NIH-funded Grants Research Articles

Trends in National Institutes of Health Funding of Principal Investigators in Dermatology Research by Academic Degree and Sex.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants are becoming increasingly competitive in the academic research arena. Identifying NIH funding disparities is an important step in improving academic diversity. To examine recent NIH funding trends in dermatology. Retrospective study with linear regression analysis and repeated-measures analysis of variance of all NIH grants awarded to departments of dermatology from fiscal year 2009 to 2014. Funding data were exported from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results. Publication data were drawn from Scopus. All NIH-funded principal investigators in dermatology were categorized by their academic degree and sex. The NIH funding trends were compared by investigator degree (MD, PhD, or MD/PhD) and sex. A total of 1292 NIH-funded grants were awarded to dermatology research from fiscal year 2009 through 2014. Adjusted NIH funding for dermatologic research diminished by 4.6% from $67.3 million in 2009 to $64.2 million in 2014, with a nadir of $58.6 million in 2013. Funding for the NIH's Research Project Grant Program (R01) decreased by 21.0% from $43.9 million to $34.7 million during this period. The dollar amount of NIH funding significantly trended down for investigators with an MD degree by $1.35 million per year from $23.6 million in 2009 to $18.4 million in 2014 (P = .02) while there was no significant change in NIH funding for MD/PhD (from $17.6 million in 2009 to $19.8 million in 2014; P = .44) and PhD investigators (from $26.1 million in 2009 to $25.9 million in 2014; P = .74). Similarly, the total dollar amount of R01 grants awarded to principal investigators with only an MD degree trended down by $1.4 million per year from $13.2 million in 2009 to $6.0 million in 2014 (P < .001). The number of female investigators with NIH grants in dermatology trended down significantly compared with the trend of their male counterparts (from 49 women in 2009 to 43 women in 2014 vs from 84 men in 2009 to 97 men in 2014; P = .04). There is a downward trend in NIH funding for female and MD-only dermatology investigators. Departmental support and junior faculty mentorship for women and MD investigators is crucial for maintaining their presence in NIH-funded dermatology research.

The state of research funding from the National Institutes of Health for criminal justice health research.

Over 20 million Americans are currently or have been incarcerated. Most are from medically underserved populations; 1 in 3 African American men and 1 in 6 Latino men born in 2001 are projected to go to prison during their lifetime. The amount of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to understand and improve the health of persons involved with the criminal justice system is unknown. To describe NIH funding for research on the health and health care needs of criminal justice-involved persons. Review of NIH grants (2008-2012) in the RePORT (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools) database. U.S. criminal justice system. Criminal justice-involved persons participating in NIH-funded clinical research. NIH research and training grants awarded, by number, type, research area, institute or center, and dollar amount. Of more than 250 000 NIH-funded grants, 180 (<0.1%) focused on criminal justice health research. The 3 most common foci were substance use or HIV (64%), mental health (11%), and juvenile health (8%). The National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute of Mental Health funded 78% of all grants. In 2012, the NIH invested $40.9 million in criminal justice health research, or 1.5% of the $2.7 billion health disparities budget for that year. NIH-supported research that did not explicitly include current or former prisoners but may have relevance to criminal justice health was not included. Federal funding for research focused on understanding and improving the health of criminal justice-involved persons is small, even compared with the NIH's overall investment in health disparities research. The NIH is well-positioned to transform the care of current and former prisoners by investing in this critical yet overlooked research area.

