The NIH Budget Woes

Let's get the party started right with this topic. Look at the chart below.

Chart shows percentages of RO1 applications funded.

Other information about the current state of disrepair is that only 24% of RO1 proposals are successful. Further complicating this, is that a vanishingly small 12% of RO1's get funded the first time around. Likewise, the average age of an investigator when they receive their first RO1 has jumped up from 39 to 43 years of age.

So you have to be older, apply for things multiple times, and have an even smaller margin to fit in to get funding. That's not a healthy sector if you ask me...

The graph, and the data came from:

A Broken Pipeline? Flat Funding of the NIH Puts a Generation of Science at Risk, co-authored by Brown University, Duke University, Harvard University, The Ohio State University, Partners Healthcare, the University of California Los Angeles and Vanderbilt University.

What is interesting about this report is that it does a pretty good job of putting into perspective the trends that will threaten biomedical research in the next 10-20 years. The future component of it has some scary aspects to it. Zerhouni - NIH Director - stated that in that timeframe we'll transition to having more scientists above the age of 65 than below the age of 35.

On the one hand, this is exceptionally alarming and does indeed point to an unsustainable situation. On the other, I keep thinking about the predictions that some have made that roughly 50% of the federal workforce is going to retire in the next 10 years. I'm curious if the biomedical research sector is going to experience this demographic thinning and switch due to the baby-boomers retiring as well as irresponsible administration fiscal policy and an outdated administrative and institutional management structure within NIH.

Big caveat on my last statement. I absolutely agree that we've underfunded biomedical research and that we are going to have a problem with the workforce. Equally, I agree that we've made a commitment as a country to being a leader in biomedical research. So the advocating role that the report plays is significant and should be considered useful.

But, just as I like to distinguish between institutional, advocacy, and policy analysis; the report should be teased out that way. NIH has its own institutional issues that it should be forward thinking about - including its review procedures and how it maintains its workforce and a top-notch research portfolio. The scientific community has its own issues with trying to promote the field and reminding the American people that we've all committed to this over the last 50 years and that in order to continue to make progress, we have to be constantly looking at how we're doing and be flexible enough to ensure a sustainable pipeline.

Presidential Candidate Science Debate

There is a group out there that really wants to see the candidates participate in a science debate. We had a discussion last week at our Duke Science & Society group meeting about this. I didn't take notes at our gathering, but I will try to relate what I think about the topic (and I'm sure that others who were with us said some of these things, so I can't take credit for all of it, but certainly cannot remember who said what).

Many thought that the candidates and their science advisors should participate. I was curious about this. I wanted to better understand what outcome people wanted. I wanted to know what kinds of questions would be asked and how we expected a candidate who would 'do well would answer the questions.

What exactly do we expect a candidate to know about science?

I think this is a tough question. A lot of discussion was had about this. Some argued that they should know approximately the current state of the field in a given area. For instance, they should know what the field thinks about climate change.

I wanted to know that they would seek sound scientific advice and would use it appropriately and weight it appropriately given all the other things that had to be taken into account in an analysis process. This was met with skepticism from some of my peers. They wanted to see more. I think this is why we have a call for a science debate. Some even wanted the candidates to demonstrate a basic proficiency.


At what depth should they be capable of answering something?

I think there is a dangerous expectation about this part of the discussion. Many almost expect a presidential candidate to be omnicompetent - something I believe is unreasonable. I want to know that they would approach areas and questions and seek assistance from scientific advicors and scientists. Further, I wanted to see them demonstrate that they view things more as complex problems and less as binary decisions.


Should they participate in a science debate, or should scientists be more assertive in the mainstream process of elections and campaigns and the mainsteram debate process?

At one level, this almost comes across as being a group of elites that are unhappy that they don't get paid enough attention to. That has all the hallmarks of a special interest group. It is the special interest group area that I think the science debate actually falls into.

Sure, I believe we absolutely have to include science in the analysis process and need great science advisors to be advocating for sound science and evidence in any important decision-making process; however, we can't go so far as to domineer or take over the process.

There is important scientific advice and science policy questions that are part of almost every agency in the federal government. Why take the science out and treat it separately in a debate, as opposed to injecting the scientists passion into the mainstream process. If we empower the American people and participate just like everyone else, we can bring the issues we care about into the fold. We want to be accepted and included that way, so why not make the effort in that direction rather than trying to carve out our own separate 'special' spot.

