NIH stumbles on 'pass the harasser'.

Agency allowed transfer of grants and handed new money to David Gilbert, despite "severe" behavior.

Perspectives on National Institutes of Health Funding Requirements for Racial and Ethnic Diversity Among Medical Scientist Training Program Leadership.

Importance: Since 1964, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) MD-PhD program at medical schools across the US to support training physician-scientists. Recent studies have suggested that MSTPs have consistently matriculated more students from racial and ethnic backgrounds historically underrepresented in science than MD-PhD programs without NIH funding; however, the underlying basis for the increased diversity seen in NIH-funded MSTPs is poorly understood. Objective: To investigate how administrators and faculty perceive the impact of MSTP status on MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used a positive deviance approach to identify 9 high-performing and 3 low-performing MSTPs based on the percentage of students underrepresented in science who matriculated into the program between 2014 and 2018. This study, a subanalysis of a larger study to understand recruitment of students underrepresented in science at MSTPs, focused on in-depth qualitative interviews, conducted from October 26, 2020, to August 31, 2022, of 69 members of MSTP leadership, including program directors, associate and assistant program directors, and program administrators. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association of NIH funding with institutional priorities, programs, and practices related to MD-PhD program matriculant racial and ethnic diversity. Results: The study included 69 participants (mean [SD] age, 53 [10] years; 38 women [55%]; 13 African American or Black participants [19%], 6 Asian participants [9%], 12 Hispanic participants [17%], and 36 non-Hispanic White participants [52%]). A total of 51 participants (74%) were in administrative roles, and 18 (26%) were faculty involved in recruitment. Five themes emerged from the data: (1) by tying MSTP funding to diversity efforts, the NIH created a sense of urgency among MSTP leadership to bolster matriculant diversity; (2) MD-PhD program leadership leveraged the changes to MSTP grant review to secure new institutional investments to promote recruitment of students underrepresented in science; (3) MSTPs increasingly adopted holistic review to evaluate applicants to meet NIH funding requirements; (4) MSTP leadership began to systematically assess the effectiveness of their diversity initiatives and proactively identify opportunities to enhance matriculant diversity; and (5) although all MSTPs were required to respond to NIH criteria, changes made by low-performing programs generally lacked the robustness demonstrated by high-performing programs. Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that NIH funding requirements may be a powerful incentive to promote diversity and positively affect representation of students underrepresented in science in the biomedical scientific workforce.

Lauer opens up.

In March, Science published a news story by Jeffrey Mervis that chronicled five cases of individuals, mostly Chinese or of Chinese descent, whose research careers were disrupted or ended by personnel actions taken by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH). As I wrote in an accompanying editorial, these moves have eroded trust in the NIH and chilled important collaborations with China. The failure of the NIH to adequately explain and document publicly the reasons behind these actions has allowed the scientific community to assume the worst.

Calculated decisions: Pediatric NIHSS Stroke Scale (PedNIHSS).

This supplement reviews the evidence and applications for Pediatric NIH Stroke Scale, which quantifies stroke severity using a child-specific version of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Score.

Racial and ethnic disparities in postpartum weight retention: A narrative review mapping the literature to the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities Research Framework.

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: A Review of the Literature Using the National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Research Framework to Create a Roadmap of the Studies Investigating Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Excess Weight Retained After Pregnancy. WHY WAS THIS STUDY DONE?: Three out of four people who give birth retain excess weight at 1-year post-pregnancy. This is concerning, as weight that is retained following pregnancy is associated with increased risk for the development of disease. People from racial and ethnic minority groups experience weight retention more frequently post-pregnancy. Black and Hispanic/Latina/o/x birthing people are more likely to begin pregnancy overweight or obese. They are also more likely to retain excess weight following pregnancy. Investigating these risks in people from racially/ethnically diverse backgrounds may be an important way to address disparities in excess weight retained post-pregnancy. WHAT DID THE RESEARCHERS DO?: This review of the literature used a tool called the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Research Framework to map the literature to date on racial and ethnic disparities in excess weight retained post-pregnancy. WHAT DID THE RESEARCHERS FIND?: We used the NIMHD Research Framework as a visual guide of the existing research about excess weight retained following pregnancy. Results illustrate the levels and domains at which research has been investigated. These results reveal that efforts have been focused at the individual level, with most attention given to diet and activity. Mapping the literature to the NIMHD Research Framework sheds light on gaps in the research. WHAT DO THE FINDINGS MEAN?: Mapping the literature has revealed a need for investigations that make connections between the levels and domains of the Framework, so that we may understand underlying factors that contribute to health disparities.

