1 / 25

NIH at the Crossroads: Myths, Realities and Strategies for the Future Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. Director, National Institu

NIH at the Crossroads: Myths, Realities and Strategies for the Future Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. Director, National Institutes of Health. NIH Budget Facing a “Perfect Storm” in 2006. Federal & Trade Deficits Defense and Homeland Security needs Katrina Pandemic flu Post- Doubling effects

fuller
Download Presentation

NIH at the Crossroads: Myths, Realities and Strategies for the Future Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. Director, National Institu

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. NIH at the Crossroads: Myths, Realities and Strategies for the Future Elias A. Zerhouni, M.D. Director, National Institutes of Health

  2. NIH Budget Facing a “Perfect Storm” in 2006 • Federal & Trade Deficits • Defense and Homeland Security needs • Katrina • Pandemic flu • Post- Doubling effects • Physical Sciences focus • Biomedical research inflation- 3 to 5%

  3. NIH Budget: Myths and Realities…

  4. What is Driving Success Rates? • Is NIH placing more emphasis on applied as opposed to basic science • Is NIH shifting towards solicited research (RFAs and PAs) at the expense of unsolicited, investigator-initiated research? • Is it due to the Roadmap?

  5. Basic and Applied Research 60.0% 56.4% 55.8% 55.2% 55.2% 55.2% 53.9% 56.6% 52.1% 56.1% 53.0% 50.0% 43.5% 41.0% 40.8% 40.5% 41.0% 39.8% 39.2% 40.0% 40.8% 38.5% 38.4% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 7.0% 5.7% 5.0% 5.5% 5.2% 4.8% 3.7% 3.1% 3.1% 3.6% 0.0% FY 1998 FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 Basic Research Applied Research Other

  6. What is Driving Success Rates? • Is NIH placing too much emphasis on translational science at the expense of basic research? • Is NIH shifting towards solicited research (RFAs and PAs) at the expense of unsolicited, investigator-initiated research? • Is it due to the Roadmap?

  7. Grants: Unsolicited Far Outnumber Solicited 100% 90% 93% 91% 80% 70% 60% Percentage of Grants Unsolicited Solicited 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 Fiscal Year

  8. What is Driving Success Rates? • Is NIH placing too much emphasis on translational science at the expense of basic research? • Is NIH shifting towards solicited research (RFAs and PAs) at the expense of unsolicited, investigator-initiated research? • Is it due to the Roadmap?

  9. NIH Roadmap for Medical Research FY2005 Request = $28,757M • Developed to increase synergy across NIH • Not a single initiative but over 345 individual awards in FY05: • 40% basic • 40% translational • 20% high risk Non-Roadmap 99.2% ($28,520 Million) Roadmap 0.8% ($237 Million)

  10. What Is Really Happening?3 Fundamental Drivers • Large capacity building throughout U.S. research institutions and increase in number of tenure-track faculty • Large increase in applicants and applications occurring after 2003 • Budgets: • Appropriations below inflation after 2003 ( +3 % in ‘04, 2.2% in ‘05 and 0% in 06 ) while BRDPI in 2004 was ~ 5% • Budget cycling phenomenon

  11. +8,359 +8,303 New Grant Applications and Success RatesDuring and After Doubling Period 35% 60,000 49,656 30% 31% 50,000 43,069 25% 40,000 Projected 22% 20% Number of Applications % Success Rate of Grants Funded 30,000 19% 24,154 15% 20,000 10% 10,000 5% 0% 0 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Success Rates Applications

  12. ≈ 5208 5334 26583 - 21249 31791 - 26583 (2003) – (1999) (2005) – (2003) Period of doubling As Many New Applicants in the Last 2 years as during the previous 5 years!

  13. The Budget Cycling Phenomenon:What Funds are Really Available in Any One Year? From current year to previous year Budget Increase Uncommitted Funds From ending grants started 4-5 years ago Continuing grants Committed Funds NIH Appropriations

  14. NIH Congressional Appropriations $30 $28.6 $28.6 $28.6 $28.0 $27.1 $25 ? $23.3 $20 $20.5 $17.8 $15 Billions of Dollars $15.6 $13.7 $10 $5 $0 FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY FY 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 DOUBLING

  15. The Bottom Line: Demand for Grants “Took Off” Just as NIH Budget Was “Landing!” • NIH managed well in 2004 and 2005 by shifting “one time” funds from 2003 to 2004, and obtaining small increases in 2004 (2.9%) and 2005 (2%) • Katrina requirements led to a flat 2006 NIH while rest of HHS underwent a 2.5% cut • Budget cycling effect will improve demand vs supply of grants in 2007 but we need to educate public about need for sustainability in research

  16. The Question on Everyone’s Mind:“What are MY chances of being funded?” • Payline is not the funding cut-off line! • Success rate per application understates funding rate per applicant • FY 2005- 22.3% success rate for applications, but 27.6% for applicants • FY 2006- 19.8% for applications, but ~25% for applicants

  17. >99% of grants under the payline are funded Payline - Success Rate per application 75 50 - 25 - Success Rate is Higher than the Percentile Payline - 100 Percent R01s Funded 0 0 10 20 30 40 Percentile Score

  18. Success Rates are always higher for Applicants than for Applications 40% Applicant 35% 30% 25% Success Rate for R01 Equivalents 20% Applications 15% 10% 5% 0% 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 Fiscal Year Success Rate files as of May 3, 2006. Program srf_indiv_060103_rfm Individuals are determined using the pi_profile_person_id in IMPAC-II

  19. Where Do We Go From Here?Adaptive Strategies A Vision for the Future

  20. Strategies • First: Know the facts • Second: Develop adaptive strategies • Protect the essential:Knowledge and Discovery • Increase number of competing grants (supply/demand management) • Support new investigators • New Pathway to Independence Program • Institutes and Centers efforts to assist new investigators • Third: Convey a unified message • Increase communications about positive impact of NIH at local, regional and national levels • Fourth: NIH’s exciting vision for the future

  21. The First HapMap Success Story:Age-Related Macular Degeneration • Two other risk variants have been identified in the last two months • Together these account for 74% of risk, and point to powerful new approaches to prevention and treatment

  22. Average investment per American ~$1 per year 17-year investment per American: ~$16.50 Total Human Genome Project and HapMap: The Foundation of a New Medical Era 1990 - 1997 • New powerful DNA sequencing technologies • Transformation of Genomics from technology to biology- driven science • 2007 Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative • Identify roots of 10 most common diseases within 3 years • Devise new ways of monitoring personal environmental exposures • Guide new treatments 1998 - 2002 2003 - 2006

  23. Basic Discovery Today Provides the Foundation for Tomorrow’s Medicine Clinical Applications Translational Research Basic Research and Technology Development

  24. Participatory The Future Paradigm: Transform Medicine from Curative to Preemptive Predictive Personalized Preemptive

  25. Transforming medicine through discovery NIH

More Related