NERVECENTER

March 2011 A13

Changes in Store for R01 Grants?FUNDING FOR NIH RESEARCH GRANT PROGRAMS HAS ALWAYS BEEN CLOSELY WATCHED AND DEBATED BY CONGRESS, AND THE CURRENT ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CLIMATE PUTS FU-TURE RESEARCH FUNDING ON EVEN SHAKIER GROUND

Medical researchers have witnessed in-creased competition for a finite piece of thebudget pie for years. While the National In-stitutes of Health (NIH) received a one-time injection of $8.2 billion from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, those funds were quickly allocated among 1,243 pend-ing requests as a job-saving measure. The stimulus funds served to temporarily delay difficult budget decisions that now must be addressed.

NIH Director Francis Collins faces tough budget choices and has indicated that the NIH must consider ideas for re-apportion-ing research grant funding based on current needs and in anticipation of increased budget restrictions.

One idea under consideration would in-crease the number of projects funded whileextending funding access to more early-career scientists by restricting the amount of grants

that can go toward university faculty salaries. The NIH Research Project Grant Pro-

gram, or R01, was the agency’s first grantprogram, and it numbers among the few thatcover salary and benefits for key investiga-tors and staff. Many of the RO1 awards for a project lasting 4 to 5 years were upwards of $350,000 in 2009.

“NIH is supporting an awful lot of sala-ries, and that seems fair to the degree that they are spending that amount of time on theresearch,” said Collins at a press conferencefollowing his keynote address at the Ameri-can Society of Human Genetics (ASHG)annual meeting last November. “Universi-ties have also discovered that’s a great way to build programs ... but it may be, in the long run, that this may not be the best way ... for research to be supported.” Collins added,“One might make the case that it would bebetter for those funds perhaps to be available

for other investigators.”That’s a view echoed by Science editor-e

in-chief Bruce Alberts.¹ “Policies that offer incentives for individuals and institutions can unintentionally induce harmful behav-iors,” wrote Alberts in a September 2010 Sci-ence editorial. “One such perverse incentive eencourages US universities, medical centers, and other research institutions to expand their research capacities indefinitely through funds derived from [NIH] research grants. A reliance on the NIH to pay not only the salaries of scientists but also the overhead (or indirect) costs of building construction and maintenance has become a way of life at many US research institutions, with po-tential painful consequences. The current trajectory is unsustainable, threatening to produce a glut of laboratory facilities remi-niscent of the real estate bust of 2008 and, worse, a host of exhausted scientists with no means of support.”

In 2010, NINDS awarded 699 R01grants out of the 3,097 applications received, according to an analyst in the NIH Office of Extramural Research. While R01 applica-tions maintained about a 20% success ratefrom 2006 to 2009, the success rate dipped a little below 20% in 2010, said the analyst. Atthe ASHG meeting, Collins predicted overall grant success rates could drop even further this year—to 10%.

Researchers ReactResearchers at small and large institutions ex-pressed solidarity when describing the impact if salary support were eliminated from R01s.It would be “a massive shock to the academic research system,” says Robert Hevner, MD, PhD, whose lab at the University of Wash-ington School of Medicine in Seattle received R01 funding through NINDS to study em-bryonic and early postnatal development of the cerebral cortex, specifically, the role

Another issue of ongoing budget uncertainty—this one a matter of policy rather than finance—is funding for stem cell research. In August 2010, US District Judge Royce C. Lamberth placed an injunction on federal fund-ing for research with human embryonic stem cells (hESC). The ban was lifted after 1 month but it caused significant dis-ruption for research laboratories. A November 2010 survey of 370 US stem cell scientists published in Cell: Stem Cell found that the legal challengelhas had negative scientific and economic impacts on 75% of hESC researchers responding to the survey.¹ Forty-one percent of stem cell researchers not working with hESC also felt the temporary ban had an impact on their work.

Aaron Levine, author of the paper, called on Congress to pass an amendmentclarifying legal statues pertaining to hESC research.—KS

Reference1. Levine AD. Policy uncertainty and the conduct of stem cell research. Cell Stem Cell 2011;8:132-135.

