Longitudinal analysis of National Institutes of Health funding for academic thoracic surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for academic (noncardiac) thoracic surgeons at the top-140 NIH-funded institutes in the United States was assessed. We hypothesized that thoracic surgeons have difficulty in obtaining NIH funding in a difficult funding climate. METHODS: The top-140 NIH-funded institutes' faculty pages were searched for noncardiac thoracic surgeons. Surgeon data, including gender, academic rank, and postfellowship training were recorded. These surgeons were then queried in NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results for their funding history. Analysis of the resulting grants (1980-2019) included grant type, funding amount, project start/end dates, publications, and a citation-based Grant Impact Metric to evaluate productivity. RESULTS: A total of 395 general thoracic surgeons were evaluated with 63 (16%) receiving NIH funding. These 63 surgeons received 136 grants totaling $228 million, resulting in 1772 publications, and generating more than 50,000 citations. Thoracic surgeons have obtained NIH funding at an increasing rate (1980-2019); however, they have a low percentage of R01 renewal (17.3%). NIH-funded thoracic surgeons were more likely to have a higher professorship level. Thoracic surgeons perform similarly to other physician-scientists in converting K-Awards into R01 funding. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypothesis, thoracic surgeons have received more NIH funding over time. Thoracic surgeons are able to fill the roles of modern surgeon-scientists by obtaining NIH funding during an era of increasing clinical demands. The NIH should continue to support this mission.

Toward an Anti-Racist Approach to Biomedical and Neuroscience Research.

Racism is a threat to public health. Race is a sociopolitical construct that has been used for generations to create disparities in educational access, housing conditions, exposure to environmental contaminants, and access to health care. Collectively, these disparities have a negative impact on the health of non-white Americans. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds biomedical research, including basic neuroscience research, aimed at understanding the mechanisms and consequences of health and disease in Americans. NIH has recently acknowledged its own structural racism, the disadvantage this perpetuates in the biomedical research enterprise, and has announced its commitment to eliminating these disparities. Here, we discuss different rates of disease in U.S. citizens from different racial backgrounds. We next describe ways in which the biomedical research enterprise (1) has contributed to health disparities and (2) can contribute to the solving this problem. Based on our own scientific expertise, we use neuroscience in general and mental health/addiction disorders more specifically as examples of a broader issue. The NIH, including its neuroscience-focused Institutes, and NIH-funded scientists, including neuroscientists, should prioritize research topics that reflect the health conditions that affect all Americans, not just white Americans.

NIH Funding of Researchers in Surgery: Decreased Career Development Awards Over Time.

BACKGROUND: Over time, NIH funding has become increasingly competitive. In addition, academic surgeons' research competes with time required for patient care, operating, and administrative work. Due to these competing interests for surgeons, we hypothesize that the percentage of NIH grants awarded to researchers from departments of surgery is decreasing. METHODS: The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was queried for the number and value of new and renewal R01 grants, and career development awards noting which surgery departments received awards from 1998 to -2018. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The number of career development awards granted to researchers from departments of surgery decreased significantly over time (P = 0.007) while new R01's and R01 renewal awards were stable. The number of grants awarded to researchers from all procedural departments were compared to non-procedural departments and again, career development awards decreased significantly (P = 0.005) over time but new R01's and R01 renewals stayed stable. Looking at the difference in average dollar amount received for new R01, renewal R01, or career development awards between department of surgery awardees and non-surgery over time, there was no significant difference. CONCLUSIONS: NIH funding is becoming increasingly competitive and surgeons have many competing interests. Our study found that there has been a significant decrease in career development awards to department of surgery awardees and procedural specialists. The decrease in receipt of these awards is particularly concerning given that they are meant to provide protected time for developing researchers and thus have potential consequences for future research.

Associations of topic-specific peer review outcomes and institute and center award rates with funding disparities at the National Institutes of Health.

A previous report found an association of topic choice with race-based funding disparities among R01 applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health ('NIH') between 2011 and 2015. Applications submitted by African American or Black ('AAB') Principal Investigators ('PIs') skewed toward a small number of topics that were less likely to be funded (or 'awarded'). It was suggested that lower award rates may be related to topic-related biases of peer reviewers. However, the report did not account for differential funding ecologies among NIH Institutes and Centers ('ICs'). In a re-analysis, we find that 10% of 148 topics account for 50% of applications submitted by AAB PIs. These applications on 'AAB Preferred' topics were funded at lower rates, but peer review outcomes were similar. The lower rate of funding for these topics was primarily due to their assignment to ICs with lower award rates, not to peer-reviewer preferences.

