Several members of the GSA community have been elected to membership in the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. Founded in 1780, the Academy is one of the country’s oldest learned societies, whose early members include John Hancock, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin.

	Andrew G. Clark, PhD Jacob Gould Schurman Professor of Population Genetics Nancy and Peter Meinig Family Investigator Department of Molecular Biology and Genetics Cornell University GSA Board of Directors, 2002–2004
	Steven E. Jacobsen, PhD HHMI Investigator Professor of Molecular, Cell, and Developmental Biology University of California, Los Angeles
	Michael J. Lichten, PhD Deputy Chief, Laboratory of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Center for Cancer Research National Cancer Institute
	Joachim Messing, PhD Director, Waksman Institute of Microbiology University Professor of Molecular Biology Selman A. Waksman Chair in Molecular Genetics Rutgers University
	Sarah P. Otto, PhD Professor of Zoology Director, Centre for Biodiversity Research University of British Columbia
	Anne M. Villeneuve, PhD Professor of Genetics and Developmental Biology Stanford University School of Medicine GSA Secretary, 2013–2015

The Academy’s 236th class of new members includes 213 individuals representing a broad cross-section of scholars, scientists, writers, artists, business leaders, philanthropists, and more.

Additional Information:

• “American Academy of Arts and Sciences Elects 213 National and International Scholars, Artists, Philanthropists, and Business Leaders,” April 20, 2016.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) has issued a Dear Colleague Letter inviting those with current research support to request supplemental funding to enhance the training experience of graduate students.

Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO)

PIs supported by NSF’s Division of Molecular and Cellular Biosciences (MCB) may request additional support for their PhD students in ways that enhance their professional development without negatively impacting dissertation research or increasing the time to degree.

Funding is available to support two types of activities. First, funding may be requested to support student participation in experiences that extend beyond their discipline and/or broaden their career options. For example, funds may be used to support the student for a brief internship period in the private, non-profit or academic arena, or to obtain specialized skills in a cross-disciplinary setting. Second, funds may be requested to compensate trainees to attend professional development courses (not formal degree programs) that enhance skills needed to be competitive in the job market. Courses with special emphasis on training in quantitative biology and/or acquiring skills that improve broader impacts (e.g., communicating science to the public) will be considered a priority.

MCB expects to make no more than 15 awards per year of $6,000–12,000 each, and requests will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis. Please contact one of the cognizant program directors for more information as soon as possible. All requests must be received by May 20, 2016.

Other programs within the BIO Directorate are not participating at this time.

Directorate for Education and Human Resources (EHR)

Grantees from EHR—as well as other Directorates—may apply for supplemental funding to support doctoral student participation in “education-related training experiences that broaden their skill sets and their career options, preparing them for a variety of STEM-related careers.” Specifically, EHR will support three types of activities:

• Participation in internships, training experiences, or collaborative research with private, non-profit, government, or academic organizations that promote informal STEM learning (e.g., museums; film, broadcast media, and science journalism; digital media and gaming; citizen science; school and community programs). Opportunities can include, but are not limited to, communication and media training programs that prepare students to be effective communicators to public audiences, internships focused on informal STEM learning research and evaluation, and training in exhibit and program design and delivery.

• Participation in internships, training experiences, or research and development activities in collaboration with education researchers and/or social science learning scholars to acquire new teaching skills and competencies, to gain exposure to new STEM educational research areas, or to test novel approaches for improving the engagement of K-12 or undergraduate students in authentic, career-relevant experiences. For example, doctoral students might spend a visiting term with a discipline-based education research group to learn about its research foci and relevant methodologies.

• Development and piloting of new and innovative programs for groups of graduate students focusing on (a) specific transferable professional skills or (b) career development and preparation for a variety of STEM career pathways. For this activity, projects must include active NSF Graduate Research Fellowship awardees and Honorable Mentions from a single campus or from several institutions within a region, including minority-serving institutions. Programs should include a plan to ensure participation by Fellows and Honorable Mention recipients who are women, members of underrepresented minority groups, persons with disabilities, and veterans. (This opportunity is limited to lead investigators of Graduate Research Fellowship Program institutional awards.)

The first two opportunities noted above should benefit individual students but may be requested by PIs on any active NSF award.

