Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
FASEB
Research Equipment and Resource Requirements Of NIH-Supported Investigators:
An Assessment of Current Conditions and Recommendations for Future Funding and Programs
Tamara R. Zemlo, PhD, MPH; Howard H. Ganison, PhD; David Lester, PhD; Mustafa Lokhandwala, PhD; Fred Naider, PhD; Stephen White, PhD; and David W. Speicher, PhD
The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 208 14-3998
Table of Contents
Pagei Executive Summary
Page 1 Shared Instrumentation Grant Program
Page 1 Origin of the Study
Page2 Survey Methods
Page2 Results
Page 8 Conclusions
Page 8 FASEB Recommendations
Page 10 Acknowledgements
Page 11 Endnotes
Cover: The cover design represents DNA microarray technology, a powerful technique that has recently been developed to utilize the wealth of information contained within genome sequence databases in studying diseases and normal biological processes.
Executive Summary
In response to a growing level of concern over unmet needs for advanc~d
instrumentation, the Science Policy Committee of the Federation of American Societies
for Experimental Biology (FASEB) decided to undertake a systematic look at the way
in which current programs were meeting researchers' needs for major equipment. In
November of 1999, a questionnaire was mailed to 1,000 recipients of RO 1 awards
from the National Institute of Health (NIH) to determine the researchers' views about
the~ following issues: degree of dependence on instrumentation; current funding
arrangements; access to equipment; and adequacy of funding for instrumentation,
particularly the Shared Instrumentation Grants (SIG) program; and priorities for future
federal funding. 508 scientists, representing 51 percent ofthe sample, returned completed
surveys. Survey respondents were similar to all NIH RO 1 grantees in terms of institutional
affiliations, experience as principal investigators and laboratory budgets.
There was strong agreement about the importance of advanced instrumentation for
NIH-funded research. Most of the survey respondents (84 percent) responded that,
"shared equipment and core facilities at my institution are extremely important for my
research." However, a substantial number of scientists reported difficulty in obtaining
adequate access to these critical technologies. Almost half of the respondents ( 48 percent)
felt that their institutions were not able to implement new, shared research instrumentation
and resources in a timely manner. Only a small percentage of the respondents (5 percent)
were strongly supportive of the view that their institutions were able to adopt new
technologies in a timely manner.
A sizeable portion ofthe survey respondents also questioned the adequacy of current
funding for shared research equipment. When asked if current funding for the SIG
Program was adequate, 42 percent of the respondents responded that it was not. A
smaller fraction of the respondents (26 percent) felt that the current level of support for
the SIG budget was adequate. Survey respondents expressed even more dissatisfaction
over the funds available for shared equipment not covered by the SIG program
(instruments costing less than $100,000 involving multiple users) . In this case, 55
percent of the respondents did not believe that "the level of funding support from NIH
was adequate" and only 17 percent of the researchers supported this statement. Consistent
with the~e findings, the survey respondents placed a high priority on having NIH increase
the level of funding for research equipment. A majority ofthem (65 percent) indicated
that increased funding for equipment and equipment-related categories should be one
of the top priorities in an expanding federal research budget. In contrast, only 13 percent
of the respondents disagreed with this position. Consistent with this perception, survey
respondents also placed a very high priority on increased funding for new specialized
research equipment within their own research laboratories. For shared equipment and
resources, respondents indicated that NIH should invest more funds in establishing
new resource facilities employing emerging technologies.
The overall perception of the survey respondents was that equipment and equipment
related needs were unmet and represented a serious problem in the extramural research
community. Data from the survey indicates that NIH should invest additional funds to
meet these needs.
Instrumentation Need:!>-------------------------------
Executive Summary (continued)
FASEB recommends that NIH increase its level of support for shared equipment
costing $100,000 or more to $150 million per year for FY200 I with appropriate
incremental increases thereafter.
FASEB recommends that NIH increase its level of supp01t within the context of
existing grant mechanisms such as RO l s and PO 1 s for equipment costing less than
$ 100,000 to $50 million per year for FY200 1.