Gender Differences in Successful NIH Grant Funding in Otolaryngology

To evaluate gender differences in NIH funding among faculty in otolaryngology departments and discuss potential reasons for these differences. Analysis of NIH funding data available on the online NIH RePORTER system. Fiscal year 2011 and 2012 NIH funding awards to principal investigators (PIs) in otolaryngology departments were obtained and used to examine faculty listings from otolaryngology departments for academic rank and gender. The Scopus database was used to determine publication range of these faculty members. Individual mean NIH awards to men ($362,946 ± $21,247 standard error of mean) were higher than those to women ($287,188 ± $38,029). Male PIs were found to have higher mean NIH funding totals (aggregating grants for PIs with multiple awards) than female PIs ($498,593 vs $359,276). Upon organization by academic rank and years active, men had significantly higher funding levels at both the level of assistant professor and at 10 to 20 years of experience. Of all NIH grants awarded, men had a higher percentage of the more prestigious R-series grants (76.2%) than did women (63.4%). Male faculty members have higher NIH funding levels than their female colleagues, a disparity that exists separate from career longevity, as it is true both at the rank of assistant professor and for those with 10 to 20 years of research experience. The larger proportion of R-series NIH grants awarded to male faculty may contribute to this finding. This discrepancy in percentage and dollars of funding exists despite the increasing percentages of women in higher ranks.

Biochemist To Lead NIH Institute

The National Institutes of Health has selected Jon R. Lorsch, a biochemist and leader in RNA biology, to direct the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). Lorsch, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, expects to make the move to NIH this summer. He will replace Acting Director Judith H. Greenberg, who has been leading the institute since Jeremy M. Berg left for a position at the University of Pittsburgh in July 2011. As NIGMS director, Lorsch will oversee a budget of about $2.4 billion. The majority of that money funds basic research in the biomedical sciences, including more chemistry-related research than in any of the other 27 NIH institutes and centers. NIGMS supports about 11% of NIH-funded grants, or about 4,600 grants, each year. The institute is also known for supporting research training and programs intended to increase the diversity of the biomedical workforce. Calling Lorsch ...

NIH Center for Scientific Review (CSR)

NIH grant funding has dropped such that many investigators are walking away, opting for other careers or retirement. It surprises me that America spends time, money, and effort to train scientists to a high level, and then tortures them for life in an impossible grant-funding system. It also surprises me that we convince young people to pursue careers in biomedical research. Part of the problem is insufficient funds. However, another serious problem, that is always present but becomes dominant when funding drops, is a breakdown in ethics and competence at NIH Study Sections. I provide examples that have affected me, but I believe many superb investigators have been forced out of science to the detriment of biomedical research.

Abstract 1522: Elevated polyamine levels generate an immunosuppressive oncogenic microenvironment

Abstract Increased suprabasal epidermal activity of ornithine decarboxylase (ODC), a key regulatory enzyme in polyamine biosynthesis, stimulates cellular proliferation and vascularization in the underlying dermis, and promotes skin tumorigenesis after treatment with a single, subthreshold dose of a carcinogen in ODCER transgenic mice. Interestingly, skin tumor formation is also induced in ODCER transgenic mice by wounding and does not require prior carcinogen treatment. This wound-induced tumor formation is dependent on the polyamine-induction of sustained recruitment of inflammatory cells to the dermal wound site. Moreover, when weakly transformed (Ras activation) primary keratinocytes (Ker/Ras) were injected subcutaneously in syngeneic ODCER transgenic mice, tumor growth occurred while it did not in normal littermates. These data suggest the generation of an oncogenic stromal microenvironment in mice with elevated epidermal polyamine levels. Polyamine-Based Therapy (PaBT: combination of the well-characterized ODC inhibitor, difluoromethylornithine (DFMO), and an inhibitor of cellular polyamine transport, AMXT 1501) significantly inhibited tumor growth in wildtype FVB mice that were orthotopically injected with either syngeneic Ker/Ras cells or neu02 mammary tumor cells. Flow cytometry analyses of tumor inflammatory infiltrates revealed that PaBT significantly increased the percentage of CD3+ cell population (includes T cells and NK cells) and decreased the percentage of both F4/80+ (macrophage) and Gr-1+ (neutrophil and monocyte) subpopulations of CD45+ cells compared to tumors in control, non-treated mice. When PaBT treatment was stopped and tumors were resected, we re-challenged two weeks later with a second injection of neu02 tumor cells. Mice that had been previously treated with PaBT were protected from secondary tumor growth (demonstrating no or very little tumor growth) compared to mice that never received PaBT. In order to examine whether elevated polyamine biosynthesis suppresses a T-cell mediated adaptive immune response, we examined the effect of ODC overexpression in keratinocytes on a classic contact hypersensitivity (CHS) response test using ODCER transgenic mice. These mice showed reduced ear swelling in comparison to normal littermates together with reduced neutrophil infiltration and decreased migration of FITC-loaded dendritic cells to draining lymph nodes following hapten elicitation of CHS. Collectively, these data suggest that the immunosuppression mediated by increased epidermal ODC activity may contribute to an environment conducive to tumor growth, and, conversely, that depletion of tumor polyamines will block tumorigenesis in part by normalizing the stromal microenvironment and restoring tumor immune surveillance. (Supported by NIH grant CA070739 and funding from Aminex Therapeutics Inc) Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 103rd Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2012 Mar 31-Apr 4; Chicago, IL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2012;72(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 1522. doi:1538-7445.AM2012-1522