Requests will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis. Please contact the cognizant program director for more information as soon as possible. All requests must be received by May 31, 2016.

Other Directorates

Information about opportunities from other NSF directorates may be found in the Dear Colleague Letter.

Additional Information:

• “Dear Colleague Letter: Improving Graduate Student Preparedness for Entering the Workforce, Opportunities for Supplemental Support” (NSF 16-067), April 15, 2016.
• “New Funding Opportunity,” MCB Blog, April 22, 2016.

The White House National Science and Technology Council’s Committee on STEM Education (CoSTEM) has developed a pair of portals to connect undergraduates and graduate students to Federally-sponsored opportunities. These resources compile programs across federal agencies, which may be searched or browsed by discipline, location, and more.

• STEMUndergrads.science.gov includes listings for undergraduate fellowships, scholarships, courses, internships, prize, and institution-based awards for undergraduate programs.

• STEMGradStudents.science.gov includes listings for graduate fellowships, scholarships, traineeships, internships, and collaborations; scientific meeting support; thesis research; prizes; and institution-based awards for graduate programs.

Among the agencies who are included in the new portals are the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Institutes of Health, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation (NSF), Smithsonian Institution, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and U.S. Geological Survey.

CoSTEM was established in 2011 to coordinate Federal programs and activities in support of STEM education. Its co-chairs are France Córdova, Director of NSF, and Jo Handelsman, Associate Director for Science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

Adapted from “Save Money” CC BY-SA 2.0

We have heard anecdotal reports that some members of the community are concerned about the cost to attend TAGC, but we wanted to explain how TAGC is less expensive than previous community meetings, especially when you consider the total cost of attending the conference—including registration, travel, and housing.

It may be true that the registration fee is slightly higher than it was at the last fly meeting, but it’s actually lower than it was at the last yeast and zebrafish meetings.

But the main ways you’ll save is because of travel. Orlando was selected as the conference venue largely because we were able to negotiate very inexpensive room rates, meaning that you can stay in a full-service hotel for rates that are lower than at previous meetings.

The Orlando World Center Marriott offers TAGC participants a rate of only $135 per night for single or double occupancy—and $155 for triples and quads. When you factor in the lower tax rate in Orlando, you will spend $100 less per night on lodging than you did at the last Drosophila Research Conference, a savings of over $400 for the duration of the conference.

If you’re used to staying in a dorm and bunking up with your fellow students or postdocs, not to worry. You can share a room with two of your fellow scientists at the headquarters hotel and sign up for the full meal plan—all for a total of only $417, including taxes. At the last Yeast Genetics Meeting, that cost you $429. And in addition to saving $12, you’ll be staying in a 4-star hotel with double and king-size beds, air conditioning, cable TV, Internet, swimming pool, and an elevator ride to all the sessions.

You’ll also save just getting there: Orlando is one of the least expensive and easiest cities in the country to fly to. The 38 airlines serving Orlando International Airport—including several discount carriers—offer non-stop service to 76 airports in the US and 48 international destinations. And if you’re driving, the parking at the World Center is free for those attending TAGC.

Add all that up and you’ll likely be spending a few dollars less to attend TAGC than you did to attend your last community meeting. And you’ll get not only all that you love about your individual meeting, but so much more, including the opportunity to attend sessions across seven different meetings.

We look forward to seeing you in Orlando this July!

To be sure you get the best rate, book your travel and hotel as soon as possible. The amazing conference rate at the hotel will only be available through June 1 or until the block is full. You can even use the TAGC bulletin board to find a roommate.

The National Science Foundation’s Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) has put two funding programs on hiatus, pending an evaluation of the “long term resource needs and research priorities” within the directorate. The suspended programs are both within BIO’s Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI).

Collections in Support of Biological Research (CSBR)

The Collections in Support of Biological Research program had been providing funding for three major activities:

• improvements to secure and organize collections that are significant to the NSF BIO-funded research community;
• secure collections-related data for sustained, accurate, and efficient accessibility to the biological research community; and
• transfer ownership of collections.

The collections supported by the program include established living stock/culture collections, non-living natural history collections, and ancillary collections such as preserved tissues and DNA libraries.