These amounts actually reflect the minimum funding requirements that exist in the
biomedical research community because the survey results were extrapolated to only the
NIH RO 1-population and do not capture the needs of investigators supported by other NIH
funding mechanisms or non-NIH funded scientists .
FASEB also proposes that an expanded SIG program be improved by:
Decreasing the time from receipt of application to award from the current
approximately one year to six months.
Increasing the number of review cycles from one to three per year.
Raising the caps to at least $1 million to authorize the purchase of more expensive
equipment and to compensate for inflation pressures.
Allowing applicants to bundle two or more unrelated pieces of equipment that
together cost more than $100,000.
Providing support for a maintenance agreement to r up to three years if included in
the instrument purchase price.
Permitting the establishment of facilities using components rather than strictly
commercial instruments.
Using standing rather than ad hoc study sections for reviewing SIG grant proposals
so that consistency in the review process is maintained.
Selecting peer reviewers w ith adequate expertise in emerging technologies .
------------------Federation of American Societies For Experimental Biology
Shared Instrumentation
Grants Program
Origin of the Study
For almost twenty years, the Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) program has allowed
scientists to obtain equipment and equipment-related items that would be too expensive
to purchase with research project grant funding. In existence since 1982 and administered
by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), the SIG program has provided
researchers with grants ranging between $100,000 to $500,000 to procure state-of-the
att instrumentation. Instruments purchased w ith SIG funds must be shared by at least
three National Institute of Health (NIH)-supp01ted researchers.
The budgets of the SIG Program have not kept pace with the expansion of biomedical
research in the 1990s. SIG awards totaled $32.5 million per year in 1990 and 1991 ,
with no appreciable growth in program funds since 1985. In 1992, SJG funds were
reduced to $8.8 million and did not rise above $ 10 million per year until 1996. Only in
1999 did the SIG budget return to the 1990 level. But the 1999 budget for SIG grants
($34.2) - after adjusting for inflation - had less purchasing power than the 1990 budget.
In 2000, the SIG budget rose to $43.1 million. But when expressed in 1990 dollars
($30.3 mill ion), it is still below the purchasing power of the program in 1990. Moreover,
during this same period the number of research project grants funded by NIH grew from
23, 177 in 1990 to a projected 32,942 in 2000 ( 42 percent), while the research project
grant budget increased from $4,640 million to $7,103 million in 1990 dollars (53. 1
percent). 1
Over the past several years, the leadership of the Federation of American Societies
for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and its member societies have been hearing reports
of unmet instrumentation needs. These concems have been raised in society council
meetings, in le tters from concemed scientists and at consensus conferences. The shared
instrumentation issue has been reviewed in nearly every FASEB Federal Funding
Consensus Conference from 1993-1999. In the face of these persistent but in formal
indicators of a more general problem, the Instrumentation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
of the Science Policy Committee (David Lester, PhD; Mustafa Lokhandwala, PhD;
Fred Naider, PhD; Stephen White, PhD; and David Speicher, PhD, chair) decided to
conduct a detailed investigation into this issue. Representatives of the committee met
with Judy Vaitukaitis, MD, Director of the NCRR, who provided an overview ofNCRR
initiatives and data on the Center 's programs. The committee also collected available
inform ation on ins trumentation assessments conducted by the Nati onal Science
Foundation (NSF) and co-sponsored by the NIH.2
After reviewing the existing data, the committee concluded that there was a sh01tage
of current information on investigators' instrumentat ion needs. The last NSF/NIH
instrumentation survey, published in 1994, was based on the views of institutional
administrators and did not necessarily reflect the views of individual practicing scientists.
Another instrumentation study, an NCCR-contracted overview of the SIG program, was
conducted us ing data from 1993.3 Due to the relative paucity of current data, the
committee decided to take a more systematic look at the way in which cmTent programs
were meeting researchers' needs for advanced equipment.
Instrumentation Need;,_--- -----------------------------
Origin ·of the Study (continued)
Survey Methods
Results
• FASEB recommends that NIH increase its level of support for shared equipment
costing $100,000 or more to $150 million per year for FY200 I with appropriate
incremental increases thereafter.
