In the Paths to Science Policy series, we talk to individuals who have a passion for science policy and are active in advocacy through their various roles and careers. The series aims to inform and guide early career scientists interested in science policy. This series is brought to you by the GSA Early Career Scientist Policy and Advocacy Subcommittee.

We interviewed Vence Bonham, who is the acting deputy director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) and the head of the Health Disparities Unit in NHGRI’s Social and Behavioral Research Branch. He provides leadership for the Institute’s health equity and workforce diversity programs. As an associate investigator, Bonham’s research focuses on the social implications of genomic knowledge​​ and the use of social constructs, like race and ethnicity, in biomedical research and clinical care. In addition, Bonham studies sickle cell disease.

I wanted to start with a question about your career path. As someone who started his career with a Juris Doctor degree, what sparked your interest in pursuing an academic career in genetics? 

I came to genomics through my interest in health disparities. I always wanted to be an advocate, particularly to address inequities in our society. I saw my role as a lawyer as an opportunity to address those issues. So, I made a decision to go to law school at Ohio State University with the expectation that I would work on legal and equity issues around education. I later became a healthcare lawyer as my interests grew in health equity. That brought me to medicine and to my engagements in medicine and research. I started doing research with several faculty members, and I loved it. After a well-established career as a university attorney at one institution, associate general counsel at another, and being on the board of the National Association of College and University Attorneys, I decided to make a shift. I went back and did a Health Services Research Fellowship at the American Association of Medical Colleges. Because my real passion was around issues of health disparities, my research interests as a faculty member gravitated to work around that, and I gravitated to people who were scholars and experts in health disparities research. That’s what brought me into genomics.

As an investigator, much of your work explores the use of race and ethnicity data in biomedical research. Racial and ethnic categories are very commonly used to recruit participants in genetic and genomic studies. How do you envision the future of bringing people into studies if we no longer use race and ethnicity as a way to diversify the data? Do you think individuals would know their ancestry prior to being in studies? 

How do we identify individuals? We all have so many different identities, including genetic identities. How do we help scientists, the participants in studies, and the general public understand the nuance of identity? I believe that for the foreseeable future, we will use race, in a variety of areas, in our society and in science because race is real and has an impact on people’s lives. If we didn’t have information about racial and ethnic differences, we would be missing important information, and that includes the issue of who’s participating in studies. Now, as geneticists, I think when you’re designing your study, and you’re describing your populations, it doesn’t have to be the same as NIH inclusion reports. If your study is studying an issue about genetic variation and a specific disease, where it’s really much more about understanding ancestral background, then it may be important that you frame and talk about your study populations in a different way than an inclusion report. So I think that’s the key message with moving beyond race in genomic studies. 

Will people start to know their ancestry? I actually think we already see examples of that with large companies like 23andme and ancestry.com, where people are seeking more information about their background. Receiving that information gives people exposure to their genetic ancestry. So I expect that there will be more understanding that individual participants have about the complexity and the richness of their background. What’s really important right now is that the scientists do a better job with regards to how they describe the populations in their studies, because of the implications it has, both for their own studies and the implementation of new knowledge in healthcare and medicine and for the general public’s understanding of findings within studies.

With descriptions of four categories of race and ethnicity, I do still think that they are limited, right? Because people are a lot more nuanced than one category of something. I don’t know if you have any thoughts on that as well with other social constructs like gender. Do you also think that is where the future is moving away from?

I think the answer is definitely yes. And I think the complexity of our identities is so evolving in our ability to talk about it in a way that we used to be so binary, and we’re no longer that. I think it’s important for people to understand those complexities.

How do you think your research influences the policy work that you do? And vice versa? How does that relationship work?

I believe that my research informs my work as an administrator and policymaker. It really enhances my ability to look at issues. I see my research really helping me to understand issues, to be able to communicate examples, and to talk about issues that are important around equity. I see my research being really informed by that. But then, it also flips around. What I’m hearing and what I’m learning from a policy perspective gives me an opportunity for new types of questions to ask in my research. So, it’s really a cycle, but that also makes it fun! 

