WELCOME, EVERYBODY, TO NIGMS
COUNCIL.
THE BEST THING ABOUT BEING IN
PERSON IS I GET TO USE THE GAV
GAVEL.
THAT MAKES ME VERY HAPPY.
WE'RE GOING TO START WITH
INTRODUCTIONS.
I'M JON LORSCH, DIRECTOR OF
NIGMS, AND LET'S GO AROUND THE
ROOM THIS WAY.
>> UNMUTE ON ZOOM, UNMUTE IN THE
ROOM.
I'M DORIT ZUCK, DEPUTY DIRECTOR.
>> ERIC ALANI, MEMBER OF
COUNCIL.
>> ANGELA BYARS-WINSTON,
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON,
MEMBER OF COUNCIL.
>> I'M DAVID MATHEWS FROM THE
UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER FROM THE
DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND
BIOPHYSICS AND OUR CENTER FOR
RNA BIOLOGY.
>> LUCY O'BRIEN, STANFORD SCHOOL
OF MEDICINE, DEPARTMENT OF
MOLECULAR CELLULAR PHYSIOLOGY,
AND I'M HERE AS AN AD HOC.
>> ANGELA DEBASE, HOWARD HUGHES
MEDICAL INSTITUTE AND HARVARD
MEDICAL SCHOOL DEPARTMENT OF
SYSTEMS BIOLOGY AND I'M A MEMBER
OF COUNCIL.
>> RON KING, UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, KECK SCHOOL
OF MEDICINE, TRANSLATIONAL
GENOMICS DEPARTMENT.
>> TERRI GOSS-KINZY, RUTGERS,
DEPARTMENT OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND
MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND MEMBER OF
COUNCIL.
>> I'M JEFF MUGRIDGE, UNIVERSITY
OF DELAWARE, DEPARTMENT OF
CHEMISTRY AND BIOCHEMISTRY, HERE
AS AN AD HOC, EARLY CAREER.
>> HI, EVERYONE.
I'M WENDY YOUNG, FORMER SBP AT
GENOTECH, ADVISOR AT GOOGLE
VENTURES.
>> MY NAME IS JEFF SUN,
PROFESSOR OF HIGHER EDUCATION
AND LAW.
I AM NOT A SCIENTIST HERE.
BUT I'M THE OBLIGATORY LAWYER
HERE, UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE.
>> HARD ACT TO FOLLOW.
PAM STACKS FROM SAN JOSÉ STATE
IN CALIFORNIA.
PROFESSOR EMERITUS, DEPARTMENT
OF CHEMISTRY.
COUNCILMEMBER.
>> AMY ROSENZWEIG, NORTHWESTERN
UNIVERSITY, DEPARTMENTS OF
MOLECULAR BIOSCIENCES AND
CHEMISTRY.
>> RON PRZYGODZKI, I AM YOUR
HAPPY GO LUCKY EX-OFFICIO
INDIVIDUAL.
>> HI, I'M LESILEE ROSE.
DEPARTMENT OF MOLECULAR AND
CELLULAR BIOLOGY AT THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA DAVIS,
AND I'M A REGULAR MEMBER OF
COUNCIL.
>> I'M JUSTUS DEPARTMENT OF
ELECTRICAL AND COMPUTER
ENGINEERING, AD HOC MEMBER.
>> LEYSE WINS FIELD, DEPARTMENT
OF CHEMISTRY, I SPEND MOST OF MY
DAYS AS DIVISION CHAIR FOR
NATURAL SCIENCES AND MATHEMATICS
AND OVERSEEING THE CENTER FOR
EXCELLENCE FOR MINORITY WOMEN IN
STEM.
>> ERICA BROWN, DIRECTOR OF
DIVISION OF EXTRAMURAL
ACTIVITIES AT NIGMS AND
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF COUNCIL.
THANKS FOR JOINING US TODAY.
>> THANK YOU, EVERYONE.
THANKS AGAIN FOR COMING.
IT'S NOW MY GREAT PLEASURE TO
READ TO YOU THE CONFLICT OF
INTEREST STATEMENT.
YOU SHOULD ALL HAVE A CONFLICT
OF INTEREST FORM IN FRONT OF
YOU.
PLEASE SIGN IT AS I READ THE
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
AND LEAVE IT ON THE TABLE.
UNLESS YOU'VE ALREADY SIGNED IT.
OUR TEAM WILL COLLECT IT DURING
THE BREAK.
ADVISORS AND CONSULTANTS SERVING
AS MEMBERS OF PUBLIC ADVISORY
COMMITTEES MAY NOT PARTICIPATE
IN SITUATIONS IN WHICH ANY
VIOLATION OF CONFLICT OF
INTEREST LAWS AND REGULATIONS
MAY OCCUR.
STAFF WILL ENSURE THAT A
COMMITTEE MEMBER DOES NOT
PARTICIPATE IN AND IS NOT
PRESENT DURING REVIEW OF
APPLICATIONS OR PROJECTS IN
WHICH TO THE MEMBER'S KNOWLEDGE
ANY OF THE FOLLOWING HAS A
FINANCIAL INTEREST: THE MEMBER,
THEIR SPOUSE, MINOR CHILD,
PARTNER, INCLUDING CLOSE
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATES, OR AN
ORGANIZATION WITH WHICH THE
MEMBER IS CONNECTED.
IN ADDITION, CONFLICTS OF
INTEREST MAY OCCUR BECAUSE OF
OTHER PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS,
SUCH AS WITH RECENT STUDENTS,
COLLABORATORS, PERSONAL FRIENDS
OR SCIENTISTS WITH WHOM THE
MEMBER HAS HAD LONG-STANDING
SCIENTIFIC OR PERSONAL
DIFFERENCES.
TO ENSURE THAT A MEMBER DOES NOT
PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION OF
NOR VOTE ON AN APPLICATION IN
WHICH THEY ARE IN CONFLICT, A
WRITTEN CERTIFICATION IS
REQUIRED.
THIS STATEMENT WILL BECOME PART
OF THE MEETING FILE.
THE OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS
HAS PROVIDED A WAIVER FOR
FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MEMBERS EMPLOYED IN ONE
UNIVERSITY OF A STATE
MULTI-UNIVERSITY SYSTEM TO
REVIEW APPLICATIONS FROM A
SEPARATE UNIVERSITY OF THE SAME
SYSTEM, PROVIDED THE MEMBER HAS
NO CONFLICTING INSTITUTIONAL
RESPONSIBILITIES.
IN ADDITION, FEDERAL ADVISORY
COMMITTEE MEMBER WHO IS EMPLOYED
BY A PRIVATE INSTITUTION OR AT A
PRIVATE INSTITUTION AND AT ONE
OF ITS AFFILIATES MAY
PARTICIPATE IN THE REVIEW OF
GRANT APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY
ANOTHER AFFILIATE OF THE PRIVATE
INSTITUTION IF THEY DO NOT HOLD
A JOINT APPOINTMENT WITH THE
AFFILIATE THAT HAS SUBMITTED THE
APPLICATION, DO NOT HAVE
AFFILIATE-WIDE RESPONSIBILITIES,
AND HAVE A WAIVER TO DO SO.
WE AT NIGMS KEEP TRACK OF THE
MORE EASILY IDENTIFIABLE
CONFLICTS FOR YOU.
WE RELY ON YOU TO IDENTIFY OTHER
TYPES OF CONFLICTS SUCH AS THOSE
WE ARE UNLIKELY TO KNOW ABOUT,
RECENT STUDENTS, PERSONAL
FRIENDS, ET CETERA.
PLEASE DON'T HESITATE TO LET US
KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS
ABOUT A CONFLICT DURING THE
MEETING.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
OKAY.
WITH THAT, WE'RE GOING TO
CONSIDER THE MINUTES FROM THE
PREVIOUS MEETING.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY AMENDMENTS
OR CONCERNS WITH THE MINUTES
FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING?
HEARING NONE, I WILL ASSUME
UNANIMOUS CONSENT AND THOSE
MINUTES ARE APPROVED.
OKAY.
THEN WE NEED TO CONFIRM FUTURE
COUNCIL MEETING DATES.
THE NEXT THREE COUNCIL MEETING
DATES ARE WEDNESDAY, NOT
THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024,
WHICH WILL BE A VIRTUAL MEETING.
THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6TH, 2025
ALSO A VIRTUAL MEETING, AND THEN
THURSDAY, MAY 22ND, 2025, WHICH
WILL BE OUR IN-PERSON MEETING.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY OBJECTIONS
TO THOSE DATES?
GOOD.
SO WITH THAT, THEN, WE WILL
ASSUME UNANIMOUS CONSENT ON THE
DATES AS WELL AND WE'LL MOVE TO
MY DIRECTOR'S REPORT.
WHICH MEANS I HAVE TO GO UP
THERE.
ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
I'LL NOW GIVE AN UPDATE ON
THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING
AT THE INSTITUTE OVER THE LAST
FOUR MONTHS SINCE WE SAW YOU
BEFORE.
SO UNFORTUNATELY SOME SAD THINGS
I HAVE TO TELL YOU, WE HAVE
SEVERAL COUNCILMEMBERS RETIRING.
MAYBE IT'S NOT SAD FOR THEM.
SAD FOR US.
RETIRING FROM COUNCIL, NOT
NECESSARILY FROM THEIR CAREERS.
AMY, WHO YOU HEARD FROM JUST A
MINUTE AGO AND MELANIE ARE BOTH
RETIRING.
AS IS PAM OVER HERE.
SO I ACTUALLY -- SINCE WE'RE IN
PERSON I'M ABLE TO GIVE YOU EACH
A CERTIFICATE AND SIGNED LETTER
FROM LARRY TABAK THANKING YOU
FOR YOUR SERVICE.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH TO BOTH
OF YOU FOR THE GREAT SERVICE
YOU'VE PROVIDED TO THE
INSTITUTE.
PAM, MAKE SURE THAT'S THE RIGHT
ONE.
[APPLAUSE]
WE HAVE SOME AD HOC MEMBERS HERE
TODAY.
AS YOU HEARD JUST A MINUTE AGO,
WE HAVE LUCY HERE WITH US AS A
REGULAR AD HOC MEMBER, AND THEN
AS WE ALWAYS DO IN COUNCIL, WE
HAVE TWO EARLY CAREER
PARTICIPANTS AND WE ASK THEM TO
COME TO PROVIDE THE PERSPECTIVES
OF EARLY CAREER RESEARCHERS, AND
ALSO TO HELP US DEMYSTIFY WHAT
HAPPENS ON COUNCIL.