NIH Funding for Surgeon-Scientists in the US: What Is the Current Status?

BACKGROUND: Recent 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 DESIGN: NIH-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. RESULTS: In 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). CONCLUSIONS: Our 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.

Trends Over a Decade in NIH Funding for Autism Spectrum Disorder Services Research.

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.

Contributors to Independent Research Funding Success from the Perspective of K12 BIRCWH Program Directors.

INTRODUCTION: Faculty training awards are an important means of advancing early career faculty in research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women's Health (BIRCWH) is a long-running K12 career development program and has been integral in promoting the research success of faculty nationally. We surveyed BIRCWH program directors to understand factors likely to influence long-term research careers and funding success. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We developed an online survey containing open-ended questions about individual and programmatic attributes and activities that promote success in achieving independent research funding. Domains of interest included: 1) strategies for funding success; 2) traits for predicting success; 3) groups considered vulnerable to attrition; and 4) existing resources and means of support. RESULTS: Fifteen institutions (75%) were included in the final analysis. Passion for research, persistence, resilience, and strong mentorship relationships were identified by all directors as factors important to scholar success. Responses also revealed an important pattern: program directors attributed attrition either to individual or organizational characteristics. This distinction has meaningful consequences for framing efforts to diminish attrition. Faculty who were clinicians, women, parents and underrepresented minorities were identified as vulnerable to attrition from the research careers. Common perceived challenges in these groups included isolation/feeling alienated, juggling numerous priorities, inadequate research time, lack of role models, and work-life balance issues. CONCLUSION: K12 BIRCWH directors identified persistence and resilience and developing community, networks, and other support opportunities as elements of scholar success. Programs and mentors can help early career faculty by teaching skills and providing tools they can use to maximize the value of these opportunities and expand their mentees' research relationships. Our study also highlights the importance of social factors, particularly isolation, on clinicians, women, and minoritized scholars on career success.

Critical NIH Resources to Advance Therapies for Pain: Preclinical Screening Program and Phase II Human Clinical Trial Network.

Opioid-related death and overdose have now reached epidemic proportions. In response to this public health crisis, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched the Helping to End Addiction Long-term InitiativeSM, or NIH HEAL InitiativeSM, an aggressive, trans-agency effort to speed scientific solutions to stem the national opioid public health crisis. Herein, we describe two NIH HEAL Initiative programs to accelerate development of non-opioid, non-addictive pain treatments: The Preclinical Screening Platform for Pain (PSPP) and Early Phase Pain Investigation Clinical Network (EPPIC-Net). These resources are provided at no cost to investigators, whether in academia or industry and whether within the USA or internationally. Both programs consider small molecules, biologics, devices, and natural products for acute and chronic pain, including repurposed and combination drugs. Importantly, confidentiality and intellectual property are protected. The PSPP provides a rigorous platform to identify and profile non-opioid, non-addictive therapeutics for pain. Accepted assets are evaluated in in vitro functional assays to rule out opioid receptor activity and to assess abuse liability. In vivo pharmacokinetic studies measure plasma and brain exposure to guide the dose range and pretreatment times for the side effect profile, efficacy, and abuse liability. Studies are conducted in accordance with published rigor criteria. EPPIC-Net provides academic and industry investigators with expert infrastructure for phase II testing of pain therapeutics across populations and the lifespan. For assets accepted after a rigorous, objective scientific review process, EPPIC-Net provides clinical trial design, management, implementation, and analysis.

NIH funding trends to US medical schools from 2009 to 2018.

