Shifting Demographics among Research Project Grant Awardees at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)

Abstract

The present study was initiated because of concerns expressed by NHLBI-funded mid-career investigators regarding perceived difficulties in the renewal of their grant awards. This led us to ask: “Are mid-career investigators experiencing disproportionate difficulties in the advancement of their professional careers?” Our portfolio analysis indicates that there has been a significant and evolving shift in the demographics of research project grant (RPG) awardees at NHLBI. In 1998, mid-career (ages 41–55) investigators constituted approximately 60% of all investigators with the remaining 40% being equally divided between early-stage (ages 24–40) investigators and established (ages 56 to 70 and older) investigators. However, since 1998, the proportion of established RPG awardees has been increasing in a slowly progressive and strikingly linear fashion. At the same time the proportion of early-stage awardees fell precipitously until 2006 and then stabilized. During the same period, the proportion of mid-career awardees, which had been relatively stable through 2006, began to fall significantly. In examining potential causes of these demographic shifts we have identified certain inherent properties within the RPG award system that appear to promote an increasingly more established awardee population and a persistent decrease in the proportion of mid-career investigators. A collateral result of these demographic shifts, when combined with level or declining funding, is a significant reduction in the number of RPG awards received by NHLBI mid-career investigators and a corresponding decrease in the number of independent research laboratories.

Outcomes of early NIH-funded investigators: Experience of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases

“…Science organizations and thought leaders have called for broad structural reforms and proposed strategies for reversing these declines [ 4 , 47 – 49 ]. Some of the many proposed solutions include: amplifying programs to support early- and mid-career stage investigators [ 6 , 50 – 52 ]; funding people instead of projects [ 46 , 53 , 54 ]; reducing the size of laboratories, of awards, or of numbers of NIH grants an investigator may hold at any one time [ 6 , 46 , 47 , 55 , 56 ]; and reducing NIH support for investigator salaries and reliance on soft-money positions [ 2 , 47 ].…”

The Next Generation Researchers Initiative at NIH

“…We do not see this as a risk. Recent data show that there is at most a weak association between age and outcome on individual applications (4,10), arguing against concerns that early-career investigators are writing lower-quality grants. Other data show that there is no clear-cut association between career stage and research impact (11,12); early-career researchers Some might worry that redirecting funds to more early-career investigators may lead to funding lower-quality science.…”

Biomechanics and neural control of movement, 20 years later: what have we learned and what has changed?

“…Like many other scientific research areas, the field of biomechanics and neural control of movement must rely on an iterative process from basic, translational, to clinical studies, as well as reverse-translation for mechanistic insights using animal models [ 81 ]. Being inherently multidisciplinary and complex in nature, research progress in human movement science relies on sustained research capacity and synergized collective efforts by investigators from different levels or generations [ 82 , 83 ]. Preserving this strategy will ensure that our intellectual heritage can be protected and further enriched, and that both old and new theoretical frameworks can be further evolved or developed.…”