Blue Skies for the Best People

Abstract

News & Views T he National Institutes of Health plans to offer more money and more freedom to the best researchers, but there are downsides, say scientists.In July, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Deputy Director for Extramural Research, Sally Rockey, announced on her blog, Rock Talk, that the federal agency will begin offering longer term financial support to scientists with strong previous accomplishments, allowing them to pursue more ambitious lines of research.2 The move is a change of direction for the NIH, which has traditionally awarded research grants on the basis of specific project proposals with clear-cut scientific goals.Many argue that the freedom to pursue so-called blue-sky research is essential in science. Indeed, in the field of cardiology itself, many major discoveries have been made thanks to curiosity-driven, blue-sky science.3 Thus, unshackling scientists from the pressure to hit specific research targets in short time frames-3 aims in a maximum of 5 years, in the case of the NIH's traditional RO1 scheme-could enable them to be a little more risky, said Rockey in a new interview with Circulation Research. The new R35 scheme offers funds for a maximum of 8 years and requires only a general outline of intended research. "It is our belief," said Rockey, that the scheme would lead to more creative science.And that should mean more bang (scientific impact) for the NIH bucks. There is certainly evidence that funding people rather than projects can give greater returns. For example, research driven by the NIH's own Pioneer Awards-a miniature version of the new scheme-tends to outcompete comparable RO1-funded research in terms of impact. 4 And the Howard Hughes Institute, which has been funding people rather than projects for decades, has more than its fair share of Nobel Prize-winners among past and present grant recipients. The Best Get BetterDespite the precedents and potential benefits, however, there are some valid objections to the policy, including concerns about the basis on which individuals will be chosen. Although research published in Circulation Research suggests that the past scientific success is a good indicator of future success-in terms of publications and citations 5 -Steven Houser, Senior Associate Dean for Research at Temple University School of Medicine in Philadelphia, is worried that choosing people on that basis alone is a rich-get-richer system. If those with the best track record are awarded funds, they will likely gain even greater success, whereas younger researchers with no track record will suffer, he said. "It's really bad for the young people right now," he added, quoting an article that reported only 25% of current post docs can expect to get jobs. "And in the face of that, the NIH are saying 'we're going to make it easier for the people at the top to get money'? That seems like a disconnect to me." "Is this the time to focus on the people at the top?" he asked, "or should we be thinking about ways to stabilize the research environment… so that we can have t...

Actions Speak Much Louder Than Words

“…A less radical approach would be to use a composite score in which the weight assigned to past productivity is the dominant, but not the only, factor. In this scenario (which is a variation of the composite score proposed by Eugene Braunwald in the News & Views article in this issue), 5 applicants would still be required to describe the specific studies that they propose (possibly in abbreviated form and with less detail than in the present system). A composite score would be developed that takes into account both the application and the track record of the applicant, with the latter constituting more than 50% of the total score.…”

“…A period of experimentation seems all but inevitable to avoid premature and deleterious decisions. As Lauer 5 proposes, randomized trials comparing new systems with the current system, and between themselves, would enable meaningful conclusions and evidence-based approaches to allocation of grant funding. Although this would obviously require time, it is the most sensible strategy.…”