Total NIH funding dollars have increased from 2009-2018. We questioned whether this growth has occurred proportionately around the country and throughout allopathic medical schools. Therefore, we compared the trend in NIH grant funding from 2009 to 2018 for United States allopathic medical schools among historically top-funded schools, private and public schools, and by region of the country. Changes in both unadjusted and real funding dollars over time revealed a significant difference. Region was the only significant factor for mean percent change in funding from 2009-2018, with the Western region showing a 33.79% increase in purchasing power. The Northeastern region showed a -6.64% decrease in purchasing power while the Central and Southern regions reported changes of 2.46% and -6.08%, respectively. The mean percent increases were more proportional and nonsignificant in the public vs. private institutions comparison, at -3.41% and 4.75%, respectively. Likewise, the top-funded institutions vs. other institutions comparisons demonstrated modest, nonsignificant differences. However, although the relative changes might be proportional, the absolute increases evidence a pattern of growing cumulative advantage that favor the highest-funded institutions and private institutions. The potential consequences of this disproportionate increase include health science education, biomedical research, and patient access disparities in large parts of the country. The NIH and the scientific community should explore potential solutions in its funding models.

NIH funding and the pursuit of edge science.

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.

National Institutes of Health Research Plan on Rehabilitation: Analysis and Progress.

OBJECTIVE: To summarize the progress toward the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Plan on Rehabilitation goals and the methods by which tracking occurred. DESIGN: Each grant award was manually coded by NIH staff for research plan goals, type of science categories (eg, basic, applied, infrastructure, etc), and if applicable, training, and then validated by NIH institute and center (IC) experts. Data for years 2015 through 2017 were used to develop a coding algorithm to automatically code grants in 2018 for validation by NIH IC experts. Additional data for all years (2015-2018) were also analyzed to track changes and progress. SETTING: The research utilized administrative data from NIH Reporter and internal NIH databases. PARTICIPANTS: The data sample included research grants and programs funded from fiscal years 2015 through 2018. The year 2015 was considered a baseline year as the research plan was published in 2016. INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measures were substantial growth in NIH funding and numbers of awards for rehabilitation research, across most research plan goals and types of science, as well as validation of an automatic algorithm for coding grants. RESULTS: Number of grants, funding dollars, funding mechanisms, patent data, scientific influence and translational science, research plan goals, and type of science categories were tracked across years (2015-2018). Algorithm validation is presented for 2018 data. CONCLUSIONS: NIH advanced the goals stated in the Research Plan on Rehabilitation, but gap areas remain. Though funding in this portfolio is growing, continued focus and participation by the field is needed to advance rehabilitation science.

Gender disparities in academic vascular surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery. METHODS: Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis. RESULTS: We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P < .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P < .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P < .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P < .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P < .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P < .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P < .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P < .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery.

Comprehensive National Institutes of Health funding analysis of academic cardiac surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To determine trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for cardiac surgeons, hypothesizing they are at a disadvantage in obtaining funding owing to intensive clinical demands. METHODS: Cardiac surgeons (adult/congenital) currently at the top 141 NIH-funded institutions were identified using institutional websites. The NIH funding history for each cardiac surgeon was queried using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER). Total grant funding, publications, and type was collected. Academic rank, secondary degrees, and fellowship information was collected from faculty pages. Grant productivity was calculated using a validated grant impact metric. RESULTS: A total of 818 academic cardiac surgeons were identified, of whom 144 obtained 293 NIH grants totaling $458 million and resulting in 6694 publications. We identified strong associations between an institution's overall NIH funding rank and the number of cardiac surgeons, NIH grants to cardiac surgeons, and amount of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons (P < .0001 for all). The majority of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons is concentrated in the top quartile of institutions. Cardiac surgeons had a high conversion rates from K awards (mentored development awards) to R01s (6 of 14; 42.9%). Finally, we demonstrate that the rate of all NIH grants awarded to cardiac surgeons has increased, driven primarily by P and U (collaborative project) grants. CONCLUSIONS: NIH-funded cardiac surgical research has had a significant impact over the last 3 decades. Aspiring cardiac surgeon-scientists may be more successful at top quartile institutions owing to better infrastructure and mentorship.

National Institutes of Health-Funded Anesthesiology Research and Anesthesiology Physician-Scientists: Trends, Promises, and Concerns.