Those of particular interest to the GSA community include the San Diego Drosophila Species Stock Center, Chlamydomonas Resource Center, Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center, Bacillus Genetic Stock Center, and E. coli Genetic Stock Center.

The program also experienced a similar pause in funding in 2013 during a shift from an annual to biennial deadline cycle (which was later reversed). Although DBI acknowledges the importance of infrastructure provided by the CSBR program, they are concerned about the relationship of the program to other related NSF programs.

To that end, NSF is soliciting feedback from the community and is especially interested in responses to the following questions:

• Is the scope of collection support provided by CSBR adequate and appropriate to address the research and education community needs? If there are gaps, what are these and how should they be addressed?
• What is known about how the collections-related programs (CSBR, Advancing Digitization of Biodiversity Collections, and the Collections track of Postdoctoral Research Fellowships in Biology) leverage one another (anecdotal evidence is welcome!)?
• What are the impacts of the CSBR program that are innovative and/or transformative in understanding unanswered questions in biology or that significantly impact education or outreach?
• Are there other issues or metrics that should be considered during evaluation of the CSBR program; e.g., encouraging data publications that cite specimens, societal benefits (such as environmental impacts, education/workforce development, and economic benefits), etc.?

GSA is working with several living stocks collections—as well as our policy partners—to develop a formal response, but we encourage individuals to submit their own comments to NSF by writing to DBICSBR@nsf.gov.

The Drosophila Species Stock Center is asking its users to write a letter to NSF supporting the value of living collections, and describing how important the center is to their research and STEM training.

They encourage users to try to include any one (or all) of the following in their letter: 1) how they use the stocks in their research, 2) if/how they use stocks in STEM training, 3) how stocks have facilitated new and exciting research trajectories.

We also invite members of the community to share your perspectives with GSA through comments below or by email to society@genetics-gsa.org. Your input will help us develop a response that is appropriately inclusive.

Instrument Development for Biological Research (IDBR)

The Instrument Development for Biological Research program had been supporting the “development, production, and distribution of novel instrumentation” that address needs in areas of biological research supported by NSF BIO. This has included two types of proposals:

Type A – Innovation: Proposals for the development of novel instrumentation that provides new research capabilities or, where appropriate, that significantly improves current technologies by at least an order of magnitude in fundamental aspects such as accuracy, precision, resolution, throughput, flexibility, breadth of application, costs of construction or operation, or user-friendliness.

Type B – Bridging: Proposals for transforming ‘one of a kind’ prototypes or high-end instruments into devices that are broadly available and utilizable without loss of capacity. If appropriate, PIs should seek SBIR/STTR Program, or similar support mechanism for implementation of broad distribution following an IDBR award.

The program has not supported access to an instrument in a user facility nor to enhance research capabilities in a specific lab or institution.

Additional Information:

• Nala Rogers, “Biologists ask NSF to reconsider plan to pause collections funding program,” ScienceInsider, March 25, 2016.
• Anna Nowogrodzhi, “Biological specimen troves threatened by funding pause,” Nature News, March 21, 2016.
• National Science Collections Alliance, “NSCA and Others Urge NSF to Reconsider CSBR Hiatus,” March 24, 2016.
• Bethany Drehman, “NSF places two biological infrastructure programs on hiatus,” FASEB – The Washington Update, April 7, 2016.

GSA has been hearing from our community about their experience with the Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) program from NIH’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). Although there’s almost universal support for the goals of the program—providing a greater degree of flexibility and stability for investigators—and for the application and review process, there is significant disagreement about whether MIRA is achieving its promised aims yet.

MIRA is designed to support a lab’s entire NIGMS-funded research program, meaning that PIs apply for one award, rather than separate R01s for individual projects. The slimmed down proposal doesn’t ask for specific aims, so investigators are free to follow new directions and take advantage of opportunities to pursue interesting lines of study. Rather than focusing on preliminary data and the minutiae of planned experiments, the review of MIRA proposals focuses on the promise of the researcher and their previous creativity and productivity.

The program is also designed for increased stability. MIRA awards are all five years in duration—longer than the four-year term for most NIGMS R01s—and there is a promise that awards will generally not be cut off entirely at renewal. Budgets may be scaled up and down, based on performance, but the grant is expected to continue at some level.

