Dual-goal grants or Tricking the NIH?

The NIH has become very adamant about (almost) only funding clinically relevant research, both at the program (NIH staff) level and in study section (the community). Several institutes now explicitly says that its areas of focus do not include “Basic Science Research” for several of its mechanisms. This has led to debate amongst my colleagues, particularly those who have been around long enough to see fads come & go at NIH.

I think that if you can craft a proposal that is explicitly clinical, and will have important (significant and innovative) outcomes that will address the NIH mandate to improve health, that it does not matter if there are implicit basic results that will advance the field (although not necessarily The NIH Mission). On the other hand, colleagues say this is “cheating” NIH, in that you are trying to sneak work in that they have explicitly excluded. Further, that if one truly addressed the health mission, rather than trying to include Other Stuff, one would do a better job of what NIH wants.  This is kinda amusing to me, as I have always thought of “what NIH wants” as something to be figured out and put into grants so that one could get funded.

Finally none of this addresses the short-sighted-ness of demanding everything be clinical or translational, in that there is a lot of “basic science” that is critical to begin addressing the health problems facing us today.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Dual-goal grants or Tricking the NIH?

  1. I think this whole idea of only clinical and translational to a certain extent excludes PhDs and promotes MDs and MD/PhD. It seems that in this day of 6th percentiles that one must include an MD on your grant or be included on an MD’s grant. I find this to be terribly short sighted.

  2. yeah, I keep trying to be a fancy pants, but nooooo. And I think fuckitall is a good philosophy, otherwise you make yourself sick.

    On that note–back to writing all those grants. If you don’t write them, you look like you are not putting in the effort.

  3. Basic scientific research is very important and I can’t believe that NIH doesn’t think so. For every one thing that we find out, there’s a million more things that we don’t know. Doing clinical research without doing basic research is like treating the symptoms and not the cause of the problem.

  4. NIH is seriously cutting themselves short. No one knows WHAT science will make a difference to health care. It is very short sighted (and cited) to emphasize immediate results over longterm investment.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s