The bottom line is that it has to be balanced and we have to learn that we aren't the only stakeholders, just like the non-scientists have to learn that we are an important part of the process too.

More Thoughts on Presidential Advisors

So in my last post, I briefly discussed Obama's and Clinton's science advisors. In a comment, Jeremy noted that neither advisor has ever performed scientific research, and that having non-scientists as advisors might "cripple" the advising. In general, I think it would be great to have more card-carrying scientists in advisory roles. But...

I think that the science advice a president receives is somewhat different from, e.g., the economic or military advice. Economists who work in the White House will actually have to do economics as a part of their job. And their training in, say, macroeconomics or finance has a very direct and simple link to the type of policies they would give advice on. Similarly, military experts may have very relevant insights on how to plan a military campaign. In short, simply being an economist or being in command of troops often provides you with a skill set that has policy implications.

In science, on the other hand, the connection isn't that simple. My experience in space plasma physics, object-oriented programming and differential equations doesn't necessarily make me better qualified to set an entire scientific agenda. I feel somewhat comfortable discussing policy not because of my science background, but because I have gone out of my way to learn about policy. That is, the policy side of science advising involves skills extrinsic to being a scientist.

Nevertheless, despite these caveats, I do think that all else being equal, it would be much better to have a science advisor who has performed scientific research. Unfortunately, all else is rarely equal.

Presidential Science Advisors

The presidential primaries have been going on for almost 2 months now, and it might be useful to get some information into their science advisors and policies. For background reading on all the major candidates, check out Science magazine in the January 4, 2008 issue. Since then the field has narrowed considerably, but it still makes good reading. You can find the issue here.

On 2/18/08, the science advisors to Clinton and Obama faced off in an informal debate at the annual convention of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. You can read about it here. Of course, both advisors (Alec Ross for Obama and Thomas Kalil for Clinton) both said they would increase basic research funding, attack climate change and end the politicization of science. McCain declined the invitation, and I couldn’t find anyone who specifically advises him about science issues. Go here to read Clinton’s policy details, here for McCains and here for Obama’s. Clinton's and Obama's are-not surprisingly-very similar. McCain does not go into much detail on anything except climate change, an issue that he's been passionate about for a while.

Ross, Obama’s advisor, graduated from Northwester in 1994 and is known for his social entrepreneurship and founding One Economy, a non-profit that aims to increase technology access among low-income Americans. Kalil worked under Bill Clinton as the Deputy Assistant for Technology and Economic Policy, and has written several articles on S&T policy.

Whoever ultimately wins in November, it’s not clear what role a science advisor would play in any administration. Any decision, even one that heavily involves science, must also balance economic, political and ethical factors. Accordingly, the science advisor position isn’t always as important as us scientists would like it to be. According to the June 2007 issue of Physics Today, Eisenhower was the last President whose science advisors had direct access. Roger Pielke, Jr. at the University of Colorado has compiled an excellent resource on past advisors that you can check out here.

Scientists generally believe that science and scientists should be better used in politics and policy making. I believe that too…but I’ll also be the first to admit that it’s unclear what the sentiment means. Science and data are often very important, but I’m afraid of political debates being “scientized.” That is, I think that global warming is about economics and ethics as much as science. That’s why I am somewhat skeptical of a Science Debate. Go here for some analysis and useful links. I’d be interested in your thoughts as to what the role of a science advisor should be.

Research On Disabled Populations - IRB Membership Considerations

Below is a memo I wrote for a class. Much of the way I characterize some of it was influenced by Rebecca Dressers book When Science Offers Salvation, as well as my experience working to create the position of disability representative for the IRB at Duke University Health System (and where I still serve as the disability representative).

It is my opinion that bioethics is a form of science policy (it fits in my taxonomy idea). I'm sure others might disagree, but that's part of the fun of discussion!


Problem
Institutional Review Boards (IRB’s) are tasked with protecting the rights of human subjects in research. They are expected to abide by a litany of federal regulations, international declarations, and align the research with the sentiments of the community. They accomplish this through a committee decision-making process that brings stakeholders and knowledgeable scientists together in one place.

One particular voice is not heard in this process; the voice of the disability community. The federal regulations should include specific provisions requiring a disability representative be included in the constitution of an IRB for all research that is performed on a disabled population.

Background
It is estimated that one in every five people in the United States are disabled, and our last census showed that 50 million Americans claimed to be disabled.(1,2) This segment of our population is very heterogeneous. It crosses boundaries of race, gender, culture, background, sensitivities, morals, values, and level of education. A corollary with the large percentage of people that have disabilities would be that by the numbers an appreciable percentage will participate in biomedical research. This percentage, though no studies specifically have been done, is likely larger than that of the non-disabled populations.

