Strategies from UW-Madison for rescuing biomedical research in the US

Kimble, Judith; Chang, Qiang; Cox, Benjamin L.; Drinkwater, Norman R.; Gourse, Richard L.; Hoskins, Aaron A.; Huttenlocher, Anna; Kreeger, Pamela K.; Lambert, Paul F.; Mailick, Marsha R.; Miyamoto, Shigeki; Moss, Richard L.; O’Connor-Giles, Kate M.; Roopra, Avtar; Saha, Krishanu; Seidel, Hannah S.

doi:10.7554/elife.09305

Cited by 30 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(13 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Fund transfer to younger PIs by MIRA grants has received little attention (33,34,(48)(49)(50). Peer review age bias as corrected by the NIH ESI program has been noted (3,9,(51)(52)(53)(54). Group size has been considered; today, it need not be as large as when US science was expanding (55)(56)(57).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research

Levitt

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research

Levitt

2017

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Changes to the NIH over the past 15 years have been much too modest to solve the problems that currently exist, and I am not alone in thinking that they require a robust debate to find solutions that the whole community will support (see, for example, Alberts et al, 2014; Alberts et al, 2015; Berg, 2012; Bourne, 2013a, 2013b; Kimble et al, 2015; McDowell et al, 2014; Rosbash, 2010; Yamamoto et al, 2016; Zoghbi, 2013). Here I propose five specific reforms.…”

Section: The Problems Facing the Biomedical Research Enterprise In Thmentioning

confidence: 99%

Five suggestions for substantial NIH reforms

Rosbash

2016

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is widely accepted that funding scientific research leads to many social and economic benefits, and calls to limit science participation are rarely supported by either governments or most scientists (Alberts, 2010; NIH, 2012; Kimble et al, 2015). Successful answers can only lie in managing the quality and assessment of the new science produced.…”

Section: How Can Overflow In Science Be Managed To Increase Trustwortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overflow in science and its implications for trust

Siebert

Machesky

Insall

2015

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To explore increasing concerns about scientific misconduct and data irreproducibility in some areas of science, we interviewed a number of senior biomedical researchers. These interviews revealed a perceived decline in trust in the scientific enterprise, in large part because the quantity of new data exceeds the field's ability to process it appropriately. This phenomenon—which is termed ‘overflow’ in social science—has important implications for the integrity of modern biomedical science.

show abstract

Strategies from UW-Madison for rescuing biomedical research in the US

Abstract: A cross-campus, cross-career stage and cross-disciplinary series of discussions at a large public university has produced a series of recommendations for addressing the problems confronting the biomedical research community in the US.DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.09305.001

Cited by 30 publications

References 8 publications

Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research

Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research

Five suggestions for substantial NIH reforms

Overflow in science and its implications for trust

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About