US National Institutes of Health Prioritization of SARS-CoV-2 Variants.

Since late 2020, SARS-CoV-2 variants have regularly emerged with competitive and phenotypic differences from previously circulating strains, sometimes with the potential to escape from immunity produced by prior exposure and infection. The Early Detection group is one of the constituent groups of the US National Institutes of Health National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases SARS-CoV-2 Assessment of Viral Evolution program. The group uses bioinformatic methods to monitor the emergence, spread, and potential phenotypic properties of emerging and circulating strains to identify the most relevant variants for experimental groups within the program to phenotypically characterize. Since April 2021, the group has prioritized variants monthly. Prioritization successes include rapidly identifying most major variants of SARS-CoV-2 and providing experimental groups within the National Institutes of Health program easy access to regularly updated information on the recent evolution and epidemiology of SARS-CoV-2 that can be used to guide phenotypic investigations.

Science, interrupted: Funding delays reduce research activity but having more grants helps.

I study how scientists respond to interruptions in the flow of their research funding, focusing on research grants at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which awards multi-year, renewable grants. However, there can be delays during the renewal process. Over a period beginning three months before and ending one year after these delays, I find that interrupted labs reduce overall spending by 50% but over 90% in the month with the largest decrease. This change in spending is mostly driven by a decrease in payments to employees that is partially mitigated when scientists have other grants to draw on.

Comparison of Research Spending on New Drug Approvals by the National Institutes of Health vs the Pharmaceutical Industry, 2010-2019.

Importance: Government and the pharmaceutical industry make substantive contributions to pharmaceutical innovation. This study compared the investments by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and industry and estimated the cost basis for assessing the balance of social and private returns. Objectives: To compare NIH and industry investments in recent drug approvals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study of NIH funding associated with drugs approved by the FDA from 2010 to 2019 was conducted from May 2020 to July 2022 and accounted for basic and applied research, failed clinical candidates, and discount rates for government spending compared with analogous estimates of industry investment. Main Outcomes and Measures: Costs from the NIH for research associated with drug approvals. Results: Funding from the NIH was contributed to 354 of 356 drugs (99.4%) approved from 2010 to 2019 totaling $187 billion, with a mean (SD) $1344.6 ($1433.1) million per target for basic research on drug targets and $51.8 ($96.8) million per drug for applied research on products. Including costs for failed clinical candidates, mean (SD) NIH costs were $1441.5 ($1372.0) million per approval or $1730.3 ($1657.6) million per approval, estimated with a 3% discount rate. The mean (SD) NIH spending was $2956.0 ($3106.3) million per approval with a 10.5% cost of capital, which estimates the cost savings to industry from NIH spending. Spending and approval by NIH for 81 first-to-target drugs was greater than reported industry spending on 63 drugs approved from 2010 to 2019 (difference, -$1998.4 million; 95% CI, -$3302.1 million to -$694.6 million; P = .003). Spending from the NIH was not less than industry spending considering clinical failures, a 3% discount rate for NIH spending, and a 10.5% cost of capital for the industry (difference, -$1435.3 million; 95% CI, -$3114.6 million to $244.0 million; P = .09) or when industry spending included prehuman research (difference, -$1394.8 million; 95% CI, -$3774.8 million to $985.2 million; P = .25). Accounting for spillovers of NIH-funded basic research on drug targets to multiple products, NIH costs were $711.3 million with a 3% discount rate, which was less than the range of reported industry costs with 10.5% cost of capital. Conclusions and Relevance: The results of this cross-sectional study found that NIH investment in drugs approved from 2010 to 2019 was not less than investment by the pharmaceutical industry, with comparable accounting for basic and applied research, failed clinical trials, and cost of capital or discount rates. The relative scale of NIH and industry investment may provide a cost basis for calibrating the balance of social and private returns from investments in pharmaceutical innovation.

