stimulus and the National Institue of Health (NIH)

[PeterMP]

If anybody is interested from an e-mail I got today:

On February 17, President Obama signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA). Among the goals of the ARRA are to preserve and create jobs, promote economic recovery, and provide investments to increase economic efficiency by spurring technological advances in science and health. NIH is grateful for the opportunity afforded by the ARRA to provide economic stimulus to the nation while furthering our mission to uncover new knowledge that will lead to better health for everyone. NIH will receive $10 billion through the ARRA for use over the next two years (2009 and 2010). Of this, $1 billion will be invested in extramural construction (administered through the National Center for Research Resources), $0.8 billion will be provided to the Office of the NIH Director for extending and developing appropriate programs, and $7.4 billion will be provided to the NIH institutes and centers (proportional to their appropriations).

Staff throughout NIH, including at NIGMS, are working diligently to determine how to invest these resources. A major consideration is that these funds must be distributed over 18 months to meet the goals of the ARRA.

We are aware of how interested you are in these programs and will be providing more details as they become available. If you have general thoughts about how the ARRA funds should be used to meet the goals of the Act, please feel free to e-mail me at REDACTED

_______

They have grants over the last year that have been "scored" that weren't below the funding cut off (it's like golf- the lower your score the better). The rumor is that some of those will be funded (grant funding is currently less than 10% of the submitted proposals are funded at the NIH) so they could do it pretty quickly (they don't have to wait for new proposals to be submitted, reviewed, and scored).

Everybody should feel free to e-mail them and tell them they should devote their extra resources to funding projects in two areas:

1. The National Library of Medicine which funds computational/bioinformatic tools, including databases that are involved in desiminating biomedical/biochemical information to the public.

2. Basic research designed to understand how bacteria evolve/respond to stress w/ an eye towards identifying novel antibiotic targets.

[Leonard Washington]

I'll believe it when I see it.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

PeterMP what kind of work do you do?

[PeterMP]

PeterMP what kind of work do you do?

I'm a professor of biochemistry (because of the field my PhD was in even though I don't really do much of what would really be considered biochemistry these days- other than teach it).

[Tastes Like Chicken]

I'm a professor of biochemistry (because of the field my PhD was in even though I don't really do much of what would really be considered biochemistry these days- other than teach it).

Cool. Always interested in networking with fellow ES biotechies.

The NIH is one of my best customers. No one yet seems to know much detail about this stimulus money.

[PeterMP]

I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't know what you do, but my program officer at the NIH seems to think this is a sure thing. The exact mechanics of it are unclear at this time and so they don't really have a time-line for decisions, but the money is there (well there in the sense that money is ever "there" w/ respect to the federal government spending), and they are going forward with it.

[PeterMP]

Cool. Always interested in networking with fellow ES biotechies.

The NIH is one of my best customers. No one yet seems to know much detail about this stimulus money.

I've gotten this e-mail and appearantly their was a conference call w/ some of the upper people in the NIH and the people that manage grants at major universities at the end of last week (Thursday?).

I wasn't part of the call (I don't actually manage grants- just spend the money), but got another e-mail from somebody that was present detailing the call.

This was about how things were going to be done in terms of external funding, not internally, but the gist seemed to be that they were going to take grants over the last 3 cycles or 4 cycles (I have grant that I submitted last Feb. that they still haven't made a decision on even w/o considering the stimulus but has been reviewed and given a score) and fund them for 2 years instead of the normal 3. They want to have something done by Sept. so the money is out, and they might fund them for MORE money/year than normal so over 2 years you might even get more total than you'd get in 3 years.

They suggested contacting Program Officers and be prepared to make the argument that you could get as much or more work done if given more money in the 2 year time frame. I contacted my PO to talk about the grant that is still in limbo (in case the decision in made to not fund it), and she said if the decision was made not to fund it, she would certainly keep me in mind for the stimulus money, but there wouldn't be anything in terms of a mechanism in place until the current budget (from the normal budget) had been finished being allocated, which she hoped would be done in 2 weeks (which means I have to resubmit my grant that they've had for a year next week because I won't likely know if it has been funded or not before the deadline for resubmissions next week :mad: if I want any chance to have it funded by 2010).

[jbooma]

The part of the stimulus bill I like the best is regarding EMRs. There is a some clause in the bill that states if Clinical offices are not electronic by 2016 i believe then there could be a reduction in medicare reimbursement. This might be the push that we need to get physician offices all electronic. This is huge for me

[Burgold]

Good. The NIH had gotten really beaten up by the Bush Administration. Historically, they were one of the best. Hopefully, they can recover some of what they were.