This might be attributed to research protocols underway that need to be tested on those people who have a specific disease or disorder, many of which would allow the individual to self identify as disabled under definitions used in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the definitions of disability used by the United Nations.(3)

The main themes for the disability community are inclusion and representation, as well as protection from discrimination. In the last 30+ years we have seen the creation of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the ADA in 1990, and the IDEA in 1997. The passing of these acts demonstrates another feature of the disability community, that the community is very vocal.(4)

Disability representatives are charged with representing this varied constituency. With respect to human subject research; the expertise these advocates bring is background knowledge of these many acts and laws that most people are unaware of the specifics about. Disability representatives provide insight into how to best meet the regulations and foster a more collaborative environment between the research enterprise and the disability community in order to more effectively develop research plans.

One very simple example would be making available large print, or Braille consent forms to participants in a study that specifically recruits blind or visually impaired subjects. Another example would be providing readers and other trained individuals to read consent forms to those with disabilities.

An ideal disability representative, displaying the following qualities, would be an immense help to IRB’s: (5)

1. Knowledgeable of the ethics of research with human subjects.
2. Knowledgeable of the underlying science.
3. Accurately and realistically portray information about research.
4. Pays attention to and connected to all the disability community.
5. Is prepared to / capable of addressing a wide variety of outcomes that disabled individuals face.
6. Appreciates the diversity of the disability community.
7. Avoids narrowness in seeking policy or public health change.
8. Avoids haste and oversimplification of the present state and the proposed direction of research.
9. Adopts conflict of interest guidelines in order to prevent an undermining of their position
10. Can direct individuals to useful materials, and warn them of misleading material.
11. Scrutinizes and helps set standards for reporting and media coverage about research.

In terms of our present policies, disability representatives meet criteria for inclusion as IRB members (6) : It is also noteworthy to relate that these guidelines are resonated in CIOMS, and the Common Rule, amongst others.

21 Code of Federal Regulations. 56.107
Subpart B—Organization and Personnel
(a) Each IRB shall have at least five members, with varying backgrounds to promote complete and adequate review of research activities commonly conducted by the institution . . . including consideration of race, gender, cultural backgrounds, and sensitivity to such issues as community attitudes, to promote respect for its advice and counsel in safeguarding the rights and welfare of human subjects.
(c) Each IRB shall include at least one member whose primary concerns are in the scientific area and at least one member whose primary concerns are in nonscientific areas.
(d) Each IRB shall include at least one member who is not otherwise affiliated with the institution and who is not part of the immediate family of a person who is affiliated with the institution.
(f) An IRB may, in its discretion, invite individuals with competence in special areas to assist in the review of complex issues which require expertise beyond or in addition to that available on the IRB. These individuals may not vote with the IRB.

Altnernatives

1. Amend the Code of Federal Regulations to specifically denote the requirement of disability representatives on IRB’s similar to how prisoner representatives are included to protect that vulnerable population.

2. Create a guidance document from the Office of Human Research Protections (OHRP) at the National Institute of Health (NIH) concerning the review of research directly recruiting a disabled population.

Analysis
Since they are closely tied to the disability community, and are knowledgeable about their concerns, fears, attitudes and values; disability representatives are capable of representing the participant community. Their insight can augment the risk/benefit calculus by providing a perspective on what factors are weighted and to what extent they influence prospective participants. Thus, they would have valuable insight in the planning and implementation of a research protocol.(7)

While one may combat this with the argument that disability representatives may be overly enthusiastic about research, overemphasizing benefits, fostering therapeutic misconception, and at times narrow in their thinking; that risk is minimized by finding members who display the positive qualities previously noted.(8)

One might also argue that the inclusion of community members already in IRB’s would provide the same benefits, and would remove many of the possible drawbacks of having a representative specifically for disabled individuals. I do not find this to be compelling because public views in IRB’s are often subdued on account of four main reasons. These are; (1) a lack of technical expertise, (2) they are vastly outnumbered, (3) they are appointed by the institution and (4) they lack a formal role in the process.(9) Disability representatives, however, are in the unique position to be able to combat these points.