It seems like science policy in the US is in constant flux, depending on who is in power. In your opinion, what do you think are some of the challenges that we’ll see in the United States? What advice would you give an early career scientist interested in policy?

I would encourage people, while they’re in their fellowships, in their trades, in graduate school, or postdocs, to get exposed and be an engaged citizen. From there, you can determine whether a policy shift is what you’re interested in. Your expertise as a scientist is important to policy making, and there is recognition of that. There are always talks and engagement activities. Each district has a congress member, the state legislators, so get involved. I think that also shows the sincerity of your interest in policy to show that you’re spending your own time getting engaged in the process.

Any concluding remarks?

What I hope came across in this conversation is that careers are not straight lines. People can make different decisions along their careers. There are ways to bridge your knowledge to help your next step in your career. 

For many of the roughly 300 million people around the world with rare diseases, the road to diagnosis can be long, painful, expensive, and disheartening. Around eighty percent of very infrequently seen undiagnosed diseases are estimated to have a genetic basis, but even with modern DNA sequencing techniques, the causes are often unclear. In these cases, clinicians and their basic scientist collaborators are increasingly turning to laboratory models like fruit flies and zebrafish to help diagnose disease—and gain clues about how to treat it.

The teamwork between clinicians and model organism researchers goes both ways: clinicians can find candidate genes in patients to test in model organisms, or basic scientists can identify candidate disease genes through research on their organism of choice. In a review appearing in the September issue of GENETICS, Wangler et al. describe numerous tools clinicians and basic scientists have at hand to help them work together on puzzling rare diseases.

One such tool is GeneMatcher, a website that connects researchers who may be separately investigating the same genes. Using GeneMatcher, clinicians can find potential collaborators working on model organisms.

Another mechanism that connects clinicians with model organism researchers is the Canadian Rare Diseases Models and Mechanisms Network (RDMM). Via the RDMM, a clinician can submit a proposal to work with a model organism researcher—or vice versa. Uniquely, they can also use the tool to apply for quick-turnaround grants to fund their investigations of potential disease-causing variants.

Patients themselves can also contribute to this research. People with rare diseases that have resisted diagnosis by any other means can apply to the Undiagnosed Diseases Program (UDP) to spur investigations of their conditions. Not only have patients been diagnosed using the UDP’s combination of detailed clinical investigation and genetic analysis, but new disease genes have also been discovered. For example, mutations in the gene NT5E were found to cause a rare arterial calcification disorder—and as an unexpected bonus, this finding hinted that adenosine metabolism might be linked to more common vascular disorders as well.

The UDP has now been expanded into the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN), a decentralized program involving researchers at several institutions. Using the UDN, a patient is first screened to see if their disease matches a known genetic condition after an extensive phenotypic work-up and sequencing of the whole genome or exome. If not, clinical findings and candidate genetic variants are sent to the Model Organisms Screening Center (MOSC). The MOSC starts by searching databases of known information about the candidate variants to determine which are worth testing in model organisms. The MOSC then looks for other individuals with similar clinical presentations and possible genetic causes.

Once the list of candidate genes is narrowed down, the MOSC researchers design experiments in flies or zebrafish to acquire more knowledge. The MOSC teams aim to match the variant in the human patient’s gene in the model organism. The goal is to learn more about the function of the gene, to determine whether the gene variant found in the patient is the likely cause of the disease, and to understand how the variant may cause problems.

Wangler et al. conclude by endorsing the continued support of these tools by government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health. Only with this financial backing, they say, will crucial improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of rare genetic diseases be possible. And since our understanding of rare diseases often drives discoveries about more common diseases, this research could even have more far-reaching impacts.