[Thiebear]

It may not have gotten a WINDFALL every year but i wouldn't say 'beat up' On Dec. 26, 2007, President Bush signed a $555 billion fiscal 2008

133million increase in 2008

The budget measure provides a $133 million, 0.5% increase for the NIH. The figure is adjusted for an earlier bipartisan agreement to transfer $295 million of the institutes' budget to the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria. Biomedical research inflation, however, is expected to remain steady at 3.7% this year, according to the Dept. of Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis.

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/01/21/gvsa0121.htm

[Burgold]

From what I heard internally from my Mom and about 20 old timers that work or worked at NIH, they say the culture, attitude, and reality has really taken a terrible hit. Not just on an economic level, but on a support level, and a morale level.

NIH is a very different place than it was say in the '80's and even the '90's. They fired a ton of people and replaced them with consultants. Their standards of research has dropped and they switched from a quality to a quantity model. There is a much stricter protocol of what research is acceptible and a goodly portion of the decisions are based on politics and not science.

So, while I admit that anecdotal evidence can be weak, from I understand, NIH has really gotten beaten up and not just economically.

[Thiebear]

A big boost in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding in the face of budget freezes and cutbacks at other American research agencies has some scientists and politicians crying foul over President George Bush's 2002 budget proposal. The plan calls for a 13% increase for NIH and cuts or freezes for nearly every other non-defense R&D program.

Since 1998, the NIH budget has doubled while annual budgets for non-clinical science programs have seen far smaller increases, according to the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). "I would not necessarily say that NIH is getting too much, but I do think that the government needs to maintain a balance," says J. David Litster, the Dean for Research at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

but i digress: its nice to see money thrown at nice projects to give them twice the amount as their normal.. even if they weren't short money.

[Burgold]

Yeah, and we could both be right. I do know a lot of good folks were forced into early retirement and not replaced except via outside contractors. I know the benefits package is much worse these days and that I hear a loooooooooot of griping from NIHers, but maybe in someways they aren't beat up despite feeling beat up. Afterall, it's a relative thing.

I agree with your end point. It's good to see these agencies being supported and hopefully, they continue to produce work that will benefit us all.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

It may not have gotten a WINDFALL every year but i wouldn't say 'beat up' On Dec. 26, 2007, President Bush signed a $555 billion fiscal 2008

133million increase in 2008

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/01/21/gvsa0121.htm

% Growth of the NIH budget by year, adjusted for inflation.

The NIH budget has not kept pace with inflation, and when factored in the NIH has had a budget cut of tens of millions of dollars.

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/16/1665

http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/nih09p.pdf

http://www.asm.org/Policy/index.asp?bid=56168

[PeterMP]

From what I heard internally from my Mom and about 20 old timers that work or worked at NIH, they say the culture, attitude, and reality has really taken a terrible hit. Not just on an economic level, but on a support level, and a morale level.

NIH is a very different place than it was say in the '80's and even the '90's. They fired a ton of people and replaced them with consultants. Their standards of research has dropped and they switched from a quality to a quantity model. There is a much stricter protocol of what research is acceptible and a goodly portion of the decisions are based on politics and not science.

So, while I admit that anecdotal evidence can be weak, from I understand, NIH has really gotten beaten up and not just economically.

A lot of people left/retired and weren't replaced in terms of actual NIH researchers/staff. I think they are more dependent upon external reviewers to review grants then they were, but I think that is a good thing. Most scientist consider it a pain and not worth the money, but do it as they feel it is an obligation.

In terms of external funding, it is hard to strike what is a good balance. I have one grant from them. If they give me another, I'll ask for the renewals of the 2 I have when their times come, but will also probably ask for a 3rd (I actually have two in now on different scheduels). My ideas on projects are essentially unlimited, and if they give me money to hire people to carry them out, I'm happy to keep asking for more.

The more they fund, the more proposals they encourage. I'm not sure that is the best use of funds, especially when you have very small schools getting money for research (not equipment or training) or even big labs getting lot's of money. I think realistically the more grants/projects somebody has to manage the less well they are going to do manage them.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

A lot of people left/retired and weren't replaced in terms of actual NIH researchers/staff. I think they are more dependent upon external reviewers to review grants then they were, but I think that is a good thing. Most scientist consider it a pain and not worth the money, but do it as they feel it is an obligation.

In terms of external funding, it is hard to strike what is a good balance. I have one grant from them. If they give me another, I'll ask for the renewals of the 2 I have when their times come, but will also probably ask for a 3rd (I actually have two in now on different scheduels). My ideas on projects are essentially unlimited, and if they give me money to hire people to carry them out, I'm happy to keep asking for more.

The more they fund, the more proposals they encourage. I'm not sure that is the best use of funds, especially when you have very small schools getting money for research (not equipment or training) or even big labs getting lot's of money. I think realistically the more grants/projects somebody has to manage the less well they are going to do manage them.

PeterMP, if you know anyone studying gene expression and has a quarter million $$$ of stimulus money burning a hole in their pocket, and wants some cutting edge instrumentation, shoot me a PM will ya?