• FASEB recommends that NIH increase its level of support within the context of
existing grant mechanisms such as R01s and POls for equipment costing less than
$100,000 to $50 million per year for FY200 I.
These amounts actually reflect the minimum funding requirements that exist in the
biomedical research community because the survey results were extrapolated to only the
NIH RO }-population and do not capture the needs of investigators supported by other NIH
funding mechanisms or non-NIH funded scientists.
FASEB also proposes that an expanded SIG program be improved by:
• Decreasing the time from receipt of application to award from the current
approximately one year to six months.
• Increasing the number of review cycles from one to three per year.
• Raising the caps to at least $1 million to authorize the purchase of more expensive
equipment and to compensate for inflation pressures.
• ~llowing applicants to bundle two or more unrelated pieces of equipment that
together cost more than $100,000.
• Providing support for a maintenance agreement for up to three years if included in
the instrument purchase price.
• Permitting the establishment of facilities using components rather than strictly
commercial instruments.
• Using standing rather than ad hoc study sections for reviewing SIG grant proposals
so that consistency in the review process is maintained.
• Selecting peer reviewers with adequate expertise in emerging technologies.
------------------rederation of American Societies For Experimental Biology
Results (continued)
70
60
50
c 40 " u ... " 30 c.
20
10
0
Shared Equipment and Core Facilities Are Essential to My Research
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Response Category
Figure 1: Shared Equipment and Core Facilities Are Essential to My Research
Access to Equipment
While NIH-funded investigators reported that shared equipment was very important to
their research programs, large numbers encountered difficulties obtaining access to such
instrumentation. Only one half of the survey respondents felt that their institutions adequately
supported shared research resources such as common use equipment and specialized core
facilities (12 percent strongly agreed and 38 percent agreed) (Figure 2). One third of the
respondents indicated that their institutions have not adequately supported shared research
resources ( 12 percent strongly disagreed and 21 percent disagreed with the survey
question).
40
35
30
I 25 = " 20 "' ... " c. 15
10
5
0 Strongly Agree
My Institution Adequately Supports Shared Research Resources*
Agree Neutral Disagree
Response Category
Strongly Disagree
* Common use equipment and specialized core faci lities
Figure 2: My Institution Adequately Supports Shared Research Resources
Instrumentation Need)_ ________________________________ _
Results (continued)
A large fraction of the researchers polled ( 48 percent) felt that their institutions were not
able to implement new shared research technologies and required associate equipment in a
timely manner (13 percent stro11gly disagreed and 35 percent disagreed) (Figure 3). Only
5 percent of the respondents strongly agreed and 24 percent agreed with a statement
indicating that their institutions were able to adopt new technologies in a timely fashion.
40
35
30
25 .. c .. ::! 20 ..
Q., 15
10
5
0
New Shared Resource Technologies Are Implemented in a Timely Manner at My Institution
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Response Category
Figure 3: New Shared Resource Technologies Are Implemented in a Timely Manner at My Institution
i·
Funding for Instrumentation
Substantial numbers of survey respondents expressed concern about the adequacy of
current funding for research equipment. When asked if current funding and management of
the NIH SIG program was adequate, 10 percent strongly disagreed and another 32 percent
of the respondents disagreed (Figure 4). Just over one-quarter of the respondents felt that
the SIG program was adequately funded and managed (4 percent strongly agreed and 22
percent agreed).
30
25
c 20 .. ::! .. 15 Q.,
10
5
0
NIH's Current Level of Support and Management of the SIG Program Is Adequate
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree
Response Category
Strongly Disagree
Figure 4: NIH's Current Level of Support and Management of the SIG Program Is Adequate
Results (continued)
The survey respondents expressed even more dissatisfaction over the funds availa~le
for shared equipment costing less than $100,000. In this case, 55 percent of the respondents
disputed the statement that the level of support from NIH was adequate: 17 percent strongly
disagreed and nearly two in five respondents - 38 percent - disagreed (Figure 5). Only 17
percent of the researchers polled strongly agreed or agreed with the statement that NIH
funding for this equipment category was adequate. Results were very similar for a question ' about support for equipment used within the researchers' own laboratory costing less than
$100,000. Over half of the respondents (52 percent) rejected the statement that the level of
support from NIH for smaller equipment for individual laboratories was adequate (Figure
6). Of these respondents, 17 percent stro11gly disagreed and 35 percent disagreed. A
much smaller fraction, 32 percent, reported that funding in this area was adequate (28
percent stro11gly agreed and 4 percent agreed) .