PEOPLE TEND TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS
ON STUDY SECTION THE FIRST PART
OF THE REVIEW PROCESS, BUT NOT
ON WHAT HAPPENS ON THE ADVISE
REAL COUNCIL.
SO WE ASK EARLY CAREER
INVESTIGATORS TO HELP DEMYSTIFY
IT FOR US AND WE HAVE JEFFREY
AND JUSTUS HERE TODAY AND THEY
INTRODUCED THEMSELVES A MOMENT
AGO.
AS USUAL, BEING A LARGE
INSTITUTE, WE HAVE SOME COMINGS
AND GOINGS, SO I'M VERY PLEASED
TO BE ABLE TO TELL YOU ABOUT
SOME NEW HIRES.
WE HAVE JILL BRADSHAW, WHO IS A
NEW SUPERVISORY GRANTS
MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST IN OUR
GRANTS ADMINISTRATION BRANCH.
ADAM HEUBERGER, WHO HAS COME AS
A SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OFFICER IN
OUR REVIEW BRANCH, ERIN
ITURRIAGA, CHIEF OF OUR NEW
BRANCH IN THE DIVISION OF
RESEARCH CAPACITY BUILDING, THE
HEALTH RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAMS BRANCH, PEGGY WANG HAS
JOINED US FROM THE NCI AS A
PROGRAM OFFICER WITH EXPERTISE
IN COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY,
BIOINFORMATICS AND DATA SCIENCE.
DEE WINBORNE, NEW MANAGEMENT
ANALYST IN THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE,
HAS JOINED US AS WELL.
AND WE HAVE OUR LIEUTENANT
COMMANDER MARCI WRIGHT HAS
JOINED US AS A MEMBER OF THE
COMMISSION CORPS, OUR FIRST
COMMISSION CORPS MEMBER TO JOIN
THE INSTITUTE AS A SCIENTIFIC
REVIEW OFFICER AND SHE JOINED US
FROM THE CDC.
WE ALSO HAVE SEVERAL PROMOTIONS
THAT I WANT TO REPORT TO YOU.
ROBERT ALTIERI HAS BEEN PROMOTED
TO A SUPERVISORY GRANTS
MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST.
HE WILL BE SERVING AS GRACE O
OLISQWAGA'S -- THE DIVISION OF
EXTRAMURAL ACTIVITIES.
KELLY AUBRE CHT HAS ALSO BEEN
PROMOTED TO SUPERVISORY GRANTS
MANAGEMENT SPECIALIST, TEAM
LEAD, AND ALANIA FOSTER ALSO A
SUPERVISORY GRANTS MANAGEMENT
SPECIALIST WITHIN GAB.
WITH ALL THE COMINGS THERE ARE
SOME GOINGS, SO UNFORTUNATELY I
HAVE SOME DEPARTURES TO REPORT
AS WELL.
IRINA SR.KRASNOVA, A VERY GREAT
PROGRAM OFFICER IN OUR DIVISION
OF RESEARCH CAPACITY BUILDING
AND LED OUR SURE PROGRAM FROM
ITS INCEPTION IS MOVING ON TO GO
TO THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR
ADVANCING TRANSLATIONAL
SCIENCES.
CHRISTINA LIU HAS MOVED ON TO
THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL
HEALTH AND ISAAH VINCENT HAS
MOVED ON TO NIAMS, ACTUALLY
WORKING WITH DARREN, OUR FORMER
FRIEND AT NIGMS.
SO IT'S GOOD TO SEE HE'S IN GOOD
HANDS OVER THERE.
WE DO HAVE SOME JOB VACANCIES
THAT WE COULD USE YOUR HELP
MAKING PEOPLE AWARE.
FIRST AND FOREMOST, BECAUSE THE
GREAT ALISON GAMMY, WHERE IS
ALISON, HAS ANNOUNCED SHE WILL
BE RETIRING.
WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO FILL THE
UNFILLABLE SHOES OF ALISON GAMMY
AND TRY TO REPLACE HER,
RECOGNIZING SHE IS, IN FACT,
IRREPLACEABLE.
BUT HELP US WITH THAT SEARCH,
BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S
INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT POSITION
FOR THE INSTITUTE.
A NUMBER OF CHIEFS, BRANCH
CHIEFS ARE ALSO OPEN.
WE HAVE ONE IN THE BIOMEDICAL
TECHNOLOGY BRANCH IN BBCB, AND
ONE IN THE POST-DOCTORAL, EARLY
CAREER AND ALSO THE WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT -- POSTDOCTORAL,
EARLY CAREER AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT BRANCH IN TWD.
A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PROGRAM
OFFICER POSITIONS ARE ALSO OPEN.
AS YOU CAN SEE THERE.
SO IF YOU COULD SPREAD THE WORD
ABOUT THESE POSITIONS TO PEOPLE
YOU THINK MIGHT BE INTERESTED IN
THEM, I THINK IT'S A VERY
EXCELLENT OPPORTUNITY FOR
SOMEONE WHO'S LOOKING TO DO
SOMETHING ELSE WITHIN SCIENCE,
MAKE A BIGGER CONTRIBUTION TO
THE ENTIRE NATIONAL STAGE, AND
WE WOULD CERTAINLY VALUE YOUR
HELP IN SPREADING THE WORD ABOUT
THIS.
WE ALSO DO HAVE A SCIENTIFIC
REVIEW OFFICER POSITION OPEN IN
SRB, SO AGAIN, IF YOU HAVE
SOMEONE WHO MIGHT BE GOOD FOR
THAT POSITION, PLEASE MAKE THEM
AWARE OF THIS.
NOW, NIH-WIDE, SOME COMINGS AND
GOINGS TO REPORT AS WELL.
THERE IS A NEW DIRECTOR OF THE
FOGARTY INTERNATIONAL CENTER,
KATHLEEN NEUZIL.
SHE WAS APPOINTED DIRECTOR OF
FIC AS WELL AS THE NIH ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR FOR INTERNATIONAL
RESEARCH IN EARLY MAY.
SHE PREVIOUSLY WAS THE MYRON
LEVINE ENDOWED PROFESSOR OF
VACCINOLOGY AS WELL AS THE
DIRECT INVENTORY OF THE CENTER
OF VACCINE DEVELOPMENT AND
GLOBAL HEALTH AT THE UNIVERSITY
OF MARYLAND IN BALTIMORE.
SHE BRINGS A DECADE -- DECADES
OF EXPERIENCE IN GLOBAL PUBLIC
HEALTH, SPECIFICALLY IN
VACCINOLOGY AND SERVED FOR MANY
YEARS AS VACCINE POLICY ADVISOR
TO CDC AND WHO.
SO EXCELLENT ADDITION TO NIH AND
WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH
HER.
UNFORTUNATELY I ALSO HAVE A
GOING TO REPORT, WHICH IS OUR
COLLEAGUE, JOSH GORDON, DIRECTOR
OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF
MENTAL HEALTH HAS ANNOUNCED HE
WILL BE LEAVING IN JUNE.
UNDER HIS LEADERSHIP, NIMH DID
ALL KINDS OF FANTASTIC THINGS,
FOCUSING ON RISK REDUCTION, ON
SCREENING, ON SERVICES AND THE
RAPID EVOLUTION OF TELEMEDICINE
JUST AS EXAMPLES.
HE IS GOING TO RETURN TO
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY AS CHAIR OF
THEIR DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY
AND PSYCHIATRIST IN CHIEF OF THE
NEW YORK PRESBYTERIAN HOSPITAL
CAMPUS AT COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY.
SO WE WILL MISS JOSH A LOT.
HE'S BEEN A GREAT FORCE, BUT
THANK HIM FOR EVERYTHING HE'S
DONE.
NOW, WE DO HAVE SOME
CONGRESSIONAL INTERACTIONS TO
REPORT DURING THE PANDEMIC
OBVIOUSLY THESE SLOWED DOWN, BUT
THINGS HAVE STARTED TO PICK UP
AGAIN WHICH IS GREAT TO SEE, AND
BEEN VERY EXCITING.
SENATOR SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO
HOSTED A DELEGATION FROM NIH
CONSISTING OF MONICA
BERTAGNOLLI, NIH DIRECTOR, TEAR
A SCHWETZ, DIRECTOR FOR DPCPSI
IN THE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
AND MYSELF, AT WEST VIRGINIA
UNIVERSITY, AND IT WAS A GREAT
TRIP.
WE LEARNED ABOUT ALL THE THINGS,
THE INVESTMENTS THAT NIH AND
PARTICULARLY NIGMS MAKES IN WEST
VIRGINIA.
ALMOST 50% OF ALL THE NIH
FUNDING IN THE STATE OF WEST
VIRGINIA COMES JUST FROM NIGMS
TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE.
SO REALLY OUR FOOTPRINT THERE IS
QUITE ENORMOUS BUT WHAT THEY'RE
DOING WITH THOSE FUNDS IS
EXTREMELY IMPRESSIVE.
I THINK DR. BERTAGNOLLI WAS VERY
IMPRESSED WITH WHAT SHE SAW.
IN ADDITION TO SENATOR CAPITO,
WE WERE JOINED BY SENATOR MA
MANSION FOR LUNCH.
MING LEI, WHO USED TO BE OUR
DIRECTOR OF THE DRCB WHO IS NOW
VICE PRESIDENT OF RESEARCH AT
WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY.
SO OVERALL, TERRIFIC VISIT,
THANK SENATOR CAPITO FOR
ARRANGING IT, FOR INVITING US.
I THINK IT WAS A VERY WORTHWHILE
THING.
MORE RECENTLY, APRIL 24TH AT THE
REQUEST OF THE MAJORITY CLERK OF
HOUSE LABOR HEALTH AND HUMAN
SERVICES APPROPRIATIONS
SUBCOMMITTEE WE HAD AN NIGMS 101
AS THEY CALLED IT BRIEFING FOR
ALL OF THE CLERKS, BOTH IN THE
SENATE AND THE HOUSE SIDE OF THE
LABOR HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEES
ABOUT WHAT NIGMS IS, WHAT IT
DOES, WHAT ITS GOALS ARE, WHAT
ITS CHALLENGES ARE.
IT WAS AN EXCELLENT DISCUSSION.
THEY SHOWED PARTICULAR INTEREST
IN THE MIRA PROGRAM, AS WELL AS
IN THE IDEA PROGRAM.
