Browse
Submit Data
Databases
API
Help

Dataset Information

14 Views

0 Connections

0 Citations

0 Reanalyses

0 Downloads

Omics score: 0

Evaluation of a mid-career investigator career development award: Assessing the ability of OppNet K18 awardees to obtain NIH follow-on research funding.

ABSTRACT: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) K18 award mechanism provides funded opportunities for established investigators to gain knowledge in fields outside of their primary disciplines, but outcomes associated with these awards have not been evaluated to date. NIH's Basic Behavioral and Social Sciences Opportunity Network (OppNet) is one of the few initiatives that has used this award mechanism. We explored how the unique features of K18 awards affect the ability of recipients to obtain follow-on NIH research funding. We compared outcomes (ability to obtain follow-on funding and interval between receipt of the primary award and receipt of the first follow-on award) associated with OppNet K18 awards to findings from evaluations of other NIH career development (K) awards, which usually target early-career investigators. We hypothesized that K18 award recipients might be (1) more successful than are other K award recipients in obtaining follow-on NIH research funding due to their career experience or (2) less successful due to the competing demands of other projects. By analyzing follow-on NIH research awards and interview data, we found that OppNet K18 award recipients were at least as successful as were other K award recipients in obtaining follow-on funding and may have been more successful by certain measures. K18 awards produce their outcomes with a lower investment per investigator than do other K awards, suggesting continued or enhanced use of the mechanism.

SUBMITTER: Pomeroy-Carter CA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5810999 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Json Xml

Similar Datasets

Impact of an institutional grant award on early career investigator applicants and peer reviewers.

Project description:BackgroundObtaining research funding support is integral to a successful career in science. Training and practice in grant writing, as well as engagement in peer review of grant applications may help lead to successful research funding. However, there is little evidence on the impact of institutional programs on the career development of early career investigators (ECIs).ObjectivesUnderstand the impact of participation in an institutional research award program on the career development of ECIs.MethodsThe Cardiovascular Research Institute of Vermont established an Early Career Research (ECR) award program in 2018. ECIs who participated as applicants or reviewers in the first 3 years of the program (2018-2020) were surveyed to understand the impact of the ECR award program on their grant writing and professional development.ResultsNinety-four percent of 17 applicants and 90% of 19 reviewers completed the survey. Ninety-two percent of funded and 75% of unfunded applicants, and 87% of reviewers reported that the program was beneficial to their professional development. Similarly, 85% of funded applicants, 75% of unfunded applicants, and 80% of reviewers reported improvement in their grant-writing skills. All respondents reported they would recommend the ECR award program to their peers.ConclusionsThis single-institution ECR award program had a positive impact on ECI's professional development and grant-writing skills and may lead to further extramural funding opportunities.

| S-EPMC8268663 | biostudies-literature

Trends in NIH-supported career development funding: implications for institutions, trainees, and the future research workforce.

Project description: Not available

| S-EPMC7526437 | biostudies-literature

Federal Funding in Emergency Medicine: Demographics and Perspectives of Awardees.

Project description:IntroductionEmergency physicians face multiple challenges to obtaining federal funding. The objective of this investigation was to describe the demographics of federally-funded emergency physicians and identify key challenges in obtaining funding.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective database search of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (NIH RePORTER) to collect data regarding the distribution and characteristics of federally-funded grants awarded to emergency medicine (EM) principal investigators between 2010-2017. An electronic survey was then administered to the identified investigators to obtain additional demographic data, and information regarding their career paths, research environment, and perceived barriers to obtaining federal funding.ResultsWe identified 219, corresponding to 51 unique, mentored career development awardees and 105 independent investigators. Sixty-two percent of investigators responded to the electronic survey. Awardees were predominantly White males, although a larger portion of the mentored awardee group was female. Greater than half of respondents reported their mentor to be outside of the field of EM. The most common awarding institution was the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Respondents identified barriers in finding adequate mentorship, time to gather preliminary data, and the quality of administrative support.ConclusionThe last five years have showed a trend toward increasing grants awarded to EM investigators; however, we identified several barriers to funding. Initiatives geared toward support and mentorship of junior faculty, particularly to females, minorities, and those in less heavily funded areas of the country are warranted.

| S-EPMC7081857 | biostudies-literature

NIH funding longevity by gender.

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

Using democracy to award research funding: an observational study.