45
40
35
30 c 25 tl ...
20 .. Q.,
15
10
5
0
NIH's Current Level of Support for Shared Equipment <$lOOK Is Adequate
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Response Category
Figure 5: NIH's Current Level of Support for Shared Equipment <$ 1 OOK Is Adequate
I 40
35
30
25 c .. 20 " ... .. Q.,
15
10
5
0
NIH's Current Level of Support for Equipment in My Own Laboratory Costing $5K- $lOOK Is Adequate
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Response Category
Figure 6: NIH's Current Level of Support for Equipinent in My Own Laboratory Costing $5-$IOOK Is Adequate
Instrumentation Need---------------------------------
Results (continued)
Survey Respondents ' Priorities for Federal Funding
When asked if increased funding for equipment and equipment-related categories should
be one of the top priorities in an expanding federal research budget, 24 percent strongly agreed
and another 41 percent of the sample agreed with the statement (Figure 7). Only 13 percent of
the respondents dissented from this position. Consistent with the perception that increased
equipment funding should be a major priority, a high percentage of survey respondents indicated
that there should be increased funding for new specialized research equipmenC within their
own research laboratories (Figure 8). Following this, they identified having adequate funds to
either replace or purchase new routine use equipmenf! as the next highest set of priorities for
their own laboratories. For shared equipment and resources, respondents indicated that the
most important priority for govemment funding would be to establish new resource facilities
employing emerging technologies (Figure 9). The next most important categories respondents
believed should merit support were purchasing new specialized shared equipment and providing
adequate technical and/or maintenance support for shared resources.
45
40
35
30 c 25 ~ <· ... .
20 ., ll.
15
10
5
0
Increased Federal Funding for Equipment Should Be a Top Priority
Strongly Agree Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly Disagree
Response Category
Figure 7 : Increased Federal Funding for Equipment Should Be a Top Priority
Choices for Government-Supported Equipment Spending Within My Laboratory
50 .---------------------------------------~ 45 40
35
c 30 ~ 25 .,
ll. 20
15
10 5
0
Replace Old Routine Use
Purchase New Replace Old Routine Use Specialized
Response Category
Purchase New Specialized
[!] First Choice
D Second Choice
Figure 8 : Choices for Government-Supported Equipment Spending Within My Laboratory
~------------------Federation of American Societies For Experimental Biology
Results (continued)
Survey respondents were asked to specify the shared equipment and equipment-related
items they would need to carryout their research programs between 2000 and 2002 (Figu're
10). For items costing less than $100,000, PCR systems were identified as the greatest
unmet need, and for items costing $100,000 or more imaging technologies such as ultrasound,
MRI and CT were identified as the greatest unmet need. To estimate the total cost of the
annual shared equipment needs of NIH investigators, the sum of the cost for all the items
surVey respondents identified as necessary for their future research was extrapolated to the
entire R01 population. The responses were divided into two categories: those items costing
Choices for Government-Supported Equipment Spending for Shared Resources
40 r----------------------------. 35 30
c 25 ~ 20 ~ 15
10 5 0 ..f..-.IJ.IW.;.;;_L.,,_
Response Category
[!]First Choice
D Second Choice
Figure 9: Choices for Government-Supported Equipment Spending for Shared Resources
Survey Respondents' Shared Equipment Needs: Top Ten Categories Ranked by Cost a
Rank Order b <$100,000 Category ~$100,000 Category
(1) PCR Imaging c
(2) HPLC MS/GC
I (3) Conventional Microscope Gene Chip
(4) Computational NMR
(5) EEG/Neurophysiology Confocal Microscope
(6) Spectrometer 2-Photon Microscopy
(7) Ultracentrifuge Flow/Cell
(8) Confocal Microscope EM
(9) Cell/Culture Animals
(10) Imaging PCR/Sequencer
"For each equipment category, the estimated costs of each item in the category were summed. hEquipment categories are listed in rank order: the largest dollar amounts for the <$100,000 and ~$100,000 columns correspond to (1). c Includes ultrasound, MRI and CT instrumentation.