The tradeoff for these benefits is that MIRA awardees would likely receive less funding than they would with several R01s, and awards are capped at $750,000 in annual direct costs, which is also the level for NIGMS’ Special Council Review Policy.

When it launched the program in January 2015, NIGMS started with a small target group: those who have two or more R01 (or equivalent) awards or a single NIGMS award of at least $400,000 in direct costs—at least one of which was due to expire in fiscal year 2016 or 2017. (A separate funding opportunity announcement for new and early stage investigators was issued later in the year.) Because of NIH rules, investigators with an expiring R01 had to choose whether to apply for MIRA or to submit the standard R01 renewal; they couldn’t have the same research under review simultaneously for two separate programs.

To address this challenge going forward, a new funding opportunity announcement (FOA) issued in March 2016 broadens the eligibility window so that investigators have an extra opportunity to apply for the MIRA before their R01 is up for renewal. This allows even more PIs the opportunity to still apply for R01 renewal if their MIRA application is unsuccessful or if they decline the award. While this change is helpful for those applying in the next round, it does not address the concerns of some of those in the pilot round, as noted below.

NIGMS reports that 710 investigators were eligible to apply in the first round of MIRA awards, and 179 submitted applications. At least 115 were offered a MIRA grant, with an average 12% decrease in funding from their previous NIGMS support.

When GSA started receiving anecdotal concerns about MIRA, we proactively reached out to our members who have current NIGMS support to find out their views. Several themes emerged from the responses received.

What investigators like about MIRA

First, there were a number of people who were very happy with the MIRA program and are delighted to accept the award. They generally felt that the program’s benefits more than made up for any decrease in funding.

I was very happy to trade less funding for more stability of funding and more flexibility to pursue new research directions.

In particular, this stability allows the PI to make longer-term plans, especially with regard to personnel.

Having a MIRA will allow me to make commitments to new postdocs even toward the end of a grant cycle, knowing that my budget is highly unlikely to disappear in one fell swoop.

Respondents also found MIRA freeing, noting the R01 mechanism had led to more conservative research. They appreciate the opportunity to follow up on unexpected findings, rather that being under pressure to stick to original aims.

What I really like is the freedom it gives me to work on what I choose, no matter where the science leads me.

Several also pointed out the benefits to the community, rather than just to themselves.

If smaller awards means that more people get funded, then it is a circumstance that I can live with.

What investigators are concerned about

Despite these positive comments about the MIRA program, GSA received responses from even more individuals expressing shortcomings, based upon their own experience.

The most cited concern was the reduced level of funding. Although NIGMS had prepared PIs that “the amount of a MIRA award will be somewhat less than the sum of all recent NIGMS support,” what this meant had not been defined. While NIGMS had never claimed that labs would be able to remain at steady state, it seems that many investigators expected to be able to maintain their status quo under MIRA.

One certainly appreciates that specifics could not be provided as the NIH did not know what its budget would be. However, past experience left me quite concerned that the cuts to investigators’ annual budgets might be too severe for labs to be able to continue doing their science at the current level, and that people might have to be laid off.

Unfortunately, that seems to be what happened for some. We heard from several applicants who received glowing scores from the reviewers, but felt “blind-sided” by the level of funding offered. Despite the reported 12% average decrease in support, some of those responding noted they were experiencing cuts of 20% or more.

NIGMS has suggested that funding levels were based on a number of factors, including recent NIGMS funding history, support from non-NIGMS sources, and input from the study section and council. Even though MIRAs are not intended to support specific projects, several PIs felt that they wouldn’t be able to pursue the research directions proposed in their application. A number of people noted they would have to lay off members of their lab and seek additional support elsewhere.

I don’t know how I can expect to run my lab on what the NIGMS proposes to provide under a MIRA.

I will have to lay-off two people and have reduced supplies for my lab. The project, which was enthusiastically reviewed by the panel, will not be able to be executed. Although I appreciate the goal of wanting to ‘spread the money around,’ if it becomes too thin to execute the work, and forces investigators to apply for more money, NIGMS will get much less return on their investment than if they were to give fewer investigators closer to what is actually needed.

I really just want to get back to having fun doing science, but I have never been so demoralized with the US funding system and in many ways I feel like I am just holding on so that I can retire…[with a full] benefits package. 