AND I THINK HOPEFULLY, I THINK,
THEY TOOK AWAY A LOT OF NEW
INFORMATION ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE
OF NIGMS.
WE ALSO ACTUALLY HAVE A VISIT
PLANNED TO KENTUCKY NEXT MONTH,
WHERE WE'RE GOING TO BE VISITING
LOUISVILLE AS WELL AS LEXINGTON,
AS WELL AS THE STATE CAPITOL AND
WE'RE GOING TO GO TO KENTUCKY
STATE AND VISIT THEM THERE TO
SEE WHAT OPPORTUNITIES THERE ARE
FOR GROWTH OF ALL THOSE
INSTITUTIONS.
WE'RE HAVING A PARTICULAR FOCUS
ON ENTREPRENEURIAL ACTIVITY,
BECAUSE IN LOUISVILLE, NIGMS HAS
BOTH THE IRED CENTER, THE IDEA
CENTER FOR BUILDING EPT
PRENEURIAL ACTIVITY, AND NIH AS
A WHOLE FUNDS THE REACH CENTER,
ANOTHER ENTREPRENEURIAL
DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY CENTER.
WE'LL ALSO BE FOCUSING OUR
EFFORTS ON THINKING ABOUT HOW
IDEA PROGRAMS CAN HELP
UNDERRESOURCED INSTITUTIONS IN
THEIR STATE, PARTICULARLY
HBCUs, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE
REASONS WE'RE GOING TO KENTUCKY
STATE, WHERE I THINK THERE'S A
LOT OF OPPORTUNITY.
SO WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO
THAT.
MAYBE WE'LL SEE YOU THERE, JEFF,
I DON'T KNOW.
HOPEFULLY WE WILL.
COUPLE OF SAVE THE DATES COMING
UP.
WE HAVE TWO NAMED LECTURES EVERY
YEAR, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW.
THE FIRST IS THE JUDITH
GREENBERG EARLY CAREER
INVESTIGATOR LECTURE, NAMED FOR
THE FORMER DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND
SEVERAL-TIME ACTING DIRECTOR OF
NIGMS, JUDITH GREENBERG.
THIS YEAR'S SPEAKER IS SAAD
BHAMLA, FROM THE GEORGIA
INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY.
I THINK IT WILL BE A REALLY
EXCITING TALK, VERY EXCITING
SORT OF END NEARING BIOLOGY
INTERFACE WORK THAT HE DOES.
THAT WILL BE ON OCTOBER 7TH FROM
1:00 TO 2:00.
IF YOU'RE HERE, COME IN PERSON.
IT WILL ALSO BE VIDEOCAST AND
RECORDED SO YOU CAN WATCH IT
ONLINE.
THE SECOND NAMED LECTURE WE HAVE
IS THE DEWITT STETTEN LECTURE,
NAMED FOR PREVIOUS NIH DIRECTOR.
THIS YEAR'S SPEAKER IS SUDHA
CHAKRAPANI, TALKING ABOUT
STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY STUDIES,
RECEPTORS IN THE NERVOUS SYSTEM.
ALSO WILL BE AN EXCELLENT TALK
NOVEMBER 20TH, 2:00 TO 3:00 P.M.
HELP US SPREAD THE WORD.
WE LIKE TO HAVE BIG AUDIENCES
FOR THESE TALKS AND BOTH WILL BE
EXCELLENT, I CAN GUARANTEE IT.
SOME OUTREACH OUR STAFF HAS BEEN
DOING AT THE STEM LEVEL, K
THROUGH 12 STEM LEVEL, TWO OF
OUR STAFF, RACHEL AND BRITTANY
HERE ATTENDED THE MARCH NATIONAL
SCIENCE TEACHING ASSOCIATION
CONFERENCE, AND THEY WERE
PROMOTING BOTH NIGMS STEM
ACTIVITIES AS WELL AS NIH
ACTIVITIES AS A WHOLE.
THEY TOOK PART IN A PANEL OF
FEDERAL AGENCIES, EIGHT OTHER
FEDERAL AGENCIES TO TALK ABOUT
WHAT EACH WAS DOING IN THE STEM
SPACE.
AND AFTER THE MEETING, THE
NIH-WIDE STEM TEACHING RESOURCES
PORTAL, WHICH NIGMS MANAGES ON
BEHALF OF ALL OF NIH, SHOWED A
74.4% INCREASE IN VIEWS IN A
MONTH.
SO SOMETHING HAPPENED THERE THAT
SEEMS LIKE IT WAS USEFUL.
SO I THINK GETTING THE WORD OUT
AND HOPEFULLY BUILDING A BASE OF
PEOPLE, TEACHERS IN PARTICULAR
USING THESE RESOURCES.
SOME OF THOSE RESOURCES ARE
SHOWN HERE.
ONE THAT'S KIND OF FUN IS NEW
COLORING PAGES THAT THE
COMMUNICATIONS STAFF DEVELOPED
AND PAIRED WITH OUR BIOMEDICAL
BEAT BLOG.
THESE ARE ON RESEARCH ORGANISMS.
YOU CAN SEE THERE THE AXOLOU, I
DON'T KNOW WHO COLORED IT BUT
THEY DID A GOOD JOB.
WE ALSO HAVE BEEN MANAGING NIH'S
KAHOOT PAGE.
KAHOOT IS A PLATFORM THAT ALLOWS
STUDENTS, TEACHERS, OTHERS TO DO
ONLINE QUIZZES IN A KIND OF
GAME-SHOW FORMAT.
IT PRETTY ENGAGING.
AND WE NOW HAVE A TOTAL OF 17
QUIZZES FROM EIGHT INSTITUTES
AND CENTERS ACROSS NIH WITH MORE
BEING DEVELOPED.
SINCE THE CREATION OF THE KAHOOT
PROFILE, EIGHT MORE QUIZZES WERE
ADDED, AND TO DATE, THIS IS
PRETTY IMPRESSIVE, TO DATE,
1.4 MILLION PLAYERS HAVE USED
OUR KAHOOTS WITH A TOTAL OF OVER
500,000 PLAYS.
SO THAT'S ACTUALLY IMPACT,
RIGHT?
THAT'S GETTING TO PEOPLE IN A
SIGNIFICANT WAY.
A COUPLE FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES I
WANTED TO GET YOUR HELP MAKING
PEOPLE AWARE.
THE FIRST RELATES ACTUALLY TO
THAT STEM TEACHING MISSION, AND
THAT'S THE NEW SCIENCE EDUCATION
PARTNERSHIP OR SEPA AWARD
FUNDING OPPORTUNITY THAT'S BEEN
RELEASED.
SEPA SUPPORTS EDUCATIONAL
INNOVATIONS, TESTING EDUCATIONAL
INNOVATIONS AT THE PRE-K THROUGH
GRADE 12 LEVEL TO BUILD STUDENT
INTEREST IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
CAREERS.
SO THEY CAN BE CLASSROOM-BASED,
THEY CAN BE OUT OF
CLASSROOM-BASED, THEY CAN ALSO
BE THINGS THAT MU SE MUSEUMS, SE
MUSEUMS OR OTHER PUBLIC VE VENU,
SO IF YOU HAVE A PROJECT YOU
MIGHT WANT TO DO IN PARTNERSHIP
WITH EDUCATORS IN YOUR
COMMUNITY, IT COULD BE THE LOCAL
SCHOOL SYSTEM, IT COULD BE A
SPECIFIC TEACHER, A SPECIFIC
SCHOOL, GIVE THIS SOME THOUGHT,
BECAUSE THESE ARE GREAT AWARDS.
WE'RE LOOKING TO INCREASE THE
NUMBER THAT WE GET.
WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR AS I
MENTIONED TO YOU IS WE OPENED
THIS UP SO THAT OTHER NIH
INSTITUTES AND CENTERS COULD
FUND AWARDS WITH A GOAL OF
FUNDING MORE AWARDS.
WE'RE KEEPING OUR COMMITMENT AT
LEAST THE SAME IF NOT EXPANDING
IT, BUT WE WANT TO SEE MORE
AWARDS FUNDED AND OTHER ICs
ARE STEPPING UP TO FUND
ADDITIONAL AWARDS.
BUT THAT MEANS WE NEED MORE
APPLICATIONS.
SO WE NEED TO GET THE WORD OUT
THAT WE WANT MORE APPLICATIONS
SO WE CAN FUND MORE AWARDS, AND
ONE THING WE'VE DONE TO TRY TO
FACILITATE THAT IS WE LIFTED THE
CAP.
THERE USED TO BE A CAP OF ONE
AWARD, ONE SEPA AWARD PER
INSTITUTION AND ONE APPLICATION
AT A TIME PER INSTITUTION.
WE'VE NOW LIFTED THAT SO
INSTITUTIONS CAN APPLY FOR MORE
THAN ONE AT A TIME, AS LONG AS
THEY'RE SCIENTIFICALLY DISTINCT,
AND THEY CAN HOLD MORE THAN ONE
AT A TIME, AS LONG AS THEY'RE
SCIENTIFICALLY DISTINCT.
THE NEXT APPLICATION DUE DATE IS
COMING UP, IT'S JUNE 7TH, SO NOT
TOO MUCH TIME IF YOU HAVEN'T
APPLIED ALREADY BUT THERE WILL
BE MORE APPLICATION DUE DATES.
THERE'S A FEEDBACK LOOP POST
ABOUT THIS.
AGAIN, PLEASE MAKE PEOPLE AWARE.
I OFTEN GO TO MEETINGS AND
PEOPLE STOP ME AND SAY, YOU GUYS
NEED SOME KIND OF A, YOU KNOW, K
THROUGH 12 PROGRAM TO BUILD
SCIENCE INTEREST.
AND I SAY, WE HAVE IT!
APPLY FOR IT!
SO PEOPLE DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS
ENOUGH.
THEY WANT SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
IT'S HERE.
WE WANT MORE APPLICATIONS.
SO PLEASE GET THE WORD OUT FOR
US.
ANOTHER FUNDING OPPORTUNITY
THAT'S OUT THAT WE WANT YOUR
HELP MAKING PEOPLE AWARE OF IS
ADVANCING RESEARCH CAREERS OR
ARC.
THIS IS THE SISTER PROGRAM, THE
PARTNER PROGRAM TO MOSAIC.
SO REMEMBER MOSAIC IS TARGETING
BUILDING DIVERSITY AT THE
TRANSITION BETWEEN POSTDOC AND
EARLY FACULTY.
WILDLY SUCCESSFUL SO FAR.