CITATION:

Wangler, M.; Yamamoto, S.; Chao, H.; Posey, J.; Westerfield, M.; Postlethwait, J.; Members of the Undiagnosed Diseases Network (UDN); Hieter, P.; Boycott, K.; Campeau, P.; Bellen, H. Model Organisms Facilitate Rare Disease Diagnosis and Therapeutic Research.
GENETICS, 207(1), 9-27.
DOI: 10.1534/genetics.117.203067
http://www.genetics.org/content/207/1/9

President Trump has proposed crippling cuts to federally supported research —including a reduction of medical research funding by nearly a fifth—that would be a disaster not just for innovation, but for Americans’ health and economic prosperity. Cuts at this unprecedented scale would have both immediate and long-term consequences: Promising research projects abandoned, labs closed, and cures to diseases like cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s and drug addiction remaining beyond our grasp. We would squander our investments in training a skilled scientific workforce that populates the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, hindering our ability to develop new drugs. In the long run, the loss of funding would impact America’s healthcare system.

The proposed $5.8 billion cut to the NIH budget would be the equivalent of eliminating the entire budget for cancer research, or eliminating thousands of research grants! The proposed draconian 19% reduction would damage or halt projects ranging from child health to aging. Beyond the NIH, other agencies—including the USDA, DOE, and EPA—that fund the genetics community would have their budgets slashed.

While thousands of researchers would lose funding, forcing people in all stages of their careers out of research, it is the public who ultimately suffers the most from such broad and deep cuts. Advances in treating disease will slow. Agricultural innovations that protect the nation’s food supply will be abandoned. New sources of energy will not be developed. Our ability to predict severe storms and weather will falter. Monitoring of emerging infectious diseases will be less effective.

But the President’s budget outline is just a proposal: It is Congress that will ultimately decide how the budget is allocated. Medical research has traditionally been an investment with broad bipartisan support. It was the Republican-controlled Congress that gave the NIH a $2 billion funding boost for 2016, and had proposed additional increases for 2017. It was the Republican-controlled Congress that in December passed the 21st Century Cures Act with additional funding for NIH initiatives. Representatives from both parties have already expressed concern about the cuts to the NIH. Your actions in the coming months will make a difference.

Speak out about the importance of research funding and basic science. Contact your Senators and Representatives; their contact details are in the FASEB Legislative Action Center. Find advocacy resources via the Advocacy Toolkit. Participate in FASEB’s action alert pressing Congress to complete the 2017 budget (click on “advocacy campaigns” under the “Actions” section). Show your support in the March for Science on April 22^nd being held in DC and in marches around the country (GSA is an official partner of the March).

Stay tuned for updates on GSA’s efforts to fight this budget proposal and tips on how to make your own voice heard on Capitol Hill.

Lynn Cooley
President, Genetics Society of America

Jeannie T. Lee
Vice-President, Genetics Society of America

Last week at The Allied Genetics Conference (TAGC), National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins provided an overview of model organism support from his agency. Collins used a new analysis performed by NIH staff to address concerns expressed by many of the model organism researchers gathered at TAGC, particularly a 2015 analysis by Michael Wangler, Keith Yamamoto, and Hugo Bellen that suggested NIH grant support for Drosophila research is declining. The new data, which was made publicly available on the Open Mike blog at the time of his talk, evaluated funding levels for Drosophila, Caenorhabditis elegans, Zebrafish, and Xenopus laevis at NIH since 2008. The key finding is that the award rate for R01 proposals using model organisms is higher than overall R01 award rates.

Figure 1. from Open Mike blog post

In his talk, Collins presented the data above with the conclusion that you’re more likely to be funded at NIH if you use one of these model organisms. However, there are a few caveats. The comparison between model organism grants and award rates across NIH may not be the best control because model organism grants are disproportionately funded by NIGMS, which had a 29.6% award rate in 20151. This means institutes that fund far less model organism research, like NCI (13% award rate), NICHD (11.5% award rate), and NIBIB (12%), decrease the agency-wide award rate to 18%. The data also discounts those who are funded through other mechanisms, such as K and P awards.