One of the strengths of including disability representatives on IRB’s is enforcement and implementation of procedures that comply with the ADA and the Rehab Act of 1973. These representatives could serve as a check on the rest of the research enterprise, ensuring that the types of rampant abuse of research participants that pop up does not continue.(10)

An example of where disability representatives could have helped to prevent such abuse is what happened at the Leben Home for Adults in Elmhurst, N.Y. In January of 1998, twenty-four men with mental disorders were made to sign consent forms allowing doctors to perform surgery for an enlarged prostate. Many of these patients were not even conclusively diagnosed with the problem (11). It is this type of breakdown of the review process and standard procedures, combined with neglecting valuable input from the disability community that causes these types of abuses.

Alternative 1
In section (a) of 21 CFR 56.107 Subpart B, disability representatives are especially qualified to address these considerations based on their close ties to the disability community. In section (c) a disability representative meets this since many are not primarily interested in science, and have backgrounds and professional positions elsewhere.

The pertinent sections of (d) and (f) respectively are truly where disability representatives can make their entry points. Most are not involved with the institutions as in part (d), and they provide the type of expertise that is spoken to in part (f).

Based on the criteria set out by the FDA, there is no reason to exclude disability representatives from IRB’s. We can extend this by mandating inclusion of a disability representative on IRB’s. Inclusion of a disability representative on an IRB would also serve as an ADA compliance check, given the familiarity they would have with that act.

Alternative 2
The Office of Human Research Protections produces guidance documents for IRB’s on a regular basis. These are intended to clarify the federal regulations and provide additional insight into how these regulations might be best applied by IRB’s on a day-to-day basis.

Changes in federal regulations regarding human subject research protections will most certainly benefit from providing this additional guidance documentation. However, should it be improbable that alternative 1 occur; this alternative could have the same affect.

Many IRB’s follow, to the letter, guidance documentation from OHRP. In this sense, any guidance that recommend including disability representatives on IRB’s and explain the roles and contributions that they can provide will likely be followed as if it was a change in the federal regulations.

Recommendatios
The need for disability representatives on IRB’s is there; now we must change our policies and guidelines to incorporate them in an appropriate manner. This means changing the federal regulations that we looked at before to include a minimum of one disability representative on each IRB and creating guidance documents from OHRP.

REFERENCES:
1 Private communication with Andy Imparato. President American Association of People with Disabilities (AAPD).
2 An estimated 17.3 million self-reported disabled persons per the 2000 US Census, which doesn’t take into account unemployed or other qualified groups based on ADA or UN definitons. US Disability Statistics, Cornell University. http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/edi/disabilitystatistics/census.cfm
3 Kaplan, Deborah. The Definition of Disability. The Center for an Accessible Society. http://www.accessiblesociety.org/topics/demographics-identity/dkaplanpaper.htm
4 Shapiro, Joseph. No Pity: People with Disabilities Forging a New Civil Rights Movement. © 1993 Three Rivers Press. New York, N.Y. pg 104-141
5 Dresser, Rebecca. When Science Offers Salvation. © 2001 Oxford University Press. New York. N.Y. (while not specifically stated, many of the criteria listed were inspired by this text, specifically pg 153-172)
6 FDA regulations obtained from Sugarman, J. Ethics of Research With Human Subjects. © 1998 University Publishing Group. Frederick, M.D. pg 91-92.
7 Dresser, R. pg 124
8 Dresser, R. pg 157
9 Beauchamp, T.L. & Childress, J.F. Principles of Biomedical Ethics , Oxford University Press, 5th ed. 2001.
10 Dresser, R. pg 111-128
11 Levy, C.J. ‘Inquiry finds mentally ill patients endured ‘assembly line’ surgery.’ New York Times. New York, N.Y. March 18th, 2001.

DARPA - TIA - Data Mining

I'm taking a course on Contemporary Issues in National Security. One of the current topics we are disccussing is TIA - Total Information Awareness. This was a project supported by the Office of Information Awareness. This office was created in early 2002. It no longer exists for various reasons. It came out of DARPA.

One of the reasons IAO and TIA aren't around anymore is that they were looked upon as inappropriate invasions of civil liberties. They were also attacked for using unproven methods, in secret, on the American people.

At the deep level, what it turns out people were unhappy with was the use of Pattern Analysis methods for predicting risky individuals or risks of terrorism. I draw upon this conclusion on account of a Senate Hearing in the Judiciary Cmte regarding data mining. The hearing took place on January 10th, 2007.