MAYBE NEXT TIME WE'LL TELL YOU
SOME MORE ABOUT THE OUTCOMES OF
THAT, BUT BASED ON THAT, WE
STARTED ADVANCING RESEARCH
CAREERS, WHICH TARGETS AN
EARLIER TRANSITION POINT,
LATE-STAGE GRADUATE STUDENT TO
POSTDOC.
SAME MODEL.
WE HAVE AN F99/K00 THAT PROVIDES
FUNDING FOR THE SCHOLARS, THE
F99s FOR THEIR GRADUATE WORK,
THE K00s FOR THEIR
POSTDOCTORAL WORK, AND THERE ARE
GOING TO BE MENTORING CENTERS
FUND TTHAT WILL TAKE COHORTS OFE
SCHOLAR, GIVE THEM ADDITIONAL
MENTORING, CAREER DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITIES, NETWORKING, ET
CETERA, TO TRY TO PROMOTE THEIR
SUCCESS IN TRANSITIONING FROM
GRADUATE SCHOOL TO POSTDOC AND
THEN BEING SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR
POSTDOC.
FIRST APCATION DUE DATE FOR THE
F99/K00 IS JUNE 13TH SO COMING
UP, ABOUT A MONTH.
AND THERE'S A FEEDBACK LOOP
THERE YOU CAN DIRECT PEOPLE TO.
SO AGAIN GET THE WORD OUT,
GRADUATE SCHOOL TO POSTDOC
TRANSITION AWARDS.
I WANT TO TRANSITION NOW, THIS
IS THE MAY MEETING WHEN I
TRADITIONALLY TALK ABOUT
APPLICATION AND FUNDING TRENDS
FOR THE LAST FISCAL YEAR.
THAT WOULD BE 2023.
AND SO LET ME TELL YOU A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED IN 2023.
THIS CHART SHOWS THE RESEARCH
PROJECT GRANT OR RPG SUCCESS
RATE.
SO THIS IS BASICALLY THE NUMBER
OF FUNDED APPLICATION DIVIDED BY
THE NUMBER THAT CAME IN.
YOU CAN SEE THAT OVER TIME, FROM
2014, THAT SUCCESS RATE HAS
INCREASED FROM 25% TO 36%.
WHICH IS THE HIGHEST WE'VE SEEN
TO DATE.
SO THAT'S REALLY TERRIFIC.
A LITTLE OVER A THIRD OF THE RPG
APPLICATIONS THAT ARE COMING IN
ARE GETTING FUNDED.
NOW, GIVEN WE HAD A FLAT BUDGET
THIS YEAR, GIVEN THE WAY OUT
YEAR COMMITMENTS WORK, IT'S NOT
GOING TO BE THAT HIGH NEXT YEAR
PROBABLY, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO
MAKE THE FALL AS LITTLE AS WE
CAN BY USING SOUND FISCAL
MANAGEMENT, I HOPE.
SO YOU CAN EXPECT A BIT OF A
DROP NEXT YEAR, I WOULD THINK.
HOPEFULLY IT WON'T BE TOO MUCH,
THOUGH.
WE AWARDED OVER 2400 MIRA GRANTS
LAST YEAR, AND 1876 R01s.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT MIRAs ARE
NOW SIGNIFICANTLY OUTPACING
R01s IN TERMS OF THE AWARDS
NIGMS IS MAKING.
OUR BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR
'24 IS $3.245 BILLION, SO THAT
EVEN THOUGH FLAT IS STILL QUITE
A LOT OF MONEY, AND THE IDEA
PROGRAM ACTUALLY GOT A INCREASE
OF $5 MILLION WITH THE REST OF
THE INSTITUTE BEING FLAT.
SO THAT'S TERRIFIC.
CERTAINLY THAT MONEY WILL BE
USED WELL.
I THINK IT AGAIN SHOWS
CONGRESSIONAL ENTHUSIASM AND
INTEREST FOR THE IDEA PROGRAM,
WHICH IS WONDERFUL TO SEE.
AND I THINK WE'RE IN REASONABLY
GOOD SHAPE.
SO IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT OTHER
METRICS, SO SUCCESS RATE IS ONE
METRIC THAT PEOPLE ARE VERY
INTERESTED, HOW LIKELY IS IT MY
GRANT IS GOING TO GET FUNDED.
WE ALSO LOOK AT OTHER METRICS,
ONE OF WHICH IS BASICALLY HOW
MANY INVESTIGATORS WHO WANT TO
BE FUNDED ARE FUNDED.
BECAUSE ONE OF OUR STRATEGIC
GOALS HAS BEEN TO FUND MORE
INVESTIGATORS, BECAUSE THAT IS
THE UNIT OF SCIENTIFIC
CREATIVITY, THAT IS OPPORTUNITY
OF SCIENTIFIC PROGRESS, IT'S THE
INVESTIGATORS.
SO WE NEED TO FUND AS MANY OF
THEM DOING AS MANY DIFFERENT
KINDS OF THINGS IN AS MANY
DIFFERENT PLACES AS POSSIBLE.
SO WE'VE REALLY FOCUSED ON THIS
METRIC.
THIS IS CALLED THE CUMULATIVE
INVESTIGATOR RATE.
WHAT IT'S MEASURING, AGAIN, IS
INVESTIGATORS WHO WANTED TO BE
FUNDED BY NIGMS, SO THEY HAVE
EITHER APPLIED FOR A GRANT IN
THIS FISCAL YEAR OR IN ONE OF
THE PREVIOUS FOUR FISCAL YEARS,
ONE OR MORE OF THE PREVIOUS FOUR
FISCAL YEARS.
THAT'S THE BASE, AND THEN THE
NUMERATOR IS HOW MANY HAVE AN
NIGMS RESEARCH GRANT.
SO IT'S HOW MANY INVESTIGATORS
WANT TO BE FUNDED BY NIGMS WHO
ARE FUNDED BY NIGMS.
SO IT WAS 33% IN 2014, A THIRD
OF THE INVESTIGATORS WHO WANTED
TO BE FUNDED WERE FUNDED, AND
IT'S GROWN TO 47% IN 2023.
SO NEARLY HALF.
NOW OF COURSE THAT MEANS THAT
ALMOST HALF OF THE INVESTIGATORS
WHO WANT TO BE FUNDED ARE NOT
FUNDED, SO YOU COULD LOOK AT THE
GLASS HALF EMPTY SIDE OF THINGS.
BUT THAT GROWTH IS REALLY, I
THINK, QUITE ENCOURAGING AND
SHOWS WE'RE GETTING MORE PEOPLE
FUNDED, THEY ARE ABLE TO EXPLORE
MORE DIFFERENT IDEAS IN MORE
DIFFERENT PLACES, AND I THINK
THAT ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO HAVE
THE BIGGEST IMPACT ON SCIENCE BY
ALLOWING THE MOST DIFFERENT
IDEAS TO BE EXPLORED.
AND THAT WAS THE HIGHEST
CUMULATIVE INVESTIGATOR RATE IN
THE LAST DECADE THAT WE'VE SEEN.
LOOKING AT EARLY STAGE
INVESTIGATORS, SO THIS GRAPH
COMPARES THE AWARD RATE SIMILAR
TO THE SUCCESS RATE.
OF EARLY
STAGE INVESTIGATORS WHO APLAYED
FOR MIRA GRANTS, THE R35s,
VERSUS R01s.
FROM 2018 TO 2023.
SO FIVE YEARS.
THE PAST FIVE YEARS.
I GUESS SIX YEARS ACTUALLY.
SO YOU CAN SEE THAT
CONSISTENTLY, THE MIRA SUCCESS
RATE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY
HIGHER THAN THE R01 SUCCESS RATE
FOR EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS,
AND THAT GAP HAS INCREASED OVER
TIME.
SO IT'S ABOUT 45% LAST YEAR, WAS
THE AWARD RATE FOR EARLY STAGE
INVESTIGATORS APPLYING FOR
MIRAs, ONLY 16% APPLYING FOR
R01s.
SO CLEAR MESSAGE HERE, TELL
EARLY STAGE INVESTIGATORS TO
APPLY FOR THE MIRA, BECAUSE
THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO
GET FUNDED ALMOST CERTAINLY.
THAT'S WHERE WE WANT THEM TO GET
FUNDED.
IT'S A BETTER PROGRAM FOR THEM,
THEY GET MORE MONEY, THEY HAVE
MUCH HIGHER RENEWAL RATES WHEN
THEY COME IN FOR RENEWAL.
MANY DIFFERENT ADVANTAGES TO THE
PROGRAM FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW.
OKAY.
FY 23, MIRA REPRESENTED 92% OF
THE COMPETING AWARDS TO EARLY
STAGE INVESTIGATORS THAT NIGMS
GAVE.
AGAIN, THAT JUST SHOWS THE
GROWTH OF THE PROGRAM AND THAT'S
WHERE THE ACTION IS FOR EARLY
STAGE INVESTIGATORS.
THEN LOOKING AT COMPETING AWARDS
FOR ESTABLISHED INVESTIGATORS,
SO THE YELLOW LOOKS AT PEOPLE
WHO ARE ESTABLISHED
INVESTIGATORS, SO THEY HAD ONE
OR MORE NIGMS SINGLE P.I. GRANT
WHICH MADE THEM ELIGIBLE TO
APPLY FOR CONVERSION TO A MIRA,
SO THAT'S THE SUCCESS RATE OF
THEM CONVERTING AN R01 TO A
MIRA, IT'S A NEW AWARD WHICH IS
WHY WE'RE CALLING IT A TYPE I.
THE SUCCESS RATE WAS VERY HIGH
IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE
PROGRAM, PARTLY BECAUSE OF WHO
WAS ELIGIBLE TO APPLY.
AS WE LET IN MORE PEOPLE, IT
FELL SOMEWHAT, BUT CONSISTENTLY
IT'S BEEN HIGHER THAN THE
RENEWAL RATE, WHICH IS THE
BOTTOM LINE FOR R01s, AND NOW
THAT GAP IS 38% RENEWAL RATE FOR
R01s FOR ESTABLISHED
INVESTIGATORS VERSUS A 53%
CONVERSION RATE FOR ESTABLISHED
INVESTIGATORS GOING FROM AN
R01 TO A MIRA, SO AGAIN IF
YOU'RE JUST PLAYING THE NUMBERS,
YOU'RE BETTER OFF CONVERTING
YOUR R01 TO A MIRA THAN TRYING
TO RENEW YOUR R01.