NIH Grant Funding: Why Should it Change and How

Copyright: © 2013 Niculescu MD. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. I admit that I had to take a deep breath before starting to write this editorial. When I received the JNDT’s invitation to write it, my first thought was “what would be the best and hot subject in my field? Nutrition, epigenetics, metabolomics?” Then, almost painfully, I realized (again) that, for many of us who dedicate most of our life time to science here in US (but not only), the hottest subject is, oddly enough, not THE SCIENCE. It is rather the MEANS we need to do science. Meaning FUNDING. So I decided that talking about NIH funding is a great topic, albeit extremely controversial. But I do this not only to point out to the mechanisms that, in my opinion, are plainly broken, but also to propose an alternative to a system that became frustrating, discouraging, and maybe partially obsolete for an increasing legion of scientists (both junior and senior).

Interview with Aimee McRae-Clark, Pharm.D., BCPP

Dr. Aimee McRae-Clark is an Associate Professor of Psychiatry at the Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston, South Carolina. Her clinical and research expertise is in substance use disorders, pharmacotherapy, and dual diagnoses. Aside from educating students, Dr. McRae-Clark is involved in grant-funded research as well as producing numerous publications. The following interview provides insight into Dr. McRae-Clark's practice, as well as advice on research, to help pharmacists generate ideas on how substance abuse and dependence might be integrated into their practice.As a Pharm.D. student, I had the opportunity to do a rotation on an inpatient substance use unit. By specializing in substance use disorders, I felt that my pharmacy background would be ideal not only in developing a better understanding of the effects of illicit drugs, but also for developing potential treatments in this area.I received my BS in pharmacy from the University of Georgia and completed my post-baccalaureate Pharm.D. at the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC). I continued at MUSC to complete a residency in psychopharmacy practice and a two-year National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) research fellowship. I was fortunate to then be awarded a K23 Mentored Career Development Award from NIDA, which provided support and resources for five additional years of focused training in drug abuse research.I spend most of my time overseeing ongoing research projects, writing manuscripts, and developing new grant submissions. I am also actively involved in teaching and mentoring junior faculty.Pharmacists can play a variety of roles in research. I have served as Prinicipal Investigator (PI) on several NIH-funded grants. I have also participated as a co-investigator on multiple additional projects, providing guidance on medication dosage, drug interactions, and regulatory requirements (such as obtaining INDs from the FDA). I work with a multidisciplinary team with complementary areas of expertise. For example, my co-investigators typically include addiction psychiatrists, a physician assistant, clinical psychologists, and statisticians.I am currently PI of an R01 from NIDA evaluating the efficacy of buspirone in conjunction with contingency management and motivational enhancement therapy for the treatment of marijuana dependence. I am also co-PI of a component of a large center grant focused on women's health; our component is utilizing a pharmacological stressor to explore gender differences in cocaine craving. I am also involved in a multisite medication treatment trial for cocaine dependence, as well as several other clinical laboratory studies.My current R01 is by far my favorite project to date. The project includes pharmacogenetic analyses to determine if treatment outcome can be predicted, and also incorporates a novel assay for medication compliance. I feel that my expertise as a clinical pharmacist was instrumental in developing the methodology, and was also a major factor in my receiving the grant.The NIH website is a great place to start to find funding opportunities. Also, the CPNP research committee is actively working to compile information on research training opportunities to help members interested in getting involved in research.Good resources include the National Institute on Drug Abuse website (www.nih.nida.gov) for information on new research findings and upcoming conferences, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration website (http://www.samhsa.gov/treatment/) for statistics, treatment options, and reports.I find it best to have several manuscripts in different “stages” of development. For example, at the moment, I have a manuscript that is being reviewed by a journal, another that I am completing writing the discussion, and a third for which the analysis is currently in progress. I try to “block” one morning or afternoon a week to devote to writing, although my schedule does not always cooperate.When I have a new idea for a project, I will often discuss it with my previous collaborators, and ask for advice on other individuals who may have the expertise needed for that particular project. I also find attending annual meetings, and particularly attending poster sessions, are great opportunities to meet and talk with researchers with similar interests and potentially start new collaborations.