SURVEY: Scientists Still Reeling From Temporary Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research Ban

Paul

Fle

et |

Dre

amst

ime.

com

NERVECENTER

A14 Volume 69, No. 3

played by developmental transcription fac-tors in determining cell migration.

“I think that NIH funding of academicfaculty salaries has been largely responsiblefor the growth of biomedical research in theUS,” says Hevner. “Removing this compo-nent now would cause a massive contractionin biomedical research, leading to widespread job losses and many labs closing down ... I personally would be very anxious if such a proposal were instituted. I can’t imagine how my institution would fund this gap, and Isuspect it would lead to an emergency, with salary cuts and layoffs.

“I guess Harvard would be OK in theshort term,” he continues, “but even the biggest and most highly funded institutions would face severe problems in the long run.”

Clifford J. Woolf, MB, BCh, PhD, professor of neurology and neurobiology at Harvard Medical School and director of theF.M. Kirby Neurobiology Center at Chil-dren’s Hospital Boston, received R01 funds through NINDS to study neural plasticity and peripheral nerve damage. “If the NIH

abolished that portion of faculty’s salary de-voted exclusively to research on NIH funded projects, this in the absence of any alternative source of money for this purpose, it would rapidly lead to the end of the US lead inbiomedical research,” says Woolf. “A few re-search institutions would, of course, survive but most would show major declines in theresources available for research with a massiveloss of jobs, end of new recruits, etc.”

Woolf cautions that any change to the NIH research funding mechanisms should be approached circumspectly. “Whatever themerits of the current system you cannot sud-denly change it in this way without causing a

catastrophe,” said Woolf. “If the NIH wishesto reform the system of funding they will have to do this very carefully and slowly withfull consultation of all relevant stakeholdersand will have to make sure they do not de-stroy the very enterprise they are charged by Congress to support.”

Republicans’ and Democrats’ Opposing GoalsAs it stands, NIH’s current—and future—budget is anything but settled. President Ba-rack Obama’s proposed budget, released in February, includes a modest 3.2% increaseNIH funding, bringing the agency’s budgetto $32 billion in 2011.

NINDS’ share of the budget is $1,681.3 million, an increase of 2.8% percent over 2010. Funds for neural environment; neu-rodegeneration; neurogenetics; repair and plasticity systems; cognitive neuroscience; technology development, infrastructure, and

resources; the Intramural Research Program; and research management and support pro-grams would receive modest increases overcurrent funding levels.

Funding for the National Institute of Ag-ing would increase slightly to $1,142.3 mil-lion.

However, some members of Congresshave proposed deep cuts in government agen-cies, beginning in the current budget year.

As of mid-February, Republican leaders in the House of Representatives were propos-ing $61 billion in non-security related cutsfor the remainder of 2011, and said they would release future spending plans in April.

According to the White House Office of Management and Budget, the president’s and the Republicans’ spending plans are about$800 billion apart.

Budgets for government agencies could be in place by October 1, provided the pro-cess goes smoothly through 40 congressional committees, 24 subcommittees, numerous hearings and House and Senate floor votes—an unlikely outcome. Congress has yet to pass a final budget for fiscal year 2011. The government has been operating on funds allocated through a continuing resolution, which expires on March 4.

Reference1. Alberts B. Overbuilding research capacity. Sci-

ence 2010;329:1257.

KATHLYN STONE

DOI: 10.1002/ana.22417

(Includes R01 and other grants)

NINDS/NIH Grants Awarded 2000-2010

Fiscal YearYY Total Funding No. of Awards

2001 $1,005,452,337 2,885

2002 $1,139,582,957 3,122

2003 $1,236,262,883 3,230

2004 $1,269,710,098 3,319

2005 $1,302,045,663 3,291

2006 $1,317,112,276 3,395

2007 $1,323,208,255 3,425

2008 $1,343,412,863 3,338

2009 $1,369,808,056 3,220

2010 $1,368,811,615 3,215

Source: NIH Office of Research Information Systems/Div. of Information Services

NIH is supporting an awful lot of salaries,and that seems fair to the degree that they are spending that amount of time on the

research. Universities have also discovered that’s a great way to build programs ... but

it may be, in the long run, that this maynot be the best way ... for research to be

supported.—Francis Collins