WE ARE NOW ON TRACK TO HAVE AT
LEAST 60% OF THE R01 EQUIVALENT
POOL FUNDED BY NIGMS MIRAs BY
2025.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE GOALS OF OUR
STRATEGIC PLAN.
LAST FISCAL YEAR IT WAS 54%
ALREADY SO WE ARE PROBABLY GOING
TO HIT THAT THIS YEAR, A YEAR
EARLY.
IF IT GOES ABOVE THAT, THEN
THAT'S SO MUCH FOR THE BETTER.
AND THEN FINALLY, LOOKING AT
COMPETER MIRA RENEWAL AWARD
RATES, THIS IS THE SUCCESS RATE
OF PEOPLE WHO GOT A MIRA, HAD IT
FOR FIVE YEARS AND NOW CAME IN
FOR RENEWAL.
YOU CAN SEE THAT THOSE ARE
EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH.
THEY ARE HOVERING SOMEWHERE
AROUND 80%.
YOU WILL NOT FIND ANYTHING ELSE,
I DON'T THINK, AT NIH THAT HAS
THAT GOOD A SUCCESS RATE FOR
ANYTHING.
SO THIS WAS PART OF THE GOAL OF
THE PROGRAM, WAS TO MAKE THIS A
MUCH MORE STABLE AWARD THAN R01.
OBVIOUSLY NOT EVERYONE IS GOING
TO GET RENEWED NOR SHOULD
EVERYONE GET RENEWED, BUT WE
WANTED TO MAKE IT SOMETHING
WHERE THE RENEWAL RATE WAS VERY
HIGH SO PEOPLE WERE MUCH MORE
WILLING TO DO AMBITIOUS AND
CREATIVE RESEARCH RATHER THAN BE
CONSERVATIVE BECAUSE THEY WERE
ALWAYS SO WORRIED ABOUT WHETHER
THEY COULD GET RENEWED OR NOT.
AND SO FAR WE REALLY HAVE BEEN
ABLE TO KEEP THAT GOAL AND BE
ABLE TO ACHIEVE IT.
SO IN CONTRAST, THE R01 RENEWAL
RATES HAVE NOT EXCEEDED 44% IN
THE LAST FOUR YEARS, SO WE'RE
CLOSE TO DOUBLE THE R01 RENEWAL
RATES WITH THESE MIRA RENEWAL
RATES.
AGAIN, THERE'S NOT MUCH AT NIH
THAT'S THAT HIGH.
NOW MOVING ON TO ANOTHER FISCAL
MATTER, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW AND
WE DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY AT
COUNCIL, THERE WAS AN ADVISORY
COMMITTEE TO THE NIH DIRECTOR,
WHICHS WAY ACTUALLY AN INTERNAL
MEMBER OF, THAT WAS LOOKING AT
THE POSTDOCTORAL RESEARCH
WORKFORCE AND MADE
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HOW TO
OPTIMIZE SUPPORT FOR POSTDOCS.
ONE OF THEIR -- IN FACT, THEIR
PRIMARY RECOMMENDATION WAS TO
INCREASE THE NRSA YEAR ZERO
POSTDOC STIPEND TO $70,000 PER
YEAR.
SO NIH HAS BEGUN DOING THAT.
IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE TO DO IT ALL
IN ONE YEAR.
THERE WAS SIMPLY NO WAY FISCALLY
THAT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN
ACHIEVED TO SHIFT DIRECTLY TO
$70,000 IN ONE YEAR, SO INSTEAD,
THE TARGET IS TO DO THIS OVER
THE NEXT THREE TO FOUR YEARS.
SO NIH ANNOUNCED IT WAS
INCREASING THE NRSA STIPENDS FOR
GRADUATE STUDENTS, THE
PREDOCTORAL STIPEND BY 4%,
THAT'S GOING UP TO 28224 THIS
YEAR AND INCREASING THE YEAR
ZERO, THE FIRST YEAR
POSTDOCTORAL NRSA STIPEND BY 8%
TO $61,008.
AGAIN, WITH A TARGET OF $70,000
IN THE NEXT THREE TO FOUR YEARS,
BUDGETS PERMITTING.
THEY ALSO ANNOUNCED, WE ALSO
ANNOUNCED INCREASE IN THE
TRAINING RELATED EXPENSES FOR
TRAINING GRANTS AND
INSTITUTIONAL ALLOWANCE FOR
FELLOWSHIPS AND RSAs BY $200,
AND THE CHILD CARE SUBSIDY BY
$500.
SO THE TREs AND THE IAs,
THAT'S MONEY THAT CAN GO TO
SUPPORT BENEFITS FOR THE
TRAINEES SO THAT'S WHY THAT WAS
INCREASING.
AND THE CHILD CARE SUBSIDY IS
DIAGNOSE SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN
QUITE POPULAR.
IT WAS $2,500 WHEN WE PUT IT
INTO PLACE.
IT'S NOW $3,000 PER TRAINEE.
RECOGNIZING, OF COURSE, THAT'S
NOWHERE NEAR THE AMOUNT OF COSTS
FOR CHILD CARE BUT THE IDEA IS
THIS IS A CONTRIBUTION NIH IS
MAKING AND HOPEFULLY THAT WILL
INCENTIVIZE INSTITUTIONS TO ALSO
SUBSIDIZE THE COST AS WELL.
NOW WE RECOGNIZE THERE'S GOING
TO BE A RIPPLE EFFECT.
THESE ARE TRAINEES SUPPORTED ON
TRAINING GRANTS OF FELLOWSHIPS.
MOST TRAINEES ARE SUPPORTED ON
RESEARCH GRANTS.
AND MANY INSTITUTIONS, MAYBE
MOST INSTITUTIONS SET THE
STIPEND LEVEL BASED ON THE NRSA
LEVEL AND THAT'S GOING TO RIPPLE
TO THE COST ON RESEARCH GRANTS.
SO THE QUESTION OBVIOUSLY OF
COURSE WHICH WE'RE HEARING AS AN
ALMOST DEAFENING ROAR AT THE
MOMENT IS ARE YOU GOING TO
INCREASE OUR GRANTS TO
COMPENSATE FOR THIS?
NO.
THE MONEY'S NOT THERE.
SO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN?
I MEAN, I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS
FOR 35 YEARS, LABS ARE GOING TO
HAVE TO GET SMALLER.
THEY SHOULD GET SMALLER, THEY
SHOULD HAVE GOTTEN SMALLER A
LONG TIME AGO.
IT IS VERY INEFFICIENT TO RUN
LARGE LABS.
IT IS BAD FOR THE TAXPAYERS,
IT'S BAD FOR THE TRAINEES, AND
IT BAD FOR SCIENCE.
SO LABS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO GET
SMALLER.
I THINK THIS IS GOING TO FINALLY
FORCE IT, AND SO THIS TO ME IS A
POSITIVE UNINTENDED MAYBE
SLIGHTLY INTENDED CONSEQUENCE OF
THIS INCREASE.
BUT I HOPE YOU CAN HELP US GET
THAT MESSAGE OUT, BECAUSE THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO
HAVE TO HAPPEN.
YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE
FEWER TRAINEES IN YOUR LABS.
AND THAT WILL BE FOR THE GOOD
ULTIMATELY, I THINK.
OKAY.
NOW DEPENDING ON FUTURE
APPROPRIATIONS, AS THIS STIPEND
INCREASE CONTINUES TO HAPPEN, IT
IS POSSIBLE WE MIGHT HAVE TO
REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TRAINEE
SLOTS.
WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, THERE'S
A LOT OF UNKNOWNS IN ALL THESE
EQUATIONS.
BUT THAT GOES ALONG WITH WHAT I
WAS JUST SAYING BEFORE, THE POOL
OF TRAINEES MIGHT HAVE TO SHRINK
TO ACCOMMODATE BETTER SUPPORT
FOR THE TRAINEES.
AND THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WE
GET USED TO.
AGAIN, PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT'S
OVERDUE.
THE GUIDE NOTICE IF YOU WANT TO
READ THE DETAILS IS THERE.
AND WE WILL SEE WHAT NEXT YEAR
HOLDS.
OKAY.
I WANT TO END BEFORE WE HAVE A
DISCUSSION BY TALKING ABOUT
NIH-WIDE INITIATIVE.
THIS IS AN INITIATIVE THAT HAS
BEEN REALLY THE BRAIN CHILD OF
AND LAUNCHED BY MONICA
BERTAGNOLLI, THE NIH DIRECTOR.
THE OBSERVATION, OF COURSE, AS
MOST OF YOU KNOW IS DESPITE THE
U.S. BEING THE RICHEST COUNTRY
IN THE WORLD, THE HEALTH OF OUR
POPULATION IS DECLINING.
AND THIS DECLINE IS STEEPEST
AMONGST UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS
AND THOSE IN YOU
UNDERSTANDREPRESENTED GROUPS.
SO THAT'S EXTREMELY ALARMING,
THAT DESPITE WEALTH INCREASING,
HEALTH IS GOING DOWN.
SO WHAT CAN WE DO?
THE GOAL OF THE PROGRAM IS TO
IMPROVE HEALTH OUTCOMES AND
RESEARCH EQUITY BY LAUNCHING A
NETWORK THAT WILL ALLOW THE
CONDUCT OF CLINICAL RESEARCH IN
PRIMARY CARE SETTINGS.
PRIMARY CARE SETTINGS ARE WHERE
MOST PEOPLE ARE GETTING MOST OF
THEIR CARE.
IT'S THE REAL WORLD.
MANY TIMES WHEN CLINICAL TRIALS
ARE BEING CONDUCTED, THEY'RE
BEING CONDUCTED IN A VERY RARE
FIED ACADEMIC HOSPITAL SETTING
IN A RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT THAT
REALLY DOESN'T MIMIC WHAT
HAPPENS IN THE REAL WORLD.
SO WHETHER OR NOT THE RESULTS
WILL TRANSLATE INTO THE ACTUAL
WORLD, INTO A CLINIC IN RURAL
WEST VIRGINIA OR MAINE OR
LOUISIANA, IS NOT CLEAR.
SO THE GOAL IS TO CREATE A
RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT WHERE WE
CAN ACTUALLY TEST REAL WORLD
SORTS OF CLINICAL PROBLEMS AND
HOPEFULLY FIND SOLUTIONS THAT
WILL WORK AT SCALE.
SO THIS WILL BE A COMMON FUND
PROGRAM, ALTHOUGH WITH A LOT OF
SUPPORT FROM INSTITUTE RESOUR
RESOURCES.