Collins also discussed funding of model organism databases, citing the open letter for support of these key resources, which had over 11,000 signatures at the time of his talk. Recognizing the invaluable contribution of these databases to the evolution of Big Data, he discussed ways that they might move forward more efficiently as a part of the Big Data to Knowledge (BD2K) initiative at NIH. While future funding for model organism databases remains uncertain, Collins was clear that changes were on the horizon. Historically, this shared resource has been funded by NHGRI, however, NHGRI Director Eric Greene instructed database leaders to identify new funding sources by 2020 and integrate the organism-specific databases into a single resource. Leaders of the model organism communities and GSA are working together with NIH to identify solutions that will maintain the integrity of the databases and be more cost-efficient.

A group of TAGC attendees concerned about the future of model organism databases took the opportunity to start #saveMODfunding on Twitter.

Come to the outreach booth at the lonely end of the hall, & tell us why MODs are important! #TAGC16 #saveMODfunding pic.twitter.com/ShhKbqMQwT

— Point Mutation (@Point_Mutation) July 14, 2016

#saveMODfunding @GeneticsGSA @thegeneticsgal pic.twitter.com/aqdstcDbXz

— Andrew Kern (@pastramimachine) July 16, 2016

Less database $ will slow #science! #saveMODfunding #TAGC16 @GeneticsGSA pic.twitter.com/9itDOeWb7c

— Masha Evpak (@thegeneticsgal) July 8, 2016

At the end of his talk, Collins urged researchers to continue to ask congress to fund more for fundamental research, arguing that increased, sustainable funding will help maintain support for model organisms, and the biomedical advances that depend on them

Reference:
1. https://report.nih.gov/success_rates/Success_ByIC.cfm

Update: This letter of support received 11,078 signatures and has been presented to Dr. Francis Collins. Thank you for your interest. Continue to follow GenestoGenomes.org for updates on this issue. 

Leaders of several model organism communities, working with the Genetics Society of America (GSA), have come together to write a Statement of Support for the model organism databases (MODs) and to urge NIH to revise its proposal to reduce funding for MODs. We ask all scientists who value the community-specific nature of the MODs to sign this ‘open letter’ found below.

Dear Dr. Collins and NIH Institute Directors,

We are amongst the more than ten thousand NIH-supported researchers who study ‘model organisms’ in order to improve human health and make fundamental discoveries of biomedical significance. Model organisms—including budding yeast, fruit flies, nematode worms, zebrafish and rodents—have had an incalculable impact on the current knowledge of biological mechanisms and their translation to treat human disease.  Recognizing the power and efficiency of model organism research, NIH spends more than $5 billion annually on grants that center around these organisms, including $1 billion on non-mammalian models.

Model Organism Databases (MODs) are the critical infrastructure that underpins these studies. Such databases—including FlyBase, WormBase, Saccharomyces Genome Database, ZFIN, Mouse Genome Database, and Rat Genome Database, along with Gene Ontology (GO)—are much more than assemblages of genomic information. They serve as hubs of collective community knowledge, integrating and curating the ever-increasing literature. They develop and implement tools for analysis of complex datasets, pioneering approaches to ‘big data’ that (as with the genome projects in the 1990s) are then applied to human biology. Moreover, through their open and easily accessible web interfaces, they are the chief portals by which this information is shared and disseminated with researchers, students, and the worldwide scientific community.

As individual researchers, we use MODs daily to leverage this accumulated knowledge to drive our own cutting-edge discoveries. We especially rely on the MOD’s high-quality, up-to-date, and comprehensive nature in collating myriad data that are impossible for researchers alone to access. Such community-driven efforts are in part why model organisms have been so successful in advancing knowledge.  Without the systematic organization of the MODs, each of our research efforts would be drastically impeded and in some cases impossible, slowing the pace of discovery and reducing the efficient use of NIH funding.

We enthusiastically support the initiative to integrate elements of the existing MODs and to increase accessibility of the information contained therein, especially to medical researchers. However, we are deeply concerned by reported plans to reduce overall support for MODs themselves.  Each MOD collects, curates, analyzes, and disseminates unique sets of data that reflect the unique biology and specific research usage of their model organism. We strongly advocate for the continuation of adequate and sustained funding to the individual MODs to maintain essential and species-unique information and to respond to new data initiatives for their communities. We further encourage inclusion of MOD community representatives in future discussions regarding the MODs. Together, this structure will provide the strongest foundation for future advances in our understanding of fundamental biology and human disease.