Figure 10: Survey Respondents Shared Equipment Needs: Top Ten Categories Ranked by Cost
Instrumentation Need.~---------------------------------
Results (continued)
Conclusions
less than $100,000 and those items costing $100,000 or more. From information provided
by the National Center for Research Resources on the average number of users for shared
instrumentation in the SIG program, the number of users for each equipment category was
estimated.9 From these approximations and the survey data, FASEB calculates that
approximately $75 million annually would be needed to meet the equipment and equipment
related needs for those items costing Jess than $100,000, and $150 million annually would
be needed for those items costing $100,000 or more for the next three years.
The overwhelming majority of the respondents to the survey ofROl grantees indicated
that shared research resources are important elements of their research programs. Yet nearly
one half of the respondents (48 percent) indicated that their institutions were unable to
meet their shared equipment needs in a timely manner. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents
reported that increased funding for shared equipment should be a top priority in an expanding
research budget.
These views described above were consistent across subsets of the survey sample,
reflecting general rather than isolated sentiments. Comparisons across categories of seniority
(number of years in charge of a laboratory), primary research institution (medical school,
university, etc.), research budget, percentage of funding from NIH, total cost of equipment
or percentage of equipment budget from NIH revealed very few statistically significant
differences of opinions. The perception that instrumentation needs were unmet and
represented a serious problem was widespread and pervasive in the extramural research
community. It was not a phenomenon limited to newer investigators, scientists with smaller
grants, or researchers with modest equipment budgets.
f ASEB FASEB recommends that NIH significantly increase resources to meet the equipment
Recommendations and equipment-related needs of the researchers it funds. While it believes NIH's foremost
obligation is still to support investigator-initiated research, FASEB recognizes that having
access to the appropriate equipment is essential for conducting investigator-initiated
research. These research tools include routine-use items like incubators and centrifuges
and specialized equipment like micro array instruments and x-ray diffractometers.
Bioinformatic hardware and software packages are also important to fund since they interface
multiple high-tech pieces of equipment and store and process large volumes of data. To
catalyze the pace of discovery in biomedicine, NIH should provide greater opportunities
for SIG program funding. This critical infusion of support will maximize the rate of return
on our investment in scientific research.
• FASEB recommends that NIH increase their level of suppott for shared equipment
costing $100,000 or more to $150 million 10 per year for FY200 1 with appropriate
incremental increases thereafter
FASEB Recommendations (continued)
• FASEB recommends that NIH increase its level of support within the conte_xt
of existing grant mechanisms such as RO 1 s and PO 1 s for equipment costing less
than $100,000 to $50 million 11 per year for FY200 1.
In this era of enhanced support for biomedical research, FASEB recommends that
NIH equipment-funding mechanisms be substantially expanded to provide for a broader
range of new technologies in order to make the most of promising research opportunities.
A greatly expanded and more responsive SIG program would allow scientists to procure
necessary equipment in a timelier manner. To help achieve these objectives, FASEB
proposes that the program be improved by:
• Decreasing the time from receipt of application to award from the current
approximately one year to six months.
• Increasing the number of review cycles from one to three per year.
• Raising the caps to at least $1 million to authorize the purchase of more expensive
equipment and to compensate for inflation pressures.
• Allowing applicants to bundle two or more unrelated pieces of equipment that
together cost more than $100,000.
• Providing support for a maintenance agreement for up to three years if included
in the instrument purchase price.
• Permitting the establishment of facilities using components rather than strictly
commercial instruments.
• Using standing rather than ad hoc study sections for reviewing SIG grant proposals
so that consistency in the review process is maintained.
• Selecting peer reviewers with adequate expertise in emerging technologies.
Instrumentation Needs.------- --------------------------
Acknowledgements
The FASEB Office of Public Affairs wishes to thank the members of the Science Policy Committee
who served during the time that the report was developed.