IT'S GOING TO BE A PRIMARY
FOCUSED CLINICAL RESEARCH
INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT WILL BE DISEASE AGNOSTIC.
JUST LIKE PRIMARY CARE, ANY KIND
OF RESEARCH QUESTION THAT CAN BE
APPROACHED IN THE PRIMARY CARE
SETTING WILL BE A POSSIBILITY.
THEREFORE IT'S GOING TO SPAN THE
MISSIONARIES OF ALL THE ICs.
THERE'S GOING TO BE A FOCUS ON
INTEGRATING INNOVATIVE RESEARCH
INTO THAT REAL WORLD SETTING IN
A WAY THAT DOESN'T DISRUPT THE
PRIMARY CARE MISSIONS OF THE
ACTUAL CLINICS.
THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY TRICKY
OF COURSE BECAUSE NIL OF YOU
THAT HAVE BEEN TO THE DOCTOR
RECENTLY KNOW THAT THEY'RE
SEEING A PATIENT EVERY 10 OR 15
MINUTES, COMING AND SAYING, HEY,
WE WANT TO DO RESEARCH, WE'RE
GOING TO TAKE SOME OF YOUR TIME
DO RESEARCH, IS PROBABLY NOT
GOING TO WORK VERY WELL.
SO WE'RE GO TO HAVE TO FIND
INNOVATIVE WAYS TO ALLOW THE
PRIMARY CARE TO BE HAPPENING AND
MAYBE EVEN IMPROVED THROUGH THE
RESEARCH WHILE AT THE SAME TIME
ALLOWING THE RESEARCH TO TAKE
PLACE.
SO THAT WILL BE INTERESTING AND
I THINK QUITE EXCITING IF IT CAN
HAPPEN.
A KEY PART OF THIS IS COMMUNITY
ENGAGEMENT, AND WHAT THEY REALLY
WANT TO SEE IS THE PR
PRIORITIZATION OF WHAT IS
STUDIED AND EVEN THE IDEAS FOR
WHAT IS STUDIED COMING FROM THES
AND BTHECOMMUNITIES AND BEING IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITIES
RATHER THAN ACADEMIC
INSTITUTIONS SAYING WE WANT TO
DO OUR CLINICAL TRIAL FOR THIS
SPECIFIC THING THAT YOU MAY OR
MAY NOT BE INTERESTED IN ON YOU
IN YOUR SETTING.
THAT'S HELICOPTER RESEARCH,
THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.
THIS NEEDS TO BE MUCH MORE
INTEGRATED, GRASSROOTS AND
GROUND UP IN TERMS OF WHAT IS
BEING STUDIED AND EVEN HOW IT'S
BEING STUDIED.
SO PRIORITIZATION OF WHAT'S
STUDIED BY THE COMMUNITIES TO
MAKE SURE THAT THE CHALLENGES
THEY ACTUALLY FACE ARE THE ONES
THAT GET PRIORITIZED.
SO TO START OUT, THIS IS GOING
TO START OUT THIS YEAR SMALL
WITH A FEW SITES, AND THEY'RE
GOING TO LEVERAGE EXISTING
CLINICAL NETWORKS.
AS IT TURNS OUT, WE HAVE A GREAT
CLINICAL NETWORK AT NIGMS, WHICH
IS THE IDEA CLINICAL AND
TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH PROGRAM,
WHICH IS, I THINK, IDEALLY
SUITED TO HOST THIS SORT OF AN
EFFORT, AND ACTUALLY REALLY
DOVETAILS THE DIRECTION WE WERE
TRYING TO GET THE CTRs TO MOVE
ANYWAYS, WHICH IS DOING MORE
LARGE SCALE CLINICAL TRIALS AND
COLLABORATIONS INSTEAD OF LOTS
OF SMALL ONES, BECAUSE WE THINK
REALLY THAT'S GOING TO HAVE MORE
IMPACT FOR THEIR COMMUNITIES AND
ALSO FOR BUILDING THE RESEARCH
CAPACITY TO DO REALLY HIGH
QUALITY CLINICAL RESEARCH.
SO WE'RE HOPING THE CTRs ARE
GOING TO BE CLOSELY ENGAGED IN
THIS EFFORT.
EVERY CTR HAS TO HAVE A
PRACTICE-BASED RESEARCH NETWORK,
SO THAT'S A NETWORK OF PRIMARY
CARE SITES THROUGHOUT THE STATE.
WHERE THEY'RE CONDUCTING
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE
MAIN RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES IN
THE STATES.
SO AGAIN, IDEALLY SET UP.
MOST OF THE IDEA STATES ARE VERY
RURAL STATES WITH
UNDERREPRESENTED POPULATIONS, SO
AGAIN, I THINK THAT REALLY MEETS
THE GOALS OF THIS PROGRAM.
AND AGAIN, TRYING TO GET BOTH
THE COMMUNITIES AS WELL AS THE
PROVIDERS IN THESE PRIMARY CARE
SITES TO BE THE ONES HELPING TO
GUIDE THE QUESTIONS AND THE
RESEARCH WILL BE AN ESSENTIAL
PART OF THIS PROGRAM.
SO WE'RE QUITE EXCITED ABOUT
THIS PROGRAM.
IT'S GETTING LAUNCHED RIGHT NOW.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PUBLIC
FORUMS THAT ARE HAPPENING, SO
KEEP YOUR EYES OUT FOR
ANNOUNCEMENTS OF THOSE.
THEY'RE TRYING TO GET THE
PERSPECTIVES OF PHYSICIANS,
RESEARCHERS, THE COMMUNITIES,
INTO HOW THIS COULD WORK AND
WHERE THE CHALLENGES WILL BE AND
HOW TO OVERCOME THE CHALLENGES.
THE QUICK LAUNCH AS I SAID IS
GOING TO LEVERAGE EXISTING
NETWORKS, HOPEFULLY LIKE THE
CTRs.
THE BUDGET IS QUITE SMALL IN THE
FIRST YEAR TO GET THINGS
STARTED, SO THEY'RE GOING TO
REALLY RELY ON THE
INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S ALREADY
THERE.
AND THEN IT'S GOING TO RAMP UP
FAIRLY SIGNIFICANTLY IN 2025 AND
BEYOND WITH THIS COMMON FUND
MONEY.
SO I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS.
I THINK THIS COULD BE
TRANSFORMATIVE.
IT IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF
CHALLENGES, BUT IF WE CAN MEET
THEM, I THINK IT COULD BE QUITE
IMPACTFUL.
SO HOPEFULLY THIS WILL ENGAGE
YOUR IMAGINATION, GET YOU
THINKING OF HOW THIS MIGHT BE
USED, YOU KNOW, FOR WENDY, HOW
CAN INDUSTRY ENGAGE IN THIS, FOR
INSTANCE, TO PARTNER WITH IT,
WHICH I THINK IS ANOTHER
EXCITING OPPORTUNITY.
FINALLY, JUST REMIND YOU THAT WE
HAVE LOTS OF WAYS TO COMMUNICATE
WITH YOU AND HOPEFULLY FOR YOU
TO COMMUNICATE WITH US.
IF YOU ARE NOT SIGNED UP FOR THE
FEEDBACK LOOP AND THE BIOBEAT
BLOG, PLEASE DO SO, PLEASE
ENCOURAGE OTHERS TO DO SO.
IT'S VERY CHALLENGING FOR US TO
GET THE WORD OUT OFTEN TO ALL
THESE BUSY PEOPLE, SO THINK OF
EVERY WAY WE CAN TO TELL THEM
IMPORTANT MESSAGES THAT WE WANT
TO GET OUT AND THEN WE GO TO
MEETINGS AND PEOPLE SAY I NEVER
HEARD THAT.
THIS IS HOW YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR
IT, THROUGH THE FEEDBACK LOOP,
AND ALSO THROUGH THE SOCIAL
MEDIA WHERE WE'RE FOCUSING ON,
PARTICULARLY LINKEDIN, THAT'S
THE SITE WHERE I WOULD ENCOURAGE
PEOPLE IF YOU'RE ON LINKEDIN,
WHAT DO THEY DO ON LINKEDIN,
FRIEND US OR LIKE US OR
SOMETHING, WHATEVER YOU DO, BE
NICE TO US ON LINKEDIN.
SO WITH THAT, WE'LL TURN IT OVER
TO HAVE A DISCUSSION.
I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS JUST TO PUT
OUT THERE FOR YOU TO THINK
ABOUT, BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO
BRING UP ANYTHING YOU WANT,
WHETHER I TALKED ABOUT IT HERE
OR SOMETHING ELSE.
OBVIOUSLY ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM
IS HOW SHOULD INSTITUTIONS AND
RESEARCHERS APPROACH THIS
INCREASE IN NRSA STIPENDS?
I CHALLENGE YOU ABOUT LAB SIZE
THERE.
THERE'S LOTS OF OTHER THINGS TO
THINK ABOUT.
I'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR
PERSPECTIVES ON THAT IN TERMS OF
WHAT ARE THE SOLUTIONS, HOW CAN
WE ADDRESS THIS.
ANOTHER THING THAT WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT A LOT AND WE MAY
HAVE A DEEPER DISCUSSION OF AT A
LATER POINT BUT JUST KIND OF TO
GET SOME THOUGHTS FROM YOU, YOU
MAY REMEMBER THAT WE HAVE
PROGRAMS TO SUPPORT NATIONAL AND
REGIONAL TECHNOLOGY FACILITIES,
RUN IN DOROTHY'S DIVISION.
THESE ARE PROVING EXTREMELY
SUCCESSFUL BY AND LARGE.
EXAMPLES ARE THINGS LIKE THE
CRYOELECTRON MICROSCOPY CENTER,
WHICH WE'RE JUST TAKING OVER
FUNDING THIS YEAR FROM THE
COMMON FUND, THE NATIONAL
MAGNETIC RESONANCE FACILITY IN
WISCONSIN, AND THE IDEA NATIONAL
RESOURCE FOR QUANTITATIVE
PROTEOMICS IN ARKANSAS AND
OKLAHOMA, WHICH EXCEEDED ALL OF
OUR EXPECTATIONS IN WHAT IT'S
BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE.
THERE ARE OTHER ONES AS WELL.
VERY SUCCESSFUL.
