Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 9 June 2009 | 459, 763 (2009) | doi:10.1038/459763a
News
Grant applications swamp agency
Peer-review system for National Institutes of Health grants is stretched to its limits.
The US National Institutes of Health, already groaning under the weight of grant applications brought on by a $10.4-billion economic stimulus package, is likely to be inundated with a second tidal wave of applications this autumn that would send success rates plummeting, agency officials predict.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
I am surprised by the reaction of those at NIH to a situation that was essentially created by the decisions that NIH made about how to handle disbursement of stimulus funds at their disposal. At NSF, for example, a decision was made to fund grant applications that had already been submitted, reviewed, and deemed of scientific merit but "on the bubble" with regard to fundability because of payline issues. This seems a much more rational approach, and eliminates the need for a mad scramble to submit (on the part of the universities) and review (on the part of the funding agency).
To address the gold rush and "irresponsible behaviour" of University Deans and Administrators, indirect cost rates returned on ARRA Stimulus Grants should be capped at 10% (a typical rate for private funding agencies such as the American Heart Association) versus the 40-70% negotiated rates that are normally used. The savings would allow more research investigators and projects to be funded in the 2 year time window (which is the public intent), and prevent the creation of bloated administrative coffers.
The research deans are behaving as completely rational actors--maximizing their institutions' chances for funding in an unregulated system. This is hardly irresponsible behavior. If the NIH wishes in turn to regulate the system to decrease the number of applicants (a rational response), then it should do so by, say, a cap per organizational entity, scaled directly or inversely (depending on how egalitarian one wishes to be) by existing NIH support, and encouraging discussion between deans and investigators to pick a few submissions optimized with respect to whatever criteria are deemed appropriate by the institution. Although many will not have the opportunity to get out the door of their institutions, comfort could be taken in the knowledge that within the current review system, they were 99% certain not to be funded anyway.
There is clearly great interest in R01 type grants. There should be more money going into these programs. As for the comments above, putting quotas on the number of projects an institution can submit would be the worst way of dealing this.