Project description:BackgroundWinning funding for health and medical research usually involves a lengthy application process. With success rates under 20%, much of the time spent by 80% of applicants could have been better used on actual research. An alternative funding system that could save time is using democracy to award the most deserving researchers based on votes from the research community. We aimed to pilot how such a system could work and examine some potential biases.MethodsWe used an online survey with a convenience sample of Australian researchers. Researchers were asked to name the 10 scientists currently working in Australia that they thought most deserved funding for future research. For comparison, we used recent winners from large national fellowship schemes that used traditional peer review.ResultsVoting took a median of 5 min (inter-quartile range 3 to 10 min). Extrapolating to a national voting scheme, we estimate 599 working days of voting time (95% CI 490 to 728), compared with 827 working days for the current peer review system for fellowships. The gender ratio in the votes was a more equal 45:55 (female to male) compared with 34:66 in recent fellowship winners, although this could be explained by Simpson's paradox. Voters were biased towards their own institution, with an additional 1.6 votes per ballot (inter-quartile range 0.8 to 2.2) above the expected number. Respondents raised many concerns about the idea of using democracy to fund research, including vote rigging, lobbying and it becoming a popularity contest.ConclusionsThis is a preliminary study of using voting that does not investigate many of the concerns about how a voting system would work. We were able to show that voting would take less time than traditional peer review and would spread the workload over many more reviewers. Further studies of alternative funding systems are needed as well as a wide discussion with the research community about potential changes.

| S-EPMC5803583 | biostudies-literature

Cortisol awakening response and additive serotonergic genetic risk interactively predict depression in two samples: The 2019 Donald F. Klein Early Career Investigator Award Paper.

Project description:BackgroundThe serotonin system and hypothalamic pituitary-adrenal (HPA)-axis are each implicated in the pathway to depression; human and animal research support these systems' cross-talk. Our work implicates a 5-variant additive serotoninergic multilocus genetic profile score (MGPS) and separately the cortisol awakening response (CAR) in the prospective prediction of depression; other work has shown that the serotonin transporter polymorphism 5HTTLPR predicts CAR and interacts with the CAR to predict depression.MethodsWe tested the hypothesis that a 6-variant MGPS (original plus 5HTTLPR) would interact with CAR to predict prospective depressive episode onsets in 201 emerging adults using four annual follow-up interviews. We also tested whether MGPS predicted CAR. We attempted replication of significant findings in a sample of 77 early adolescents predicting depression symptoms.ResultsIn sample 1, MGPS did not significantly predict CAR. MGPS interacted with CAR to predict depressive episodes; CAR slopes for depression steepened as MGPS increased, for risk or protection. No single variant accounted for results, though CAR's interactions with 5HTTLPR and the original MGPS were both significant. In sample 2, the 6-variant MGPS significantly interacted with CAR to predict depression symptoms.ConclusionsHigher serotonergic MGPS appears to sensitize individuals to CAR level-for better and worse-in predicting depression.

| S-EPMC8237709 | biostudies-literature

NIH disease funding levels and burden of disease.

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

NIH funding and the pursuit of edge science.

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

A cross-sectional study of predatory publishing emails received by career development grant awardees.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To investigate the scope of academic spam emails (ASEs) among career development grant awardees and the factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing them. DESIGN:A cross-sectional survey of career development grant investigators via an anonymous online survey was conducted. In addition to demographic and professional information, we asked investigators to report the number of ASEs received each day, how they determined whether these emails were spam and time they spent per day addressing them. We used bivariate analysis to assess factors associated with the amount of time spent on ASEs. SETTING:An online survey sent via email on three separate occasions between November and December 2016. PARTICIPANTS:All National Institutes of Health career development awardees funded in the 2015 fiscal year. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:Factors associated with the amount of time spent addressing ASEs. RESULTS:A total of 3492 surveys were emailed, of which 206 (5.9%) were returned as undeliverable and 96 (2.7%) reported an out-of-office message; our overall response rate was 22.3% (n=733). All respondents reported receiving ASEs, with the majority (54.4%) receiving between 1 and 10 per day and spending between 1 and 10 min each day evaluating them. The amount of time respondents reported spending on ASEs was associated with the number of peer-reviewed journal articles authored (p<0.001), a history of publishing in open access format (p<0.01), the total number of ASEs received (p<0.001) and a feeling of having missed opportunities due to ignoring these emails (p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS:ASEs are a common distraction for career development grantees that may impact faculty productivity. There is an urgent need to mitigate this growing problem.

| S-EPMC6530445 | biostudies-literature

Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010-2016.

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

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

OmicsDI is an Elixir interoperability service. Learn more ›

Tweets

OmicsDI Databases

PRIDE
PeptideAtlas
MassIVE
JPOST Repository
Physiome Model Repository

EGA
EVA
ENA
LINCS
PAXDB
Cell Collective

MetaboLights
Metabolomics Workbench
MetabolomeExpress
GNPS
BioModels
FAIRDOMHub

ArrayExpress
dbGaP
ExpressionAtlas
GEO
NODE

Information

Databases
Help
API
Contact us
Code on GitHub
Terms of use
Submit Data