We applaud NIH leaders’ recent affirmation of basic science as the ‘bedrock of progress’ in biomedicine. Model organisms have long been at the heart of the basic science portfolio, and research with them is more relevant than ever in addressing cutting-edge problems, from the complex relationships between genotype, environment, and phenotype, to understanding the structure and function of the brain, to creating efficient and manipulable human disease models. In particular, deciphering the role of disease-relevant genetic variants increasingly depends on model organism-based functional studies. Moreover, model organism research fosters the unanticipated discoveries that regularly revolutionize biology.

MODs form the scaffold on which these key scientific advances have been and will continue to be made. At less than $20 million annual support, MODs are highly cost-effective resources that save researchers countless hours of effort extracting, collating, and computing information. They also facilitate access of human geneticists and clinical researchers to the rich functional information obtained from model organisms. NIH’s support for the MODs over the last two decades has enabled a bevy of pivotal discoveries that lie at the true heart of the NIH mission. We urge you to continue the far-sighted policy of support for vital research infrastructure.

Relevant Reading:

Funding for model organism databases in trouble 

Photo Credit: Ed Brown

Back in December, we wrote here about a proposed rule from the U.S. Department of Labor that would mandate that postdocs earning less than $50,440 per year would be eligible for overtime pay at 1.5 times their hourly rate. This week, the Department of Labor released its revisions to the Fair Labor Standards Act. The changes will take effect December 1, 2016. Here, we summarize what this means for research labs, institutions, and the estimated 37,000-40,000 researchers affected by these changes.

The Final Rule announced this week looks a little different than the proposal first described last fall. In summary:

• Salaried workers who are not exempt and who earn less than $47,476 per year are eligible for overtime when they work more than 40 hours in a week.
• Postdocs are not exempt and are therefore subject to the changes in the rule.
• The salary threshold overtime eligibility will rise every three years to keep up with inflation.

The National Institutes of Health and Department of Labor worked together to reach clear guidelines for postdocs. U.S. Secretary of Labor, Thomas E. Perez and NIH Director Francis Collins published a joint op-ed in the Huffington Post, announcing NIH’s plan to raise the baseline salary for postdocs funded directly by the agency through individual fellowships to $47,476, timed to coincide with the rule’s announcement. The annual increase ranges from hundreds to thousands of dollars for eligible postdocs, depending on seniority. Postdocs are now paid $43,692 (first year), $45,444 (second year), and $47,268 (third year) from individual fellowships. It’s unclear whether NIH will use the new salary threshold as a baseline for their seniority-based pay scale or if seniority will no longer be considered. Collins and Perez acknowledge the challenge this change would impose, but asserted that higher salaries were a step in the right direction, and create an “opportunity to encourage more of our brightest young minds to consider choosing careers in science.”

Not all postdocs will be eligible for overtime. The new overtime rule only applies to postdocs who are full-time researchers and do not participate in teaching and training activities as a part of their position. This largely excludes postdocs in the humanities, who regularly teach courses during their postdoctoral studies, and thus would not receive any change in their pay. As for the sciences, this loophole could lead to some post-docs being re-classified with titles that suggest they are lecturers or instructors, thereby making them exempt from the overtime rule. It’s unclear whether the hands-on training that postdocs provide to graduate and undergraduate students in research labs will be sufficient for exemption based on the teaching exception. This will likely be decided at the institutional level.

No doubt a function of the soon-to-change White House administration, the Department of Labor will implement the rule sooner rather than later. Despite calls from organizations like the American Association of Medical Colleges and American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology for a phased-in approach, the rule will be fully implemented on December 1, 2016. In a fact sheet directed toward institutions of higher education, the Department of Labor outlined three options for universities to become compliant with the rule: raise the salary of non-exempt postdocs above the new threshold, pay postdocs overtime for hours worked beyond the standard 40 hour work week, or evaluate workloads to reduce the need for overtime.