Engaging diverse populations in aging research during the COVID-19 pandemic: Lessons learned from four National Institutes of Health funded-Centers.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic's impact on our personal and professional lives required a rapid adaptation to the evolving health crisis and accumulating social stresses. Established measures to reduce the spread of infection and potential death had a direct effect on ongoing research that involved older adults and underrepresented racial/ethnic groups. Although important to preserve public health, these measures risk further isolation of vulnerable research participant populations and threatened established community partnerships. To address the social and research challenges evolving from the COVID-19 pandemic, four National Institutes of Health funded-Centers that engage with community members to enhance research and advance the science of aging came together to learn from each other's efforts, approaches, and communication with community partners. Methods: Monthly meetings served as a venue to discuss the challenges of engagement with research participants and support community partners during the pandemic. The developed learning community also contributed to recognize and address research staff stress and isolation. We describe how these conversations led our Centers to address unprecedented challenges and sustain community engagement within diverse populations, especially Black/African Americans, Latinos, Middle Eastern/Arab Americans and the oldest-old. Results: The exchange of information resulted in maintaining long standing community relationships and partnerships in the face of the uncertainties generated by the pandemic. The strategies included adapting education programs to reduce risk of infection, recognizing symptoms, promoting vaccination and understanding of the effect of COVID-19 to the brain. Different strategies were used to address the effects of isolation and maintain community engagement. Although new research participant enrollment was a challenge, telephone and virtual visits allowed research participants to remain active in research. Community members participation in virtual learning events was variable, ranging from a dozen to hundreds of participants. Invitations to organize panels about newly developed topics indicated the need for information from trusted sources. Conclusion: In sum, the COVID-19 pandemic re - directed all four Centers' commitment to community service led to developing strategies for social support, which will potentially contribute to transforming public perceptions about research and researchers.

Chronic conditions in women: the development of a National Institutes of health framework.

Rising rates of chronic conditions were cited as one of the key public health concerns in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021 U.S. Senate and House of Representatives appropriations bills, where a review of current National Institutes of Health (NIH) portfolios relevant to research on women's health was requested. Chronic conditions were last defined by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in 2010. However, existing definitions of chronic conditions do not incorporate sex or gender considerations. Sex and gender influence health, yet significant knowledge gaps exist in the evidence-base for prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic diseases amongst women. The presentation, prevalence, and long-term effects of chronic conditions and multimorbidity differs in women from men. A clinical framework was developed to adequately assess the NIH investment in research related to chronic conditions in women. The public health needs and NIH investment related to conditions included in the framework were measured. By available measures, research within the NIH has not mapped to the burden of chronic conditions among women. Clinical research questions and endpoints centered around women can be developed and implemented; clinical trials networks with expanded or extended eligibility criteria can be created; and data science could be used to extrapolate the effects of overlapping or multiple morbidities on the health of women. Aligning NIH research priorities to address the specific needs of women with chronic diseases is critical to addressing women's health needs from a life course perspective.

Shared Core Facilities Serve as Hubs for Biomedical Research Network at Institutions of Emerging Excellence.

We analyzed co-authorship patterns within the National Institutes of Health Center of Biomedical Research Excellence in Matrix Biology program from 2014 to 2022. In this study, we analyzed junior investigators, senior researchers, and research scientists within a shared core facility. Social network analysis techniques were applied to evaluate the co-authorship network based on journal publications from members of the center. The results indicated that co-authorship network visualization and analysis is a useful tool for understanding the relationship between a shared core facility and young investigators within a research center. Young investigators collaborated with and relied upon the individual research scientists of the shared core facility to serve as contributing members of their extended research team. This reliance on the shared core facility effectively increases the size and productivity of the research team led by the young investigator. Our results indicate that shared core facility staff may serve as hubs within the network of biomedical researchers, particularly at institutions with a growing research emphasis. Listen to this article.

Happy 40th, NIH Shared Instrumentation Program! The NIH Shared Instrumentation Grant Program Embraces a Promising Future.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) offers many types of funding programs and opportunities to support biomedical research. The best known of these programs, the NIH Research Project Grant Program, or R01, supports investigator-initiated research projects. Another well-known funding mechanism is the NIH Shared Instrumentation Grant Program, also known as SIG or S10. This year marks the S10's 40th anniversary. To commemorate this triumphant milestone and a successful 40 years, let's first review how this legendary and highly impactful program started.

National Institutes of Health psilocybin research speaker series: State of the science, regulatory and policy landscape, research gaps, and opportunities.

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) convened a seminal first ever psychedelic drug substance-focused speaker series, from April 22 to June 10, 2021, titled the "NIH Psilocybin Research Speaker Series." This speaker series provided evidence-based scientific information to the public and the scientific community. Its aims were to assess the current state of the science, the regulatory and policy landscape, as well as to identify gaps in knowledge and understanding, ultimately serving to define future research needs. The highlights of the lectures and discussion from 26 national and international distinguished experts served as the basis for this Special Issue of Neuropharmacology. This article is part of the Special Issue on "National Institutes of Health Psilocybin Research Speaker Series".