Depending on the timing for their R01 competitive renewal, some applicants had to choose between applying for the MIRA and submitting a renewal—which meant that some MIRA applicants had to give up their current R01 (this has been addressed to some extent in the new FOA by broadening the time to apply for MIRA). It should be noted, however, that R01 renewals are, by no means, a sure thing—so some fraction of those applying for renewal would have had their current grant cut off. Nonetheless, some individuals are left with the prospect of either accepting the MIRA—at a lower level of support—or have their funding curtailed entirely.

One indicator of success of the MIRA program is the percentage of people who are accepting the award. Although NIGMS expect only about five individuals to decline the MIRA, the feedback that we have received suggests there may be more discontent. We and others have identified at least 18 individuals who are likely to accept the MIRA despite significant concerns about the impact of the funding cuts they will experience. Here are six separate investigators who explain why they have no choice but to accept the MIRA:

Since I was not allowed to submit any competitive renewal applications or new applications during my MIRA application, I have no choice but to accept this very low budget MIRA award. The worst part is that once I accept the MIRA, I cannot apply for another grant in NIGMS and will have great difficulty in getting grants from other NIH institutes.

I accepted the MIRA because my other R01 was going to expire and the loss of funding would be worse to me than downsizing with the MIRA.

As for accepting the MIRA award, I really have no choice. If I decide not to accept, then my current R01s will terminate and run out of funding before any new applications could be reviewed and funded.

If I declined the award, I would be out an entire R01 for at least nine months, which would be much worse than the 12% cut.

I have been forced to accept the award because otherwise the funding shortfall would be unacceptable.

In the end, I had no viable option other than to accept the MIRA and try to move forward.

The funding challenges are especially acute for those at medical schools and soft-money institutions who are expected to recover a significant fraction of their salary from external grants (which is, of course, not limited to MIRA). The policies on this are actually somewhat complicated as MIRAs require investigators to devote at least 51% of their research effort to MIRA (not total effort, as may be more customary); this means that time spent on teaching, administrative, or clinical duties is not included in the calculation. But PI salary support can still have a significant impact on the budget. For example, consider a PI who requests 50% of their salary—as mandated by their institution (not by NIH). If their budget is then cut by 12%, the impact on the rest of the grant—which supports students and postdocs, supplies and equipment—would be quite severe.

Several respondents mentioned a fear of speaking out, which is why we are keeping the names of those who shared these comments confidential. They worry that their making public comments might endanger their chance of receiving future support. Others worried that declining the MIRA would make it less likely for their program officer to advocate for their next proposal. Although we acknowledge that PIs may feel at risk, NIGMS Director Jon Lorsch emphasized that they are very interested in feedback and that “individuals’ comments don’t influence our evaluation of their science and their likelihood of receiving funding.”

The need for investigators to submit additional funding proposals to make up the difference between current and MIRA support is especially concerning to some, because one motivation for MIRA was to decrease the need for PIs to spend writing applications and managing multiple grants.

Given the long time of the review process, my funding is even more unstable than it was previously since I was not allowed to apply for a renewal while the MIRA was under consideration. For this reason, I plan to submit three different grant applications this year rather than risk another eight months while a MIRA is being considered.

I and others in my situation will be obliged to spend time seeking support from agencies where our work is likely to be less relevant than it is at NIGMS.

Additional concerns about MIRA include the difficulty of supporting collaborative work, the short timeline for relinquishing funds already committed through previous grants, and the challenge for labs with diverse projects that can be hard to incorporate into a single proposal. To be sure, the MIRA program was never intended to fit the needs of all investigators, and NIGMS has indicated that its R01 mechanism will remain.

Others worry that with the expectation of a high renewal rate for MIRA grants, it will be hard for those who do not receive a MIRA early in their careers to enter the system later on. Finally, respondents repeated some of the concerns that had been expressed when the program was first proposed, including the danger that these awards will be concentrated at only a few institutions—especially for early stage investigators without a significant track record.

In short, a number of people were sorry that they took the chance with the new MIRA program and offer a warning to others thinking of applying:

In hindsight, I would not have applied for the MIRA, but applied instead to renew one of my R01s that was due at the same time.