The nature of scientific research is such that the last option is not a realistic one where postdocs are concerned. Whether institutions decide to give postdocs a raise or pay overtime, the looming question remains: Where is the extra money going to come from?   Funding agencies could increase award amounts to reflect the new exemption threshold; however, budget negotiations for fiscal year 2017 have largely held funding for the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation flat for investigator-initiated research, making this an unlikely option in the next year. Without more funding to offset these costs, Principal Investigators (PIs) will need to fund these raises or hours of overtime based on budgets calculated prior to the new threshold announcement. This means that for at least the first year, some PIs will be forced to reduce the size of their research groups, taking on fewer graduate students or dropping existing postdocs.

Although Collins and Perez pledge to “work closely with leaders in the postdoc and research communities to find creative solutions to ensure a smooth transition,” with major changes in such little time, we can expect a few bumps along the road.

What are your thoughts on the new overtime rule? Please share in the comment section below.

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.

This guest post from Sue Jinks-Robertson describes a personal experience with the NIGMS MIRA program. If you wish to share your perspective on MIRA or any other topic of interest to the GSA community, please consider authoring a guest post; send your ideas to blog@genetics-gsa.org.

Contributed by guest author Sue Jinks-Robertson

I’ve been on the grant roller coaster at NIGMS (GM) since 1989, and in the past five years, have fluctuated between one and three small (<$200,000) grants; the average has been ~2.25 grants per year.  Given the almost certain lapses in funding between grant cycles, this level of support was enough to run a small lab of about six.  Needless to say, I was thrilled when the call for Maximizing Investigators’ Research Awards (MIRAs) was announced early last year and was eager to sign up. The prospect of funding stability, flexibility to pursue new research directions, and less time spent writing grant proposals was very appealing, even with the likelihood that “in general, the amount of a MIRA award will be somewhat less that the sum of all recent NIGMS support.” I should have remembered the old adage, “if something seems too good to be true, it probably is.”

Each of us who applied for a MIRA was in different situation in terms of grant cycles and the availability of non-GM support, and I’ll focus on my own particular situation.  Some investigators are much better off than I am and are happy with the MIRA outcome, and some are in a worse situation. In my case, all of the support for my lab comes from GM: two grants went into a no-cost extension in summer 2014 and a third expires at the end of April. I staggered the competing renewals (each had previously gone to the same Study Section) and as seems to be the norm these days, neither competitive renewal scored in the funding range the first time through. Funding was restored for the first grant in summer 2015, but both the revision for grant #2 and the competing renewal for grant #3 had to be put on hold with the MIRA submission in May 2015. Since MIRAs are intended to replace all GM funding, “applications that overlap scientifically cannot be in review at the same time.”

The MIRA applications were reviewed in October 2015, but neither funding decisions nor funding levels were available until mid-February 2016. By that time, it was too late to submit any revisions/competing renewals for the spring deadline. The good news is that I was awarded a MIRA; the bad news is that the budget is the equivalent of ~1.7 of my small grants. That translates into a “non-negotiable” 25% cut in my average funding level over the past 4–5 years. I’ve heard anecdotally that budget cuts range from 12–50%, and my attempts (to understand how funding levels were determined has been unsuccessful. Some labs can absorb the budget cuts, while others will be forced to reduce personnel. As all of my support has been from GM, I’m squarely in the latter category.

So, what will the MIRA do for me? It will give me some stability, as advertised, but instead of a lab of ~6 supported by GM, I now can afford a lab of 2–3. While some may say this is consistent with the promise of “somewhat less support,” it’s actually a severe disruption for my program and will result in a forced downsizing. Being in a Medical School, I’m still expected to recover at least 50% of my salary, so a budget cut directly translates into reduced personnel. What really bothers me the most about the whole process is that I’ve been painted into a corner by the policies and procedures of the first round of MIRA funding. If I turn the MIRA down, I’ll be facing at least a year of running off a single, small R01. If I accept the MIRA, I’ll be left scrambling for additional support outside of GM, which means the promised respite from writing proposals has evaporated. Whether any of the programmatic themes included in the MIRA application can even be used as the basis for a grant elsewhere within the NIH is unclear.