With a difficult National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding climate, the pipeline of physician-scientists in Anesthesiology is continuing to get smaller with fewer new entrants. This article studies current NIH funding trends and offers potential solutions to continue the historical trend of academic innovation and research that has characterized academic Anesthesiology. Using publicly available data, specifically the NIH REPORTeR and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research, we examined NIH trends in funding in academic Anesthesiology departments that have Anesthesiology residency training programs. When adjusted for inflation, median NIH funding of departments of Anesthesiology declined approximately 15% between 2008 and 2017. The majority (55%) of NIH funding to academic Anesthesiology departments, including R01 and K-series grants, went to 10 departments in the United States. This trend has remained relatively constant for the 9-year period we studied (2009-2017). There is an inequitable distribution of NIH funding to Anesthesiology departments. Arguably, this may be a case of the "rich get richer," but the implications for those who are trying to become or remain NIH-funded investigators are that success may depend, in part, on securing a faculty position in one of these well-funded departments.

Assessment of Prevention Research Measuring Leading Risk Factors and Causes of Mortality and Disability Supported by the US National Institutes of Health.

Importance: No studies to date have examined support by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for primary and secondary prevention research in humans and related methods research that measures the leading risk factors or causes of death or disability as outcomes or exposures. Objective: To characterize NIH support for such research. Design and Setting: This serial cross-sectional study randomly sampled NIH grants and cooperative agreements funded during fiscal years 2012 through 2017. For awards with multiple subprojects, each was treated as a separate project. Study characteristics, outcomes, and exposures were coded from October 2015 through February 2019. Analyses weighted to reflect the sampling scheme were completed in March through June 2019. Using 2017 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and 2016 data from the Global Burden of Disease project, the leading risk factors and causes of death and disability in the United States were identified. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the percentage of the NIH prevention research portfolio measuring a leading risk factor or cause of death or disability as an outcome or exposure. Results: A total of 11 082 research projects were coded. Only 25.9% (95% CI, 24.0%-27.8%) of prevention research projects measured a leading cause of death as an outcome or exposure, although these leading causes were associated with 74.0% of US mortality. Only 34.0% (95% CI, 32.2%-35.9%) measured a leading risk factor for death, although these risk factors were associated with 57.3% of mortality. Only 31.4% (95% CI, 29.6%-33.3%) measured a leading risk factor for disability-adjusted life-years lost, although these risk factors were associated with 42.1% of disability-adjusted life-years lost. Relatively few projects included a randomized clinical trial (24.6%; 95% CI, 22.5%-26.9%) or involved more than 1 leading cause (3.3%; 95% CI, 2.6%-4.1%) or risk factor (8.8%; 95% CI, 7.9%-9.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cross-sectional study, the leading risk factors and causes of death and disability were underrepresented in the NIH prevention research portfolio relative to their burden. Because so much is already known about these risk factors and causes, and because randomized interventions play such a vital role in the development of clinical and public health guidelines, it appears that greater attention should be given to develop and test interventions that address these risk factors and causes, addressing multiple risk factors or causes when possible.

Why Public Comments Matter: The Case of the National Institutes of Health Policy on Single Institutional Review Board Review of Multicenter Studies.

PURPOSE: In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) requested public comments on a draft policy requiring NIH-funded, U.S.-based investigators to use a single institutional review board (sIRB) for ethical review of multicenter studies. The authors conducted a directed content analysis and qualitative summary of the comments and discuss how they shaped the final policy. METHOD: Two reviewers independently assessed support for the policy from a review of comments on the draft policy in 2016. A reviewer conducted an open text review to identify prespecified and additional comment themes. A second researcher reviewed 20% of comments; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. RESULTS: The NIH received 167 comments: 65% (108/167) supportive of the policy, 23% (38/167) not supportive, and 12% (21/167) not indicating support. Clarifications or changes to the policy were suggested in 102/167 comments (61%). Criteria for selecting sIRBs were addressed in 32/102 comments (31%). Also addressed were institutional review board (IRB) responsibilities (39/102; 38%), cost (27/102; 26%), the role of local IRBs (14/102; 14%), and allowable policy exceptions (19/102; 19%). The NIH further clarified or provided guidance for selection criteria, IRB responsibilities, and cost in the final policy (June 2016). Local IRB reviews and exemptions guidance were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: In this case study, public comments were effective in shaping policy as the NIH modified provisions or planned supplemental guidance in response to comments. Yet critical knowledge gaps remain, and empirical data are necessary. The NIH is considering mechanisms to support the establishment of best practices for sIRB implementation.