Comparing National Institutes of Health Funding of Emergency Medicine to Four Medical Specialties

The purpose of this study was to compare National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding received in 2008 by emergency medicine (EM) to the specialties of internal medicine, pediatrics, anesthesiology, and family medicine. The hypothesis was that EM would receive fewer NIH awards and less funding dollars per active physician and per medical school faculty member compared to the other four specialties. Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) were used to identify NIH-funded grants to 125 of the 133 U.S. allopathic medical schools for fiscal year 2008 (the most recent year with all grant funding information). Eight medical schools were excluded because six were not open in 2008, one did not have a website, and one did not have funding data available by medical specialty. From RePORT, all grants awarded to EM, internal medicine, family medicine, anesthesiology, and pediatric departments of each medical school were identified for fiscal year 2008. The authors extracted the project number, project title, dollars awarded, and name of the principal investigator for each grant. Funds awarded to faculty in divisions of EM were accounted for by identifying the department of the EM division and searching for all grants awarded to EM faculty within those departments using the name of the principal investigator. The total number of active physicians per medical specialty was acquired from the Association of American Medical Colleges' 2008 Physician Specialty report. The total number of faculty per medical specialty was collected by two research assistants who independently counted the faculty listed on each medical school website. The authors compared the total number of NIH awards and total funding per 1,000 active physicians and per 1,000 faculty members by medical specialty. Of the 125 medical schools included in the study, 84 had departments of EM (67%). In 2008, NIH awarded over 9,000 grants and approximately $4 billion to the five medical specialties of interest. Less than 1% of the grants and funds were awarded to EM. EM had the second-lowest number of awards and funding per active physician, and the lowest number of awards and funding per faculty member. A higher percentage of grants awarded to EM were career development awards (26%, vs. a range of 11% to 19% for the other specialties) and cooperative agreements (26%, vs. 2% to 10%). In 2008, EM was the only specialty of the five not to have a fellowship or T32 training grant. EM had the lowest proportion of research project awards (42%, vs. 58% to 73%). Compared to internal medicine, pediatrics, anesthesiology, and family medicine, EM received the least amount of NIH support per active faculty member and ranked next to last for NIH support by active physician. Given the many benefits of research both for the specialty and for society, EM needs to continue to develop and support an adequate cohort of independent investigators.