The testimony for the hearing can be found at the following URL:
http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearing.cfm?id=2438

What was most confusing about the statements from the people at the hearing was the nuance that they missed. Put simply, there is a difference between research and implementation. In a research setting, hypotheses are tested and questions about validity and usefulness are ones the investigators try to answer. Implementation is, of course, the efficient and effective deployment of some system or program etc. It is not answering questions about validity (for the most part).

The grey area for TIA was that it was seen through IAO as being something people assumed was already proven. On those grounds, it seems straightforward for the many in that hearing to argue that it was not effective and inappropriate to use these methods and have them dictate real actions without a rigorous investigation and defense of the power of the method to achieve the intended results.

However, the counterargument that seems to have never been addressed is the following: How does the government ever go about testing a system that uses data mining techniques aimed at meeting the need for national security?

At this point, unfortunately, it can become a chicken or egg. Nobody wants to, rightly, implement something that hasn't been tested. At the same time, the hearing in the Judiciary Cmte seems to almost go as far as to say one can never test it. This would seem almost anti-research.

The only compromise that came to my mind was to submit projects or programs like TIA and others that want to test data ming methods which could be used for the purpose of protecting national security to research oversight committees such as Institutional Review Boards. I would propose this as one of the necessary, but not sufficient, steps towards testing these kinds of things. The other necessary step would be going through a judicial review of the program - such as we see with the FISA court.

NB: I'm not trying to comment on the merits or criticisms of pattern analysis as a tool in predicting certain types of behavior. I'm merely pointing out that the most prudent thing to do is not to count anything out; rather provide the best mechanisms and oversight possible to test and determine things appropriately.

The New NIGMS Strategic Plan

I have a bias, I care about the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) at the National Institute of Health (NIH) a little more at this point in my career than other NIH centers. That might have a little to do with the fact that my fellowship is thruogh NIGMS. It could also have a lot to do with the focus of NIGMS and some of the unique things that NIGMS does that all other NIH centers do not do (and have not ever done, nor will they ever do).

I've taken some snapshots from the strategic plan and placed them below. After each I've given a little comment about why I think these are especially relevant or important in our current era of biomedical science.

The entire plan can be found at the following URL
http://www.nigms.nih.gov/StrategicPlan/

I'd recommend the section 'Why Basic Research?' as it does a very good job of explaining the importance of basic science (basic biomedical science) and the temporal relationship between that kind of science and its ability to deliver something at the other end. It also makes it clear that there is often a dissonance for many between what is funded by NIGMS and what the possibilities for those - often strange looking - funded projects to produce incredible innovation.


In particular, NIGMS will make a deliberate effort to fund new investigators. These actions are especially relevant in limited funding climates that can disadvantage applicants who are new to the NIH system. NIGMS will also continue to provide bridge funding for highly meritorious investigators who are especially at risk during constrained budget periods.

In an age of an increasing scarce resource (money for science), this is a great statement to make. It reflects a desire to make a balance between bringing new investigators into the fold and reduce the perception or reality of cronyism. It also makes it clear that NIGMS recognizes the very real problem that great investigators face in the long run; funding and projects can go in cycles of great highs and sometimes scary lows. It is important to be sure to not allow the cyclic nature to un-necessarily force out great investigators.

NIGMS will continue to develop alternative in-house review practices and criteria that address review challenges, especially those that affect interdisciplinary research, quantitative biology, new scientific fields, and the entrance of new players into the biomedical research community.

This is huge if done right. Acknowledging the importance of using different criteria for evaluating interdisciplinary research and research in new and emerging fields is a problem many talk about but few have dared to try and deal with. This demonstrates a great deal of forward thinking and accepting the current reality of science.


Some of these NIGMS-funded research efforts will involve clinical studies, but the Institute will not fund purely outcomes-based research, nor will it systematically examine issues related to health access and delivery.

This is a firm statement of both function and direction. It sets the stage for something that has not been made clear in the past; whether some of their funding was redundant or if it was serving purposes that were already nominally served by another institute or center. It remains important for NIH to have a component of its funding institutes/centers purposefully remain far away from what amounts to contract science. NIGMS is saying firmly that it will be that institute.

NIGMS will continue to play a key role in supporting the creation of research resources including sample repositories, databases, and interoperable software and hardware tools that enhance data exchange among diverse groups of researchers. As part of this involvement, NIGMS will develop policies to ensure the broad availability and interoperability of publicly developed resources.