Although several changes have been made in the latest MIRA announcement, they do nothing for me. The institution of the one-grant MIRA model and its associated budget cuts is “mission accomplished” for GM: more researchers can be supported as MIRA recipients are forced to look elsewhere for funding.  To others who may be considering putting in a MIRA application, I hope you can learn from my experience.  In the end, I had no viable option other than to accept the MIRA and try to move forward.

Sue Jinks-Robertson, PhD, is Professor of Molecular Genetics and Microbiology and director of the Cell and Molecular Biology Program at Duke University School of Medicine, where she uses S. cerevisiae to study the pathways that regulate mitotic genome stability. She currently serves as GSA Treasurer.

The views expressed in guest posts are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by the Genetics Society of America.

• “Mixed feelings on MIRA,” (April 7, 2016)
• “Please share your feedback on the MIRA program” (March 23, 2016)
• “Funding Opportunity: NIGMS MIRA program” (March 18, 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

In preparation for The Allied Genetics Conference (TAGC), set to take place in Orlando this July, Genes to Genomes is getting the inside scoop from many of the outstanding keynote speakers in our “Behind the Podium” series. Here, GSA member Sarah Neuman interviews National Institutes of Health Director, Francis Collins.

Photo Credit: Bill Branson

As the former leader of the Human Genome Project and the current Director of NIH, Dr. Francis Collins has led an illustrious and successful scientific career. Attendees of The Allied Genetics Conference (TAGC) will  be treated to a robust discussion of current scientific advancements in the field of genetics and the importance of basic research during his keynote address at the meeting. Because his scientific roots are in genetics, Collins is particularly excited to be a part of TAGC and to interact with the genetics community at large.

One might wonder what makes a scientist like Dr. Collins “tick.” Trained as both a physician and a geneticist, Dr. Collins cites his clinical interactions with patients as a motivating force for his research on the genetic basis of disease. Work done by Collins and colleagues was instrumental in identifying the genes responsible for several diseases, including cystic fibrosis, Huntington’s disease, and progeria, a rare premature aging disorder. Collins regards this connection between basic science research and clinical treatment as a special privilege he was granted during his career. Collins’ expertise in medical genetic research led to his appointment as the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, which oversaw the Human Genome Project. When asked what career accomplishment he has found most rewarding, Dr. Collins answered without hesitation: “[I was honored to have] the privilege of leading the Human Genome Project, to read out all those letters of the human DNA instruction book, as well as all the other model organisms that were part of the project.”

When it comes to the future of biomedical research, Collins is enthusiastic about the role of genetics and model organisms. He thinks that we will depend on model organism research more than ever as we continue to unravel the mysteries of the human body and uncover the causes of disease.  Collins notes that many experiments simply cannot be carried out in humans due to ethical concerns or the complexity of the human body. Throughout the decades, there have been many fundamental discoveries made in model organisms that were then applied to humans and Dr. Collins predicts that the field will continue to depend on these systems more and more to discover how life works and to understand what can go wrong in disease.

Dr. Collins also has some sage advice for early-career scientists. “This is the best time in history to get involved in science, particularly life science, but one should aim to try to answer important questions and not just obvious ones. And, you should count on doing this in a fashion where you ally yourselves with other talented people who have different expertise, because much of the excitement seems to happen at the interface between disciplines. This is not a time to be narrow.” Conferences like TAGC and organizations like GSA that unite researchers from diverse model systems provide an ideal platform to promote interdisciplinary collaborations that will help move science forward.

For anyone who is not yet sure if they want to attend TAGC, perhaps Dr. Collins’ “elevator pitch” will persuade you:

“Genetics has become the way in which we unravel the mysteries of life across the entire spectrum of animals, plants, and bacteria, and if you want to be doing something interesting in science right now, you are probably going to be using the tools of genetics to solve mysteries, and that should be on full display at this meeting.”

About the author: Sarah Neuman is a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She uses forward genetics to study the role of endocrine signaling mechanisms in the control of systemic growth during Drosophila development.