BUT SINCE WE HAVE THIS PROGRAM
TO SUPPORT THESE RESOURCES, WE
ARE CURIOUS WHETHER THE
COMMUNITY CAN THINK OF OTHER
TECHNOLOGIES THAT WOULD LEND
THEMSELVES WELL TO THIS LARGE
SCALE NATIONAL OR MAYBE REGIONAL
KIND OF FACILITY WHERE YOU GET
ECONOMIES OF SCALE, TO MAKE IT
MUCH MORE EFFICIENT TO FUND, BUT
YOU'D ALSO DRAMATICALLY INCREASE
ACCESS FOR USERS REGARDLESS OF
WHERE THEY WERE OR WHAT KIND OF
INSTITUTION THEY WERE AT.
SO THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION THAT
I'D BE VERY INTERESTED IN
HEARING THE ANSWER.
I WILL GO SIT DOWN AND THEN WE
CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION.
DON'T BE SHY.
DAVID, GO AHEAD.
>> SO PERTAINING TO INCREASES IN
SALARIES FOR POSTDOCS, WE'RE
SEEING GRADUATE STUDENT SALARIES
INCREASE AS WELL, AS YOU SAID,
WE'LL HAVE TO RUN SMALLER LABS,
BUT THE WORKFORCE TRAINING
DEVELOPMENT ASPECT OF WHAT WE DO
IS JUST AS IMPORTANT AS THE
RESEARCH.
I WONDER IF THERE'S SOME THOUGHT
ABOUT WHAT'S THE RIGHT NUMBER OF
TRAINEES TO TRAIN, AND WILL WE
TRAIN THE RIGHT NUMBER OF PEOPLE
TO GO INTO CAREERS?
>> THAT'S A QUESTION THAT GOES
BACK SEVERAL DECADES, RIGHT, TO
SHIRLEY TILLMAN IN REPORTS.
NIH HAS SPENT A LONG TIME TRYING
TO MODEL THAT WITHOUT ANY
SUCCESS.
IT BASICALLY TURNS OUT TO BE
IMPOSSIBLE.
THERE'S TOO MANY KNOWN/UNKNOWNS
AND UNKNOWN UNKNOWNS TO SOLVE
THE EQUATION.
SO I THINK WE KIND OF HAVE TO
RESPOND TO IMMEDIATE MARKET
FORCES, AND THAT'S PROBABLY THE
BEST WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO
DO WITH A YEAR OR TWO WINDOW ON
EITHER SIDE.
>> DO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF -- I
GUESS I DON'T HAVE A GOOD SENSE
OF THE MARKET FORCES.
YOU KNOW, THAT IS, THE TRAINEES
THAT I TRAIN FIND JOBS AND THEY
HAVE SOME IDEA OF WHAT THE
MARKET IS LIKE, BUT IS THERE
SOME ASSESSMENT OF THAT?
>> WELL, THERE ARE PLACES, ONE
CAN LOOK AT NSF DATA, FOR
INSTANCE, TO SEE ARE PEOPLE
GETTING JOBS AFTER THEY
GRADUATE?
GENERAL UNEMPLOYMENT IS QUITE
LOW FOR PEOPLE GETTING PH.D.s
IN THE LIFE SCIENCES, SO THAT
SEEMS LIKENESS SAIRLY
OVERTRAINING FOR THE WHOLE
SYSTEM BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK
AT INDIVIDUAL PIECES OF THE
SYSTEM, ACADEMIA VERSUS
INDUSTRY, FOR INSTANCE.
IT'S EASIER ONLINE.
THIS WAS ONE THING THAT'S MUCH
EASIER ONLINE.
WE'LL GO TERRI, THEN ERIC, THEN
AMY.
>> SO A FOLLOW-UP ON THE NRSA
JIE PENDS.
STIPENDS.
I LOOK AT THAT NUMBER AND HAVING
SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THE EAST
COAST, I THINK EIGHT YEARS AGO,
STUDENTS AT MY INSTITUTION WERE
MAKING THAT STIPEND, THE
ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE TO
INCREASE THIS, DID ANYONE LOOK
AT -- IF YOU LOOK GENERALLY AT
THE INSTITUTIONS WHERE NIH OR
NIGMS FUNDS PREDOCTORALS, HOW
FAR ARE THEY ACTUALLY OFF FROM
WHAT THE MEAN OR THE MEDIAN IS
FOR GRADUATE STUDENT
COMPENSATION?
BECAUSE AS I ALSO RECALL IN
CERTAIN FUNDING FORMATS, YOU
CAN'T SUBSIDIZE A STUDENT UP TO
THE UNIVERSITY STIPEND WITH
OTHER FEDERAL FUNDS.
AND SO THAT DW -- SO INCREASINGT
IIS GOOD IN SOME SENSE BECAUSE T
CAN BE VERY -- DO WE KNOW WHAT
THAT DELTA ACTUALLY IS?
>> SO YES, BUT WITH A CAVEAT
THAT IT'S PARTIALLY INFLUENCED
BY WHAT THE STIPEND NIH SETS IS,
BECAUSE INSTITUTIONS -- YOU
KNOW, THE COASTAL INSTITUTIONS
IN HIGH INCOME AREAS FLOATED
ABOVE A LOT, RIGHT, BUT ACROSS
THE COUNTRY, THEY'RE OFTEN
PINNING TO THE STY PEND STIPENDE
SORT OF SET IT AT SOME LEVEL.
SO FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS AS OF A
YEAR OR SO AGO, IT WAS 3435, SO
28'S NOT THERE, BUT A REALLY
IMPORTANT POINT IS THAT THE
ACTUAL DEFINITION OF STIPEND
FROM NIH IS THE CONTRIBUTION
THAT NIH IS MAKING TO THE LIVING
EXPENSES OF THE TRAINEES.
IT'S VERY EXPLICIT THAT IT'S NOT
SUPPOSED TO COVER THEIR ENTIRE
LIVING EXPENSES, AND, THEREFORE,
THE IMPLICATION IS THE
INSTITUTIONS HAVE SOME
RESPONSIBILITY TO DO IT TOO.
AND I THINK THAT'S BEEN LOST
KIND OF IN TRANSLATION OVER THE
LAST 30 YEARS.
MANY INSTITUTIONS ARE, SO I
OBVIOUSLY GIVE THEM CREDIT, BUT
THE IDEA THAT NIH'S STIPEND
SHOULD BE WHAT THE MARKET RATE
IS, I THINK IS PROBABLY
ERRONEOUS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT
WHAT IT'S INTENDED TO BE.
>> SO I THINK THE QUESTION THEN
IS ONE OF SOMEBODY THAT RAN A
GRADUATE SCHOOL, HOW DO WE GET
BETTER MECHANISMS ASIDE FROM
JUST INSTITUTIONAL FUNDS THAT WE
DON'T -- IS THERE ANY
FLEXIBILITY IN HOW WE CAN
SUPPLEMENT THOSE FUNDS?
I THINK THAT THAT'S --
>> RIGHT.
>> THAT BECOMES A -- SOME
INSTITUTIONS DO A BETTER JOB AT
IT THAN OTHERS AND SOME HAVE
MORE FUNGIBLE MONEY FOR THAT
THAN OTHER, BUT WE DO WANT TO
MAKE SURE THE BEST STUDENTS ARE
GETTING ON THE TRAINING GRANT
AND NOT NOT GETTING ON BECAUSE
SOMEBODY DOESN'T HAVE THE
FUNDING TO BRING THEM UP.
I DON'T DISAGREE THAT WE CAN'T
PAY FOR EVERYTHING.
>> THE PROHIBITION TO USING
OTHER HHS FUNDS IS SOMETHING WE
CAN'T FIX.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT WOULD
TAKE CONGRESS TO FIX IT BECAUSE
IT'S BASED ON LAWS.
SO YOU KNOW, IT HAS TO BE OTHER
MONEY.
THE GOVERNMENT IS MAKING A VERY
SIZABLE CONTRIBUTION TO IT, AND
SO OTHER KINDS OF CONTRIBUTIONS
HAVE TO COME INTO PLAY.
IS IT PHILANTHROPY, IS IT
SOMETHING ELSE?
AND WE RECOGNIZE A PROBLEM THERE
IS THAT THAT IS HARDER FOR
UNDERRESOURCED INSTITUTIONS THAN
WRWELL RESOURCED INSTITUTIONS.
THAT IS A DISPARITY AND I WOULD
LIKE TO FIND WAYS THAT WE COULD
TRY TO NORMALIZE THAT DISPARITY,
BUT IT IS CHALLENGING.
ERIC NEXT.
>> SO I THINK SOME OF THE
CHALLENGES FOR US ARE SORT OF --
WHEN YOU GET LABS TO BE PRETTY
SMALL, YOU THEN START TO RUN
INTO THE ISSUE OF CONTINUITY OF
WORK, AND SO HOW YOU CONTINUE
PROJECTS AND NOT HAVE TO START
AGAIN, MORE AND MORE FACULTY
HAVE ESSENTIALLY JOINED STUDENTS
BECAUSE YOU CAN SPLIT THE
STIPEND IN HALF BETWEEN LABS.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S AN IDEAL
SITUATION BUT WE'RE STARTING TO
DO NOW, BECAUSE GETTING TOO
SMALL HAS ITS CHALLENGES AS
WELL.
>> I AGREE, AND I THINK THIS IS
A CASE WHERE THINGS THAT HAVE
BEEN TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST IN
THE SAME CONTEXT BUT NOT REALLY
ACTED UPON, MAYBE IT TIME TO ACT
UPON THEM, SO THERE WAS A LOT OF
EXCITEMENT 10, 15 YEARS AGO
ABOUT STAFF SCIENTISTS AND
PERMANENT LEVEL POSITIONS IN
LABS.
SO THAT'S A WAY TO MAINTAIN
STABILITY, RIGHT, IS TO INSTEAD
OF HIRING TWO POSTDOCS, THEY
HIRE A STAFF SCIENTIST THAT'S
GOING TO BE THERE LONG TERM, AND
THEN MAYBE HAVE TWO GRADUATE
STUDENTS ON TOP OF THAT OR
SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO THOSE KINDS OF MODELS ARE
PROBABLY WHAT NEEDS TO BE
EXPLORED.
WE'RE ALL TIED TO HISTORY.
FOR 40 YEARS, THE SYSTEM HAS
WORKED ON HAVING LOTS OF
INEXPENSIVE GRADUATE STUDENTS
AND I EXPENSIVE POSTDOCS WHO
TURN OVER RAPIDLY.
TO ME, IT IS OBVIOUS, IT IS TIME
TO GET OUT OF THAT MINDSET AND
TRY DIFFERENT MODELS THAT MAY BE
MORE EFFICIENT AND BETTER.
