Literature DB >> 28584129

Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research.

Michael Levitt1, Jonathan M Levitt2.   

Abstract

Young researchers are crucially important for basic science as they make unexpected, fundamental discoveries. Since 1982, we find a steady drop in the number of grant-eligible basic-science faculty [principal investigators (PIs)] younger than 46. This fall occurred over a 32-y period when inflation-corrected congressional funds for NIH almost tripled. During this time, the PI success ratio (fraction of basic-science PIs who are R01 grantees) dropped for younger PIs (below 46) and increased for older PIs (above 55). This age-related bias seems to have caused the steady drop in the number of young basic-science PIs and could reduce future US discoveries in fundamental biomedical science. The NIH recognized this bias in its 2008 early-stage investigator (ESI) policy to fund young PIs at higher rates. We show this policy is working and recommend that it be enhanced by using better data. Together with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) Maximizing Investigators' Research Award (MIRA) program to reward senior PIs with research time in exchange for less funding, this may reverse a decades-long trend of more money going to older PIs. To prepare young scientists for increased demand, additional resources should be devoted to transitional postdoctoral fellowships already offered by NIH.

Keywords:  age-related bias; early-stage investigators; independence; mentoring

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28584129      PMCID: PMC5488913          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1609996114

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  39 in total

1.  Perspective: is NIH funding the "best science by the best scientists"? A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies.

Authors:  Leslie C Costello
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 6.893

2.  The age at which scientists do their best work.

Authors:  C W ADAMS
Journal:  Isis       Date:  1946       Impact factor: 0.688

3.  Biomedical research. Rejecting 'big science' tag, Collins sets five themes for NIH.

Authors:  Jocelyn Kaiser
Journal:  Science       Date:  2009-08-21       Impact factor: 47.728

4.  Research funding. Big names or big ideas: do peer-review panels select the best science proposals?

Authors:  Danielle Li; Leila Agha
Journal:  Science       Date:  2015-04-23       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  NIH ponders 'emeritus grants'.

Authors:  Boer Deng
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 49.962

6.  Opinion: Addressing systemic problems in the biomedical research enterprise.

Authors:  Bruce Alberts; Marc W Kirschner; Shirley Tilghman; Harold Varmus
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-02-17       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Biomedical Research. A call for NIH youth movement.

Authors:  Jocelyn Kaiser
Journal:  Science       Date:  2014-10-10       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Mentorship matters for the biomedical workforce.

Authors:  Sally J Rockey
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 53.440

9.  Personal reflections on big science, small science, or the right mix.

Authors:  Michael S Lauer
Journal:  Circ Res       Date:  2014-03-28       Impact factor: 17.367

10.  The vanishing physician-scientist?

Authors:  Andrew I Schafer
Journal:  Transl Res       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 7.012

View more
  20 in total

1.  Opinion: The National Institutes of Health needs to better balance funding distributions among US institutions.

Authors:  Wayne P Wahls
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2019-07-02       Impact factor: 11.205

2.  Identifying translational science through embeddings of controlled vocabularies.

Authors:  Qing Ke
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2019-06-01       Impact factor: 4.497

3.  Gender disparities among independent fellows in biomedical research.

Authors:  Jason M Sheltzer
Journal:  Nat Biotechnol       Date:  2018-10-11       Impact factor: 54.908

4.  Opinion: Expansion fever and soft money plague the biomedical research enterprise.

Authors:  Henry R Bourne
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 11.205

5.  Opinion: The Next Generation Researchers Initiative at NIH.

Authors:  Michael Lauer; Lawrence Tabak; Francis Collins
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-11-07       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Top ten strategies to enhance grant-writing success.

Authors:  Richard A Guyer; Margaret L Schwarze; Ankush Gosain; Melinda Maggard-Gibbons; Sundeep G Keswani; Allan M Goldstein
Journal:  Surgery       Date:  2021-07-20       Impact factor: 3.982

7.  Postdocs' advice on pursuing a research career in academia: A qualitative analysis of free-text survey responses.

Authors:  Suwaiba Afonja; Damonie G Salmon; Shadelia I Quailey; W Marcus Lambert
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-05-06       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  The Association Between NRMN STAR Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy and Grant Submission.

Authors:  Harlan P Jones; Jamboor K Vishwanatha; Edward L Krug; Eileen Harwood; Kristin Eide Boman; Thad Unold; Roland J Thorpe
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2021-10-21       Impact factor: 1.847

Review 9.  Changes in the National Cancer Institute's R01 workforce: growth, aging, retention, and policy implications.

Authors:  Melissa D Antman; Roman Gorelik; Amy Kennedy; Grace F Liou; Eddie N Billingslea; James G Corrigan; L Michelle Bennett
Journal:  J Clin Invest       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 14.808

10.  FastTrack, a strategy to shorten time to degree.

Authors:  Michael D Schaller; Mariette Barbier
Journal:  FASEB Bioadv       Date:  2021-03-30
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.