The FASEB Science Policy Committee
David L. Brautigan, Ph.D., Center for Cell Signaling, University of Virginia. (FASEB Vice President for Science Policy)
Joseph R. Haywood, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of Texas Health Science Center. (American Physiological Society)
Frederick Grinnell, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Cell Biology and Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. (American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology)
*Mustafa F. Lokhandwala, Ph.D. Dean and Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of Houston College of Pharmacy. (American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics)
Richard G. Lynch, M.D. Professor and Head, Department of Pathology, University oflowa College of Medicine. (American Society for Investigative Pathology)
Patsy M. Brannon , Ph.D. Dean, College of Human Ecology, Cornell University. (American Society". for Nutritional Science)
Jeffrey A. Frelinger, Ph.D. Kenan Professor and Chairman, University ofNot1h Carolina, Chapel Hill. (The American Association oflmmunologists)
Samuel C. Silverstein, M.D. Professor and Chairman, Department of Physiology and Cell Biophysics, Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons. (American Society for Cell Biology)
*Stephen H. White, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of California-Irvine. (Biophysical Society)
*DavidS. Lester, Ph.D. Pharmacologist, Food and Drug Administration. (American Association of Anatomists)
Tony E. HugH, Ph.D. Professor, Department oflmmunology, Scripps Research Institute. (The Protein Society)
Nicola C. Partridge, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Pharmacology and Physiological Science, St. Louis University School of Medicine. (The American Society for Bone and Mineral Research)
Edward J. Benz, M.D. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University. (American Society for Clinical Investigation)
Henry M. Kronenberg, M.D. Professor of Medicine and Chief, Endocrine Unit, Massachusetts General Hospital. (The Endocrine Society)
Philip R. Reilly, M.D., J.D., President/CEO, Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center, Waltham, Mass. (The American Society of Human Genetics)
Associate Members (11011-voti11g)
Margaret S. Saba, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Biology, College of William and Mary. (Society for Developmental Biology)
*Fred R. Naider, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Chemistry, College of Staten Island, CUNY. (American Peptide Society)
*David W. Speicher, Ph.D. Professor, The Wistar Institute, University of Pennsylvania. (ABRF)
Barry H.. Zirkin, Ph.D. Department of Biochemistry, Division of Reproductive Biology, Johns Hopkins University School of Hygiene and Public Health. (Society for the Study of Reproduction)
Thomas B. Knudsen, Ph.D. Professor, Department of Anatomy, Jefferson Medical College. (Teratology Society)
Ex Officio (11o11-voti11g)
David G. Kaufman, M.D., Ph.D. Professor, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. (FASEB President)
Sue P. Duckles, Ph.D. Professor and Associate Dean, Department of Pharmacology, University of California-Irvine College of Medicine. (FASEB Vice-President Elect for Science Policy)
Mary J.C. Hendrix, Ph.D. Professor and Head, Department of Anatomy and Cell Biology, University oflowa-College of Medicine. (FASEB President Elect)
Sidney H. Golub, Ph.D. (FASEB Executive Director)
*Members of the Instrumentation and Infrastructure Subcommittee
Endnotes
1 NIH Competing and Noncompeting Research Project Grants by Type at http:Usilk.nih.gov/public/ [email protected] and FY2001 Presidents Budget Press Briefing at http://www4.od.nih.gov/ofrn/ budget/fy200 1 Pressbriefing.htm
2 The National Survey of Academic Research Instruments and Instrumentation Needs (Instrumentation Survey) is a congressionally mandated program that collects data concerning scientific research instruments and the academic departments and facilities in which they are located.
3 Evaluation of NIH Shared Instrumentation Grant Program: Reports From Users, which was published in 1996.
4 The authors would like to thank Bob Moore of the NIH Office of Extramural Research for assistance in obtaining information on NIH RO 1 recipients.
