 grants studied the efficacy of face masks and 6 studied the efficacy of social distancing. Of the 83 COVID-19 funded grants on transmission, 5 were awarded to study airborne transmission of COVID-19 and 2 grants on transmission of COVID-19 in schools. The average time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date was 151 days (SD: ±57.9).ConclusionIn the first year of the pandemic, the NIH diverted a small fraction of its budget to COVID-19 research. Future health emergencies will require research funding to pivot in a timely fashion and funding levels to be proportional to the anticipated burden of disease in the population.
| S-EPMC9096053 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe degree to which the allocation of disease-specific research funding by the NIH is proportional to disease burden is an important question. This study examined the historical relationship between NIH funding allocation and disease burden for a variety of medical conditions.Study designCoefficients of relatedness for the linear relationships between funding and disease burden for 27 medical conditions over a period exceeding twenty years were calculated.MethodsPublicly available data from 2009 to 2019, and previously published data from 1994 to 2004, was obtained to compare disease-specific research funding from the NIH to burden of disease values (mortality, prevalence, incidence, DALYs, and YLLs) for 27 diseases.ResultsWe identified very weak and declining correlations (e.g., R2 < 0.03) between funding and the five measures of burden for the 27 diseases. The weak relationships persist even when HIV/AIDS is omitted (e.g., R2 < 0.1). A recent decline in the overall strengths of the funding burden relationships is attributable to novel investment in Alzheimer's disease research.ConclusionsThe weak correlations reveal long-standing inefficiencies in the NIH disease funding allocation process. The recent increased and focused funding for Alzheimer's disease may not be justified by an objective analysis which considers disease burdens. Increased efficiency of medical research may be realized by improving the poor match between disease burden and funding allocation.
| S-EPMC11754078 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent literature suggests that the future of surgeon-scientists in the US has been threatened for the past several decades. However, we documented an overall increase in NIH funding for surgeon-scientists, as well as the number of NIH-funded surgeons, from 2010 to 2020.Study designNIH-funded principal investigators (PIs) were identified for June 2010 and June 2020 using the NIH internal data platform iSearch Grants (version 2.4). Biographical sketches were searched for key terms to identify surgeon-scientists. Grant research types and total grant costs were collected. American Association of Medical Colleges data were used to determine total surgeon and physician populations. Bivariate chi-square analyses were performed using population totals and were corroborated using z-tests of population proportions using JMP (version 13.0.0). A 2-tailed p value <0.05 was considered significant.ResultsIn June of 2020, a total of 1,031 surgeon-scientists held $872,456,710 in NIH funding. The percentage of funded surgeons significantly increased from 2010 (0.5%) to 2020 (0.7%) (p < 0.05), and the percentage of funded other physicians significantly decreased from 2.2% in 2010 to 1.6% in 2020 (p < 0.05). All surgeons sustained R grant funding at both time points (58% in 2020 and 60% in 2010), and specifically maintained basic science-focused R grants (73% in 2020 and 78% in 2010).ConclusionsOur study found surgeon-scientists are increasing in number and NIH funding and are becoming more diverse in their research efforts, while maintaining a focus on basic science.
| S-EPMC9376791 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We quantify the impact of scientific grant funding at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on patenting by pharmaceutical and biotechnology firms. Our paper makes two contributions. First, we use newly constructed bibliometric data to develop a method for flexibly linking specific grant expenditures to private-sector innovations. Second, we take advantage of idiosyncratic rigidities in the rules governing NIH peer review to generate exogenous variation in funding across research areas. Our results show that NIH funding spurs the development of private-sector patents: a $10 million boost in NIH funding leads to a net increase of 2.3 patents. Though valuing patents is difficult, we report a range of estimates for the private value of these patents using different approaches.
| S-EPMC6818650 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Investments in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) research, guided by the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee (IACC), have focused disproportionately on etiology over a well-established stakeholder priority area: research to improve accessibility and quality of community-based services. This study analyzed National Institutes of Health ASD services research funding from 2008 to 2018 to examine funding patterns, evaluate the impact of IACC objectives, and identify future directions. Approximately 9% of total funds were allocated to services research. This investment remained relatively stable across time and lacked diversity across domains (e.g., area of focus, ages sampled, implementation strategies used). While advancements were observed, including increased prevalence of projects focused on adult samples and on dissemination/implementation and prevention areas, greater investment in service research is critically needed.
| S-EPMC8035332 | biostudies-literature