Researchers say the NIH is staggering grant reviews in order to save money.

Infectious disease researchers are irate over a decision by the US National Institutes of Health to shorten the length of some existing grants by three to six months.

The US National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) recently announced a second round of what it calls “grant recycling.” Under the program, some four- and five-year grants for research on HIV/AIDS, malaria and other infectious diseases will end earlier than expected.

The primary reason for the change, according to NIAID, is to stagger the agency's grant-review workload through the year. But many researchers say the program is a thinly veiled budget cut.

The negative effects of the extended policy are clear, says Dennis Burton, an immunologist at The Scripps Research Institute in California who has NIAID grants for his work on neutralizing antibodies against HIV. “Less research can be done and planning is disturbed,” says Burton. “Renewals come around more quickly, increasing the time spent on paperwork rather than getting the job done.”

Less research can be done and planning is disturbed. , Dennis Burton, The Scripps Research Institute

Shorter grants also mean that scientists are not funded for the length of time needed to complete the project, others note, which in turn affects their chances of renewing a grant.

Impact aside, scientists also say they are upset about the way the changes were handled. NIAID had introduced this scheme once before in 2001 and promised then that it would not be repeated, they note. The changes are also being presented as a way to streamline review, when they are really designed to reduce costs.

John McGowan, NIAID's director of extramural activities says that, to his knowledge, the agency never made any absolute promises to researchers. “We probably did say we were going to embark on a four-year plan and this would go away after we got things back into balance,” he says. “But we didn't get things in balance because of biodefense funding.”

In 2003, NIAID received an additional $1.5 million for biodefense research. Because that added new grants to the busy second half of the fiscal year, McGowan says, NIAID needed to further readjust the review schedule. “[The biodefense money] sort of blew that plan out of the water and we had to start over again,” he says.

Of 717 new grants awarded thus far for the 2005 fiscal year ending September 30, 105 have been cut. By the end of the fiscal year, 318 out of 1,435 are likely to be affected, McGowan says.

Some scientists say they might respond by padding their budget requests in anticipation of unexpected reductions. Others took the plan in stride. Harvard University researcher Joseph G. Sodroski saw his grant reduced in the last round and had to spend more time writing proposals. “Despite this fact,” he says, “I can't complain about our funding situation or our research progress.”

http://www.niaid.nih.gov/ncn/newsletters/2005/0422.htm#n02