5 Bohne Silber and colleagues at Silber & Associates, Clarksville, MD conducted the survey and data tabulation.
6 The respondents' primary professional appointment and their annual direct cost laboratory budgets corresponded closely with the profile of the NIH RO 1 population. Just over one-half of the survey respondents (52%) reported that their primary appointment was in a medical school. A nearly identical fraction of all research project grants from the NIH (54%) were made to investigators with medical school affiliations (Figure 11 ). There is a slight over-representation of university-based researchers in the survey respondent sample, but in all other categories the distribution of survey respondents is very similar to that of all NIH grantees. The overrepresentation of university-based researchers in the survey sample may reflect the fact that this group was selected only from the population of RO I grantees rather than recipients of all types of research project grants.
The median direct cost laboratory budget for the survey respondents is $300K. By taking the median direct cost of all competing RO 1 awards in FY 1999, which was $171 K and multiplying it by 1.43 (the average number of RO 1 s per laboratory) and dividing it by 77% (the average percentage of the direct cost budget from NIH), one can obtain an estimate of the direct cost laboratory budget for NIH RO !-supported investigators. This amount is $319K, which compares reasonably with the $300K amount from the survey.
It was also possible to compare the survey respondents and non-respondents in terms of the length of time a particular ROt award was retained. Each NTH grant is assigned a unique identification number, part of which consists of a "year of support" field. This field indicates the number of continuous years of support for that grant. For survey respondents, the distribution was 54% for RO 1 s held for less than five years, 25% for ROts held between five and ten years, and 21% for ROls held for greater than 10 years. For the non-respondents, these percentages were 54%, 28% and 18%, respectively. [If an investigator had multiple RO I grants, only the longest-held grant was used in the analysis. ]
Distribution of NIH Research Project Grants by Institution, 1998
1998 NIH Research Project Grants FASEB Survey
Institution Number Percentage Dollar, K Percentage Percentage
Medical School 14,898 54.3% 4,141,424 54.3% 52%
University 7,661 27.9% 2,129,645 27.9% 37%
For-Profit 103 0.4% 28,632 0.4% 1.1%
Hospital 2,157 7.9% 599,614 7.9% 2.4%
Nonprofit 2,641 9.6% 734,1 59 9.6% 7.5%
Totals 27,460 100.0% 7,633,474 100.0% 100%
Figure 11: Distribution of NIH Research Project Grants by Institution, 1998
Instrumentation Need~--------------------------------
Endnotes
7 Specialized equipment refers to instruments found in limited numbers in a department or entire institution. Examples are biosensors, cell sorters, mass spectrometers, NMR instruments, confocal microscopes, biomedical imagers, DNA sequencers, X-ray diffractometers, analytical ultracentrifuges, microarray instruments and bioinfomatics hardware/software.
8 Routine use equipment is common research equipment items typically found in most labs and/or departmental common use rooms. Examples are tissue culture hoods ~nd inc).lbators, preparative centrifuges, UV spectrophotometers, scintillation counters and freezers.
9 From the Evaluation of NIH Shared Instrumentation Grant Program: Reports From Users (NCRR), the average number of major users per instrument is 5.2. A major user is defined as a Public Health Service (PHS)-supp011ed investigator who accounts for a significant fraction of instrument use time. The average number of minor users per instrument is 9.0. A minor user may be either PHS-sponsored investigators whose individual share does not constitute a significant percentage of average use time, or investigators whose instrument research is not supported by PHS. Because most of the instruments costing $100,000 or more w ill likely be shared, the committee assumed that the number of users should be a minimum of five and a maximum of fourteen (five major users and nine minor users). However, it is unlikely that all of the minor users would be ROI recipients. Therefore, the committee estimated ten users (five major users and five minor users) for instruments costing $100,000 or more. For instruments costing less than $100,00, some instruments would be shared and some would not be, so the committee estimated that the average number of users is approximately five.
10 Since funding for high-end equipment (instrumentation costing more than $100,000) is extremely limited, FASEB recommends that NIH provide funding for the total estimated need of the research community: $150 million.
11 For equipment costing less than $100,000 (for which there are other sources of support) FASEB recommends that NIH fund two
thirds of the $75 million estimated need: $50 million.
------------------Federation of American Societies For Experimental Biology
A Publication of the Office of Public Affairs The Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3998 August, 2000
For reprints or other information: Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Office of Public Affairs 9650 Rockville Pike
Bethesda, MD 20814-3998 www.faseb.org/opar
