Dean's Newsletter

Archive of previous newsletters

Research tracking—we're in this for the long haul

March 02, 2006

What is our vision of the future for our research enterprise? Countervailing forces are clearly at work.

On the one hand, we have made a substantial investment in research resources during the past decade. New buildings have been constructed, significant renovation of existing laboratory space has occurred, and the number of research faculty has grown substantially. Most important, our investigators have produced a host of exciting research findings, some of which have been highlighted in these newsletters. These efforts have resulted in a doubling of NIH funding, from $70 million in FY96-97 to $140 million in FY04-05, and a proportionate increase in total sponsored funding over this period, from $112 million to $216 million. There is much to cheer about. Indeed, visitors to the medical school almost uniformly comment on the positive morale and excitement that is clearly being transmitted by our faculty.

On the other hand, the President's budget projects a constant funding level for NIH which, due to allocations within NIH, translates into a true reduction in funding for academic health centers. This is especially pertinent to investigator-initiated research, which makes up a very large part of our NIH portfolio. With percent pay-lines at NIH Study Sections dipping into the low teens, there will clearly be some bumps in the road. But will we get whiplash?

There is reason to be optimistic, but the experience for individual investigators will be choppy. Indeed, the need for vigilance was evident several years ago—how could we chart our course to make sure that we don't swerve off? In July 2003, given our collective uncertainty about research support from NIH and elsewhere in an ever-tightening funding environment, I asked our SMD Finance office to begin a tracking system for research grants at the medical school. Prior to that time, we received information on awarded grants only once per year. The University wanted to be sure to count only those grants for which an award had definitely been made. It was very helpful to have definitive, "final" information for yearly reporting, but the annual reporting was not helpful in achieving the vigilance we need in the monitoring of grant activity. Since the summer of 2003, therefore, Chairs have been asked, on a quarterly basis, to report grant submissions, review status, and an estimate of the fundability of the grant based on its review score.

The first data request pertained to grants that were submitted during the quarter 10-1-02 to 12-31-02. Data on proposals are obtained quarterly from the University's grant-management database, COEUS. (Named after the Greek Titan of Intelligence, COEUS was originally licensed from MIT but has been customized to the University's requirements and culture to become "UR-COEUS".) The raw data are then formatted, for each medical school department, into a standardized form with measures to ensure the correct classification of clinical and basic research. This form is then sent electronically to the chair or center director and copied to their administrator. Each chair or center director is asked to review the report with the faculty who submitted a grant during the quarter under review, to assess the status of the grant proposal (funded, fundable score, non-fundable score, not scored, review pending), the grant type (clinical research, basic research, training grant, some other type), and the source of funding (NIH, other federal, nonfederal).

In addition, information on final budget figures and a confirmation of the accuracy of the information related to the proposal are requested. Typically the report is sent out six months after the last day of the quarter for which the information is requested. Follow-up by the business office continues until all the data elements are complete. To smooth cyclical or seasonal effects, four-quarter moving averages of the different parameters are generated, in addition to the "raw" quarter-by-quarter data. Brian VanWuyckhuyse, Administrative Manager of SMD Finance, has done a Herculean job of setting up this system and working with each academic department to insure the timeliness and accuracy of these reports.

The findings tell an interesting story. In the first quarter for which data were collected, 10-1-02 to 12-31-02, there were 178 proposals submitted, with an associated dollar amount totaling $146 million. Of these, 100 were in the fundable range, with an associated funding totaling $55.8 million. Thus, 56% of the proposals were in the fundable range and 38% of the dollars requested were granted. In the most recent quarter for which complete data are available, 4-1-05 to 6-30-05, there were 240 proposals totaling $237.2 million, of which 97 were in the fundable range, totaling $71.3 million. Thus, in this latest period, only 40% of the proposals were in the fundable range and only 30% of the dollars requested were granted. Review of the smoothed, moving average, data tells the same story. Although a smaller percentage of grants are being funded, we are submitting more and larger grants, so that the amount of actual funding is still rising.

What can we infer from this story? First, our research faculty deserve many kudos for recognizing that the funding environment has changed for the worse and for stepping up to submit more grant applications. Second, grants in the "excellent" NIH range, which would have been easily funded a few years ago, are now not being funded. This is extremely disheartening, whether for the junior investigator just getting started, or for the seasoned researcher on his or her third or fourth renewal. Although SMD can support a limited number of "bridge" funds for investigators who were close to the pay-line without piercing it, these funds are inadequate for what will surely be an increasing number of deserving faculty. We need to figure out a way to free up more bridging funds. Third, each investigator must do what he or she can to complete a draft of the grant as early as possible, and then have it reviewed by internal and external expert readers. In this way, the grant can be polished as much as possible prior to submission, with the goal of turning an NIH "excellent" score into an "outstanding." Fourth, we must be alert to RFAs that are pertinent to our areas of expertise, and strongly consider responding to a relevant RFA even if it comes at a time when we weren't planning to write another grant. And finally, we should take advantage of the funds that have been earmarked for the "Roadmap"—these are often new grant mechanisms for which we can be as competitive as anyone if we respond early.

The tracking reports are now posted on the SMD intranet website, (NOTE: URMC network username and password required). In these reports, you will find detailed breakdowns by federal vs. non-federal sources, and clinical vs. basic research. We will post all updates on the intranet as well, as they become available.

Looking ahead, we are optimistic about research at URMC because of the momentum that has been created, but caution is the watchword, given the external funding environment. To maintain vigilance, tools such as our tracking system will help. Now you can track things along with us. My belief is that if we make thoughtful investments in support of our current investigators, and in the recruitment of new scientists to fill important research gaps, we will emerge in a stronger position to take advantage of the next boost in NIH funding when it occurs.

Disheartening as it might be for the moment, we're in this for the long haul. With regards to research funding, it is more appropriate than ever to sign off with the University's motto,

Meliora,

David S. Guzick, MD, PhD
Dean, School of Medicine and Dentistry