After going through this and learning the real nature of this MIRA program, I would not recommend this program to any established investigators.

I do understand the concept of the MIRA and I support MIRAs, in principle…. However, based on this experience I cannot recommend MIRAs to my colleagues without some adjustments to the program.

NIGMS continues to encourage members of the community to share their perspectives about MIRA or any other programs. The institute takes all feedback seriously.

Additional Information:

• Jocelyn Kaiser. (2016). “No-strings awards at NIH draw concern,” Science 352: 20.
• Jon Lorsch, “MIRA Status and Future Plans,” NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog, February 2, 2016.
• Peter Preusch, “MIRA Program Continues with New FOA,” NIGMS Feedback Loop Blog, March 10, 2016.
• MIRA Program

The Howard Hughes Medical Institute—in partnership with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Wellcome Trust, and the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation—has launched the International Research Scholars Program, which will support up to 50 outstanding early career scientists around the world.

The competition is open to scientists who have run their own labs for less than seven years and have trained in the U.S. or United Kingdom for at least one year. Applicants should have an outstanding scientific training record and “exceptional potential for significant productivity and originality in their independent careers.” They must also run an independent research program on basic biological and disease mechanisms—which may includes areas of chemistry, physics, computer science, or engineering directly related to biology or medicine.

The program will award each selected scientist with $250,000 in Year 1 and an additional $100,000 in Years 2–5, for a total of $650,000 over five years. Funds may be used for salaries and stipends, graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, technicians, equipment, supplies, travel, and publication costs.

Because of the importance of the research environment, host institutions must be in a position to clearly support the research activities of grant recipients. Applicants may be a citizen of any nation and may work in any country other than a G7 country (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, UK, and US) and those on the list of countries subject to comprehensive or territory-wide sanctions by the U.S. Department of Treasury (currently Iran, North Korea, Sudan, Syria, and the Crimea region of Ukraine). Country of residence will only be used to determine eligibility and will not be a selection criterion.

Following review by a panel of distinguished scientists, a group of semi-finalists will be asked to submit reference letters and an audio recording and asked to interview in London in February 2017, and the final group of awardees notified in April 2017.

• Program Announcement:  International Research Scholars 2016
• Frequently Asked Questions:  International Research Scholars Program Questions and Answers
• Applications Due:  June 30, 2016, by 3:00 pm EDT

NIH Director Francis Collins, along with the leaders of NIH’s institutes, centers, and offices, have written a letter emphasizing their continuing commitment to basic science.

Despite past assurances to this effect (e.g., Collins 2012), the NIH leadership is concerned that the community may feel that NIH has moved away from basic research. The letter, which was published in the March 25 issue of the journal Science, rejects the notion that “NIH’s interest in basic science is flagging” (Collins et al. 2016).

They address the concern that the “Public Health Relevance” statement required in grant applications means that all NIH-supported research must be expected to result in an immediate public health benefit; NIH has revised the instructions for this statement to reflect NIH’s “commitment to supporting a robust, diverse research portfolio, including the pursuit of basic biological knowledge.”

The current letter emphasizs that basic research investments have yielded significant discoveries in the past and express the belief that this will continue:

For this track record of success to continue, we must continue our vigorous support of the pursuit of fundamental knowledge. All of NIH’s senior leaders believe strongly that progress toward these goals occurs most rapidly when investigators pursue their passions, whether they lie in basic research or in applied, disease-focused studies. By supporting a broad portfolio of basic, translational, population, and clinical research, NIH will continue to lead the way toward a healthier future. (Collins et al. 2016)

There are reasons to suspect that investigators may be the ones moving away from basic research applications. A 2014 analysis by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, for example, did observe a “gradual and significant decline in the number of basic grants awarded between 1997 and 2012,” but found this was due to a decrease in submissions of basic research applications; in fact, basic grant applications did better in peer review than applied research proposals (Landis 2014).

GSA welcomes your thoughts on support for basic research at NIH and other federal agencies.