[Thiebear]

I got a 0% raise in 2001?/2002/2003 because the the IT bubble burst.

I got a 0% raise this year.

I'm happy to have the job. Sometimes being even is just fine.

especially if a .5% is 133million increase.

He was very nice to them that first term compared to Clinton.

[PeterMP]

PeterMP, if you know anyone studying gene expression and has a quarter million $$$ of stimulus money burning a hole in their pocket, and wants some cutting edge instrumentation, shoot me a PM will ya?

What do you deal in? Microarray readers?

[Tastes Like Chicken]

What do you deal in? Microarray readers?

It's a new technology that's somewhat downstream of microarrays, or gene profiling experiments on next-gen sequencers.

In short, a novel technology that does a direct, digital, highly multiplexed quantification of mRNA molecules with no enzymes/RT/PCR amplification whatsoever. You can start from total RNA, whole cell lysate, whole blood lysate, or FFPE-derived total RNA samples. The assay is mostly automated with robotics, so total hands-on time is ~10 minutes. Perfect technology for validation of hits from microarray/next gen sequencing, pathway analysis, biomarker experiments etc. and less expensive and much less labor involved than qRT-PCR.

[RonJeremy]

It's a new technology that's somewhat downstream of microarrays, or gene profiling experiments on next-gen sequencers.

In short, a novel technology that does a direct, digital, highly multiplexed quantification of mRNA molecules with no enzymes/RT/PCR amplification whatsoever. You can start from total RNA, whole cell lysate, whole blood lysate, or FFPE-derived total RNA samples. The assay is mostly automated with robotics, so total hands-on time is ~10 minutes. Perfect technology for validation of hits from microarray/next gen sequencing, pathway analysis, biomarker experiments etc. and less expensive and much less labor involved than qRT-PCR.

uhhh...what? :dunce:

Wow...I have no idea what any of that means.

[PeterMP]

Perfect technology for validation of hits from microarray/next gen sequencing, pathway analysis, biomarker experiments etc. and less expensive and much less labor involved than qRT-PCR.

Minus the initial cost of the equipment .

My wife is actually looking at qRT-PCR machines. She's been using a colleagues, but had decided it is time to get one of her own.

You must be doing something like the QuantiGene Plex?

Out of curiosity, what are the max number of genes you do from a sample?

[Tastes Like Chicken]

Minus the initial cost of the equipment .

My wife is actually looking at qRT-PCR machines. She's been using a colleagues, but had decided it is time to get one of her own.

You must be doing something like the QuantiGene Plex?

Out of curiosity, what are the max number of genes you do from a sample?

For qRT-PCR instruments, go with Applied Biosystems. If she's in MD, you can PM me with what institute and I'll give you the sales rep's contact info. I used to work for ABI.

The Quantigene Plex by Panomics can reliably do about 20 or so genes in a sample, and they are not truly digital because they're amplifying signal, which we do not do. What we do essentially, is barcode the mRNA molecules themselves and count them (purely digital, ie. the code is either there or it's not, and we're operating in integers or discrete units).

We currently can quantify anywhere from 10's up to 576 genes per sample. That number will go up to ~1,000 in the next year or so.

[PeterMP]

For qRT-PCR instruments, go with Applied Biosystems. If she's in MD, you can PM me with what institute and I'll give you the sales rep's contact info. I used to work for ABI.

The Quantigene Plex by Panomics can reliably do about 20 or so genes in a sample, and they are not truly digital because they're amplifying signal, which we do not do. What we do essentially, is barcode the mRNA molecules themselves and count them (purely digital, ie. the code is either there or it's not, and we're operating in integers or discrete units).

We currently can quantify anywhere from 10's up to 576 genes per sample. That number will go up to ~1,000 in the next year or so.

If you are doing 1,000 genes you really are pretty competitive with microarrays. Even with something the size of the human genome, let me select the 1,000 genes based on existing data, I can select genes from different "modules" that will give you a good representation of the whole genome. For somethings, you'll want the whole genome still, but for a lot of things it isn't really needed.

(note- I generally dislike binnging things by "modules" and prefer to think of things in terms of gradients of relationships.)

Anyway my wife is in PA.

[Tastes Like Chicken]

If you are doing 1,000 genes you really are pretty competitive with microarrays. Even with something the size of the human genome, let me select the 1,000 genes based on existing data, I can select genes from different "modules" that will give you a good representation of the whole genome. For somethings, you'll want the whole genome still, but for a lot of things it isn't really needed.

(note- I generally dislike binnging things by "modules" and prefer to think of things in terms of gradients of relationships.)

Anyway my wife is in PA.

Just sent you a PM.

[Burgold]

^That may have been one of the most sophisticated exchanges on ES ever. And if a sale goes through, Danny might need a commission for acting as a middleman.