Comments on: Please share your feedback on the MIRA program

By: Genes to Genomes: a blog from the Genetics Society of America

Genes to Genomes: a blog from the Genetics Society of America — Fri, 08 Apr 2016 15:53:08 +0000

[…] “Please share your feedback on the MIRA program” (March 23, 2016) […]

By: Arthur Lustig

Arthur Lustig — Sat, 26 Mar 2016 21:14:22 +0000

In reply to Arthur Lustig. Clarification: in other words....those who initially were well funded. The program is not intentionally rigged but will have the effect of not helping the average PI. My apologies'

By: Arthur Lustig

Arthur Lustig — Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:16:58 +0000

In my view, this grant supports PIs who were funded at the worst time inNIH funding history. To have still received two or more grants at that time, they likely came from a pool of the best funded before that time, in other worst those who Initial I ally were rich. This rigged against the average PI and will do nothing for most members of GSA.

By: James B. Jaynes

James B. Jaynes — Thu, 24 Mar 2016 19:35:59 +0000

I don’t like the idea of overlapping responsibilities and/or competing purposes that may be at odds with each other. If money at NIGMS is being spread too thinly, for example, it makes more sense to try to address that problem at the source, rather than layer another mechanism over it that exacerbates the root of the problem, which is that there is not enough money overall to go around. Having yet another program inevitably involves more administrative costs, further exacerbating the problem.

By: Mark Johnston

Mark Johnston — Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:32:25 +0000

I had high hopes for MIRA, mostly based on what I learned about it from Jon Lorsch. But I’m now concerned it will have the opposite of its intended effect.

A colleague with 2 R01 grants received a MIRA, but it was only funded to ~ $320K/year (direct costs). That’s not the size of 2 R01 grants, and indeed is not enough to fund two projects. So my colleague now has less money to run his lab, and he no longer has a chance to apply for a grant from NIGMS (the agency most likely to fund his work). He will now have to work harder to get the funds to run his lab, because he can only apply to Institutes less likely to fund him. Based on this example, MIRA looks like a bait-and-switch strategy to me.

My colleague lost by applying for a MIRA. I fear we’ll all lose if NIGMS spreads the money so thinly that nobody can succeed.