CITATIONS

F.S. Collins. 2012. NIH Basics. Science 337(6094): 502. DOI: 10.1126/science.1227820

F.S. Collins, J.M. Anderson, C.P. Austin, J.F Battery, L.S. Birnbaum, J.P. Briggs, J.A. Clayton, B. Cuthbert, R.W. Eisinger, A.S. Fauci, J.I. Gallin, G.H. Ginnos, R.I. Glass, M.M. Gottesman, P.A. Gray, E.D. Green, F.B. Greider, R. Hodes, K.L. Hudson, B. Humphreys, S.I. Katz, G.F. Koob, W.J. Koroshetz, M.S. Lauer, J.R. Lorsch, D.R. Lowy, J.J. McGowan, D.M. Murray, R. Nakamura, A. Norris, E.J. Perez-Stable, R.I. Pettigrew, W.T. Riley, G.P. Rodgers, P.A. Sieving, M.J. Somerman, C.Y. Spong, L.A. Tabak, N.D. Volkow, and E.L. Wilder. (2016). Basic science: Bedrock of progress. Science 351(6280): 1405. DOI: 10.1126/science.351.6280.1405-a

S. Landis. (2014). “Back to Basics: A call for fundamental neuroscience research.” NINDS blog, March 27, 2014.

GSA has begun to receive feedback from our members about the Maximizing Investigators’ Research Award (MIRA) program from NIH’s National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). And we are interested to hear your perspective, especially if you were eligible to apply for MIRA.

Got Feedback? (Credit: Alan Levine) CC BY 2.0

Please let us know what you consider the strengths and weaknesses of MIRA so that we can suggest improvements in the program for the future. Among the areas that we would welcome your reaction are the following (you may answer as many of these as you wish):

• If you were eligible for MIRA in the first round, but did not apply, why not?
• How was the application and review process? Could you fit your research program into the criteria?
• If offered an award, was the level of funding offered appropriate, especially considering the increased level of stability offered by the MIRA program?
• Do any of the conditions or policies associated with the MIRA program constrain your ability to continue your current activities?
• If you plan to accept the MIRA award, what are your major reasons for accepting?
• If you plan to decline the MIRA award, what are your major reasons for declining?

Please feel free to share this call for feedback with colleagues who were eligible to apply for this program, even if they are not GSA members. We are interested in a broad cross-section of responses.

You may post comments publicly below or send them confidentially to the Society at president@genetics-gsa.org.

Related post:

• “Funding Opportunity: NIGMS MIRA program” (March 18, 2016)

NIH’s Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (ORIP) has issued a program announcement for the Development of Animal Models and Related Biological Materials for Research. This opportunity “encourages highly innovative research to develop, characterize or improve animal models and related biological materials for human health and disease or to improve diagnosis and control of diseases that might interfere with animal use for biomedical research.”

To be eligible for this program, the models must be applicable to the research interest of at least two different NIH Institutes and Centers (ICs). Models specific to one disease or category of research should instead be submitted to the appropriate IC. Applicants are strongly encouraged to consult with ORIP program staff to get guidance on the appropriateness of their proposal.

The funding announcement identifies several examples of projects that might be relevant for this program, including the following:

• New or significantly improved genetically modified animal models for human disease
• Development of novel tools for producing and improving animal models
• Characterization of animal disease
• Preservation of model systems
• Informatics tools for mapping molecular interactive and functional networks
• Strategies to increase quality and reliability of the pre-clinical data using animal models
• Fundamental biology of animal models

As an R21 Exploratory/Developmental Research Grant, applications should be distinct from those supported through the traditional R01 mechanism; R21s are

intended to encourage new exploratory and developmental research projects for a constant infusion of new ideas, techniques, and points of view into biomedical research. Such projects could assess a new experimental system that has the potential to enhance health-related research or may look at an innovative use of an existing methodology to explore a new scientific area. These studies may involve considerable risk, but may lead to a breakthrough in a particular area, or to the development of novel techniques, agents, methodologies, models, or applications that could have a major impact on a field of biomedical, behavioral, or clinical research.

Investigators may request up to $275,000 in direct costs for up to two years.

Application Information

• Funding Opportunity Announcement:  PA-16-141: Development of Animal Models and Related Biological Materials for Research (R21)
• Application Due Dates:
  • New applications:  June 16, 2016, and October 16, 2016
  • Renewal, resubmission, revision:  July 16, 2016, and November 16, 2016