Global Impact of Animal Research on Infectious Diseases: A CDC Perspective

Policy on the Humane Care and Use of Laboratory Animals and it supports educational programs and monitors compli­ ance. This is a very important part of what we do involving our assured institutions and the PHS funding components. It ensures the humane use of animals in our research, in our testing and training, and contributes to the quality of what we do in our research. NIH also supports animal model systems and alterna­ tives. I want to say a bit more about our intramural animal care and use program and extramural support of animal re­ search. Virtually all of our institutes that have an intramural component—24 of them—have animals in their research programs. Almost 50% of the NIH-funded grants and con­ tracts that we support involve animals. As this is a major part of the research program here at NIH it is very important that we have appropriate compliance and oversight of this pro­ cess. For the intramural program in 2009, we used 1.3 mil­ lion animals; 81% of them were mice but there were more than 20 different species—fish and frogs, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, hamsters, nonhuman primates, birds, dogs, cats, pigs, and sheep. There’s a variety of animals supported here in the intramural program, and NIH has a number of resources available if you are looking for model organisms for bio­ medical research. Our website provides information on model organisms, both mammalian and nonmammalian models in­ cluding Arabidopsis, the mustard plant. We also have a number of programs that support the de­ velopment of nonmammalian models and the improvement of mammalian models. At the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) the Biological Models and Materials Re­ search Program supports research to develop and broaden the utility of models including cell culture, nonmammalian model organisms, and nonbiological systems such as math­ ematical modeling or computer modeling. These are exam­ ples of our interest in alternatives to the use of animals. The NCRR Laboratory Animal Science Program supports animal research–related resources and research training through awards and grants contracts and cooperative agree­ ments. Through its Division of Comparative Medicine, NCRR awards animal research grants and resource grants to develop, characterize, and improve mammalian animal models for hu­ man disease and study. NIH is interested in both improving mammalian model systems and offering nonmammalian and nonanimal alternatives. The NLM has another resource, the Bibliography on Alternatives to Animal Testing (ALTBIB), which [includes] a search engine to identify resources on al­ ternatives to the use of live vertebrates in biomedical research and testing. On the ALTBIB web page you can identify the sources, put in keywords, and find available alternatives. Much of the program for today focuses on biomedical re­ search using animal models and how it has advanced knowledge to find prevention, cures, and treatments for the many serious diseases and conditions of humans and, of course, of animals.

Abstract 974: Fellowships in Research and Science Teaching (FIRST): Innovative postdoctoral training for aspiring academic scientists

Abstract Fellowships in Research and Science Teaching (FIRST) is a successful, three-year postdoctoral program at Emory University that combines traditional postdoctoral research training with mentored teaching instruction. Supported by the Institutional Research and Academic Career Development Award (IRACDA, K12) in the Division of Minority Opportunities in Research (MORE), FIRST encourages teaching experiences at minority serving institutions (MSIs) in the Atlanta University Center (Clark-Atlanta University, Morehouse College, and Spelman College). Fellows receive formalized instruction in pedagogy through a course entitled A Class within a Class, which provides training in innovative teaching techniques, use of technology in the classroom, course development and assessment, as well as peer-evaluation of lecture styles. Participation in the FIRST program creates a unique training experience that prepares fellows to become successful biomedical researchers as well as effective instructors. Despite having dual responsibilities during postdoctoral training, a study comparing 114 FIRST fellows to 500 traditional postdocs showed that FIRST fellows continue to publish in peer-reviewed journals at the same rate or above traditional postdoctoral fellows. In addition, FIRST fellows continue to pursue academic research careers and receive NIH grant funding. Along with the goals of the IRACDA programs, FIRST fellows have established research affiliations with Emory University and MSIs thus creating a collaborative network between research-intensive intuitions and under-represented minority liberal arts colleges. NIH/NIGMS IRACDA Grant 5K12GM000680 Citation Format: {Authors}. {Abstract title} [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 101st Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research; 2010 Apr 17-21; Washington, DC. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2010;70(8 Suppl):Abstract nr 974.

Improved obesity‐induced insulin resistance in mice lacking Tumor Progression Locus 2 (TPL2)