This is interesting on at least two fronts. The first is that NIGMS is making it a priority to get into the world of database work. It is often the case that sample repositories that have been kept for a long time, and databases that contain information from experiments performed over long periods of time provide incredible benefits. When new methods or insights are learned after a period of time, returning to this information to evaluate it has the possibility to assist in the process of making leaps forward. One such database is the Protein Data Bank. This data bank, a repository for all the 3-D coordinates of macromolecular protein and nucleic acid structures, is the central place for structural bioinformatic studies. Without it, we would not have the ability to identify motifs and other insights about the 3-D nature of these complex molecules and would further be incapable of investigating relationships between structure and function (one of the holy grails in biology).

The second is that it explicitly states an objective that has to do with policy. In an interesting divergence from the rest of the document, it characterizes interoperability of databases as not just a technical issue, but rather one that has a policy component as well. Having interoperable databases and creating standards for how development and the integration process should go is going to have to include good policy analysis and policy setting to be successful.

NIGMS will leverage its training investment by encouraging institutional training grant recipients to continually improve their existing practices while also welcoming new approaches. NIGMS is keenly aware of the need for more personnel in quantitative disciplines as well as the integrative sciences like physiology, pharmacology, and the clinical sciences. The Institute will consider approaches that provide institutional incentives that encourage students to interact with investigators in more than one discipline.

This is important because it reflects the theme of engaging new investigators and new interdisciplinary initiatives. While other strategic plans in the past have paid lip service to supporting interdisciplinary work at a less detailed level; NIGMS has made consistent and thorough statements of just how it will incorporate this theme throughout its strategic plan.

It is also important to note that most of the training grants and fellowships for graduate students in the basic biomedical sciences are provided by NIGMS. They are the main institute within the NIH that is concerned with and supports the training of the next gneration of basic scientists. This reiterates their commitment to doing that and supporting it being interdisciplinary training.

Dimensions of diversity include ethnicity, gender, disability, socioeconomic status, and national origin. The Institute is also aware of the low representation of women in leadership positions in the basic sciences and aims to close these gaps. NIGMS acknowledges the special circumstances faced by various segments of society in accessing career opportunities.

NIGMS is the only NIH institute that specifically thinks about and deals with biomedical science workforce issues. They have the MORE (Minority Opportunities in Research) division. This division has been incredibly successful in being one of the few places to specifically target minorities for increased access to research careers. Also, NIGMS has not reduced other types of fellowships and funding in the process. So there has not been a sense that it has been increasing one at the cost of others. That is a big point of contention for those who oppose what some might call entitlement programs.

Likewise, NIGMS has acknowledged and made it clear to others that they indeed are the only ones who think about and deal with short and long term workforce issues. Within the context of the above statement, they also specifically say they are going to do more to understand workforce issues (by conducting research on it and using that evidence to drive the programmatic needs). As far as I know, this would be the first time that NIH or a center within it has decided to take sole ownership over caring about workforce issues and using research to better understand it and drive its program.

The Institute will consider implementing a "broader aims" component of research project grant applications that explicitly evaluates an investigator's training, mentoring, and diversity activities.

One of the big problems that junior faculty site at major research institutions is the tenure process and what you get credit for (and what you don't). Sure, most places say they care about training and mentoring activities of a tenure candidate; the reality is that it matters not at all in comparison to how much you bring to the institution in grant funding (everyone wants more and more indirect costs). If NIGMS makes this a real component that matters, it will become a component that other institutions take more seriously because it will affect the bottom line.

Since universities and grantees take their cues from the funders in an almost frantic manner, hopefully this be just one component that contributes to a shift towards a more balanced view of how we train, mentor, diversify, and support the next generation of scientists.

the Institute will explore ways to increase communication among scientists working in diverse fields, potentially leading to new interactions and discoveries.

This, yet again, is a specific statement that demonstrates an understanding of problems faced by interdisciplinary scientific investigations. For most, it seems obvious. However, just because the problem is an obvious one doesn't mean the solution is readily identified and implemented. This could be a very fruitful area for the social scientists to use their strengths to assist the physical and life scientists.

The Institute will also work to diminish misperceptions about biomedical science and scientists that stem from outdated stereotypes and lack of information. NIGMS will continue to provide students, teachers, and the general public with educational materials that illustrate the value of basic research and encourage the pursuit of scientific careers.

This is good because it specifically addresses a common problem often cited; that non-scientists don't understand the scientists and visa versa. It also finally says that NIGMS should make its case better about why it is important. Since it is the main institute to fund basic science research, it will have to bear the burden of defending basic science.