Chronic inflammation due to adiposity is closely related to various metabolic complications including insulin resistance and type II diabetes. TPL2 is a serine/threonine kinase that is located downstream of IKKβ and involved in the regulation of MAPKs and inflammatory cytokines such as TNFα. In this study, we utilized the TPL2 knockout (KO) mouse to test our hypothesis that TPL2 ablation would improve obesity‐induced inflammation and insulin resistance. Wild‐type (WT) and TPL2 KO mice were fed either a normal chow diet or a high fat diet (HFD) for 16 weeks. TPL2 ablation did not alter HFD‐induced adiposity; however ITTs and hyperinsulinemic euglycemic clamp studies demonstrated improved insulin sensitivity in obese TPL2 KO mice. Insulin signaling studies revealed increased Akt activation in the muscle and adipose tissue of obese TPL2KO mice. Consistent with the improved insulin sensitivity, adipose tissue of obese TPL2 KO mice had a reduced presence of crown‐like structures. Despite WT levels of obesity, gene expression of macrophage markers (F4/80, CD11c), chemokines (MCP‐1) and pro‐inflammatory cytokines (IL‐1β, TNFα) was reduced in the adipose tissue of obese TPL2 KO mice. Obesity‐induced activation of ERK and JNK was also attenuated in obese TPL2 KO mice. Furthermore, inflammatory gene expression and lipid accumulation were reduced in the livers of obese TPL2 KO mice. Overall, our results are the first to demonstrate in vivo a role for TPL2 in obesity‐associated metabolic dysfunction. These data suggest TPL2 is a novel target for improving the metabolic state associated with obesity. Supported by ADA and NIHGrant Funding Source: NIH and ADA

The Effect of Exercise Intensity on Endothelial Function in Lean and Obese Adults

Endothelial dysfunction is an important early marker of increased risk of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular disease and has increased prevalence in obesity. Exercise has been suggested as an intervention for improving endothelial function. PURPOSE: To examine the effects of exercise intensity on acute changes in endothelial function. METHODS: Sixteen lean (BMI < 25, age 23 ± 3yr) and 10 obese (BMI > 30, age 26 ± 6yr) adults completed a cycle ergometry lactate threshold (LT)/VO2peak test. Subjects were studied during 3 randomized admissions [control (C, no exercise), moderate (M, @ LT) and high (H, > LT) intensity cycle ergometer exercise (30 min)]. Flow-mediated dilation (FMD) was assessed by Doppler ultrasound at baseline and at 1, 2, and 4 h post-exercise. RESULTS: RM ANCOVA revealed significant main effects for group (p = 0.005), time (p = 0.022), and group x condition interaction (p = 0.036). Post-hoc analyses indicated that lean subjects exhibited greater increases in FMD than obese subjects (p = 0.0005). FMD did not increase significantly over time in any condition in the obese group, but a trend was observed for increases at 2- and 4-hr after M (p = 0.08 for both). For lean subjects, FMD increased at 2- and 4-hr after C and M, and at all time points after H. FMD responses of lean and obese subjects significantly differed after C and H, but not after M. The increase in FMD after H in lean subjects (3.2 ± 0.5%) was significantly greater than after both C (1.7 ± 0.4%, p = 0.015) and M (1.4 ± 0.4%, p = 0.002). FMD values after M were not significantly greater than after C in lean subjects. FMD responses were not significantly related to waist circumference, % body fat, or VO2peak. CONCLUSION: In lean young adults, high-intensity exercise acutely enhances endothelial function for at least 4 hrs, while moderate-intensity exercise of the same duration has no significant effect. In contrast, obese subjects are resistant to the salutary effect of acute exercise on FMD. This study was supported in part by an NIH grant funding the General Clinical Research Center (RR00847).

Derivation and validation of a methodology for tracking academic stature of medical schools. Task Force on the Development of Emergency Medicine.

To derive and validate a methodology for academic ranking of allopathic medical schools in order to track the development of emergency medicine (EM) at academic medical centers. A methodology for institutional ranking according to NIH research grant funding was derived by using a well-known multiaxial ordinal ranking of all Liaison Committee on Medical Education (LCME)-accredited allopathic schools in 1990-91 as the criterion standard. This methodology was validated against the same annually updated criterion standard in 1995-96. Both ranking schemes were first stratified by quartile, then aggregated pairwise by contiguous quartiles to develop a 3 x 3 concordance matrix. Ranking by NIH grant funding produced concordance between all 126 schools in the derivation set and 123/124 schools in the validation set. NIH research grant funding may be used as a valid methodology for broad categorization of allopathic medical school academic rank. This strategy should therefore serve as a suitable means of following the development of academic EM over time.