LET'S SEE.
AMY WAS NEXT.
>> TERRI TOUCHED ON MUCH OF WHAT
I WAS GOING TO SAY BECAUSE WE
RECENTLY HAD A UNIONIZATION AT
NORTHWESTERN AND OUR STIPENDS
JUST WENT UP FROM LIKE 36 TO 45,
AND THERE'S GREAT TREPIDATION
ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY
THESE PEOPLE.
SO THAT'S A BIG, BIG CONCERN
EVERYWHERE.
RELATED TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID, I
GUESS, I WAS GOING TO ASK SORT
OF WHAT YOUR IDEA OF A SMALL LAB
IS AND, YOU KNOW, WE MAY NEED TO
RECALIBRATE THE REVIEW SYSTEM,
BECAUSE WITH TWO STUDENTS AND
ONE SENIOR SCIENTIST, YOU'RE NOT
GOING TO PRODUCE THE LARGE
NUMBER OF PUBLICATIONS THAT THE
REVIEW PANELS ARE DEMANDING, SO
HOW DO WE CHANGE THAT CULTURE?
AND IS YOUR IDEAL LAB SIZE TWO
STUDENTS AND ONE POSTDOC?
WHEN YOU SAID WE NEED TO GET
SMALLER, I'M CURIOUS.
BECAUSE I AGREE, SOME HUGE LABS
OF 40 OR 50 PEOPLE ARE
RIDICULOUS, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE
A CRITICAL MASS TO DO GOOD WORK
AND I'M CURIOUS WHERE YOUR SET
POINT IS FOR THAT.
>> IT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT.
IS IT FIVE?
IS IT SEVEN?
I WOULD THINK THAT OUR
RECALIBRATION SHOULD BE THAT 10
IS A BIG LAB, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT,
EVEN NOW, RIGHT, THERE ARE LABS
THAT ARE 25, 30, 40 PEOPLE.
AND I WOULD ALSO SAY, IF YOU
LOOK AT THE RECENT SCANDALS,
MIKE LAUER IS GOING TO COME IN
IN A MINUTE AND TALK ABOUT DATA
MANIPULATION, SCIENTIFIC MI
MISCONDUCT, FRAUD.
THIS IS NOT A QUANTITATIVE
STATEMENT, IT'S ANECDOTAL, BUT
MANY OF THOSE LABS THAT HAVE
BEEN RECENTLY INVOLVED IN ANY
SCANDALS ARE VERY BIG, RIGHT,
WHERE THERE PROBABLY WAS VERY
LITTLE OVERSIGHT OF WHAT WAS
GOING ON BECAUSE THERE WERE 40
PEOPLE IN THE LAB.
SO I THINK THERE ARE LOTS OF
OTHER REASONS TO THINK ABOUT
THIS TOO.
I CAN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION
BECAUSE IS IT FIVE, IS IT SEVEN,
IS IT FOUR?
IT'S GOING TO DEPEND ON THE
CONTEXT.
BUT AGAIN, I THINK THE ENTIRE
MINDSET NEEDS TO SHIFT FROM IF
I'M DOING GREAT, I HAVE A
20-PERSON LAB TO MAYBE A
10-PERSON LAB IS BIG.
LESILEE.
>> I JUST WANT TO SECOND WHAT
AMY SAID, BECAUSE SINGLE R01 OR
EVEN A MIRA NOW, WE'RE TALKING
THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE.
AND THE PRESSURE IS THERE AS THE
YOUNG FACULTY TO GROW THEIR LAB
AND I'VE ALWAYS HAD A SMALL LAB
SO I AGREE WITH YOU, SMALL LAB
IS BETTER, BUT NOW WITH THE
INCREASE IN STIPENDS IN THE U.C.
SYSTEM, WE'RE AT 45 TO 50,000,
PLUS TUITION.
SO, I MEAN, I CAN'T EVEN HAVE A
LAB OF FIVE PEOPLE ANYMORE,
BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH
TRAINING GRANTS, AND IT'S THE
RECALIBRATION OF THE REVIEW
SYSTEM, I THINK, BECAUSE, YEAH,
THE EXPECTATION IS THERE, EVEN
REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF
PUBLICATIONS, YOU KNOW, IT'S
LIKE, OH, WELL, THIS ISN'T
AMBITIOUS ENOUGH.
AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, I KNOW WHAT
I CAN DO WITH TWO GRADUATE
STUDENTS AND A STAFF SCIENTIST,
RIGHT, SO I'M TRYING TO WRITE A
REALISTIC GRANT, BUT THEN THE
REVIEWERS ARE STILL SAYING,
WELL, THIS IS NOT FAR REACHING
ENOUGH, SO WE HAVE TO
RECALIBRATE SOMEHOW AND I DON'T
KNOW HOW YOU DO THAT.
>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
IT'S A BIT OF A CHICKEN AND EGG
PROBLEM.
OF COURSE THE REVIEWERS ARE
SITTING AROUND THIS TABLE AND
YOUR COLLEAGUES, SO HOW DO WE
GET EVERYONE TO SHIFT THEIR
MINDSET?
IT PROBABLY IS GOING TO BE A
DISRUPTIVE TIME FOR SOME YEAR,
FEW YEARS BEFORE THAT HAPPENS.
LUCY.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF POINTS TO
FOLLOW UP ON ERIC'S POINT ABOUT
ENSURING LAB CONTINUITY,
ESPECIALLY WITH A SMALLER LAB,
AND YOU MENTIONED THE WONDERFUL
IDEA OF HOW STAFF SI SCIENTISTS
WOULD FILL SUCH A ROLE TO BRING
IN THAT CONTINUITY IN A LAB OVER
LONG PERIODS OF TIME.
THE NCI PROGRAM THAT ALLOWS
STAFF SCIENTIST TO ACQUIRE
INDIVIDUAL FUNDING IN THEIR OWN
NAME TO SUPPORT THEIR POSITIONS,
I THINK HAS BEEN REALLY
SUCCESSFUL AND IS A MODEL I'M
WONDERING IF GM IS CONSIDERING,Y
WITH A ONE MODULAR, 250K MIRA,
WE CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE, TO PAY
A STAFF SCIENTIST SALARY ON THAT
KIND OF BUDGET.
SO THAT'S ONE IDEA, AND MAYBE IF
YOU WANT TO RESPOND AND THEN I
CAN GO ON TO MY SECOND.
>> SURE.
WE'VE LOOKED AT THE NCI PROGRAM
A LOT.
IT'S A BIT MAGICAL THINKING,
THOUGH, BECAUSE IT'S A ZERO SUM
GAME MONEY WISE, RIGHT?
SO IF WE CREATE A BIG PROGRAM
WHERE STAFF SCIENTISTS APPLY FOR
THEIR OWN SALARIES AND THEY
GET -- THAT'S TAKING MONEY
FROM -- WE COULD BE USING TO
MAKE YOUR GRANT BIGGER OR PAY
MORE GRANTS.
THAT'S NOT A MAGICAL SOLUTION,
THAT'S NOT GOING TO SOLVE
ANYTHING.
I ALSO -- I'VE ALWAYS QUESTIONED
IT BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE ANOTHER
SOFT MONEY SCHEME, WHERE NOW
STAFF SCIENTISTS HAVE TO FIGHT
FOR THEIR OWN SALARIES BY
WRITING GRANTS, AND I'M NOT
TOTALLY CLEAR WHY THAT'S A
POSITIVE.
>> I GUESS MAYBE WHAT I WOULD
SAY, I AGREE THAT IS A
PERSPECTIVE OF THE STAFF
SCIENTIST FEELING LIKE THEY HAVE
TO KEEP -- NOW THEY'RE ON THE
GROUND TREADMILL, AS WELL, IT
WOULD POTENTIALLY KEEP LAB SIZES
SMALLER IF THAT MEANS IT'S
PAYING THE SALARY FOR ONE PERSON
INSTEAD GIVING ME MORE MONEY IN
MY GRANT AND THEN I COULD PAY
TWO STUDENTS OFF OF IT.
>> RIGHT.
ALTHOUGH I SHOULD STRESS, RIGHT
NOW ANYONE CAN DECIDE THEY WANT
TO PAY A STAFF SCIENTIST IF
THEY, YOU KNOW, USE THE MONEY
THAT WAY ON A GRANT.
SO THERE'S NOTHING STOPPING THEM
EXCEPT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THEY
HAVE.
BUT YOU KNOW, YOUR POINTS ARE
ALL WELL TAKEN.
THERE'S A LIMITED AMOUNT OF
MONEY, AND IT'S A TRADEOFF
BETWEEN HOW MANY PEOPLE WE FUND
AND HOW BIG THE GRANTS ARE.
I WILL SAY -- YOU ASKED ABOUT A
PREVIOUS -- WE ARE WORKING TO
INCREASE THE MIRA BUDGETS.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DOUBLED.
THIS IS AGAIN PART OF THE
DISCONNECT WE HAVE WITH THE
COMMUNITY SOMETIMES IS, THE OLD
MODEL WHERE IF YOU GOT ANOTHER
R01 YOUR BUDGET BASICALLY
DOUBLED, IT'S JUST NOT ONE
THAT'S FEASIBLE.
SO WHEN WE'RE THINKING ABOUT AN
INCREASE, WE'RE THINKING CAN WE
INCREASE THE BUDGETS BY 20% OR
15% OR SOMETHING.
THAT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL BUT
IT'S NOT DOUBLING ANYONE'S
BUDGET.
SO THIS IS ANOTHER RECALIBRATION
THAT HAS TO HAPPEN THAT IN THE
FUTURE, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE
CASE THAT PEOPLE'S BUDGETS CAN
BE DOUBLED OVERNIGHT FROM ONE
ROUND TO THE NEXT.
IT'S GOING TO BE A MORE GRAD
DUAL KIND OF AN INCREASE.
>> I DO THINK THAT -- I'D BE
CURIOUS ABOUT YOUR THOUGHTS OF
REDUCING THE 51% EFFORT
REQUIREMENT, WHICH WOULD AT
LEAST ALLOW BASIC SCIENTISTS
GM-FUNDED MIRA AWARDEES MORE
FLEXIBILITY IN CERTAIN WAYS TO
TRY TO GET MONEY.
>> I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE
CAN CONSIDER.
IT WAS PUT IN PLACE INITIALLY TO
PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GETTING BOTH
THE MIRA AND, SAY, LIKE THE
DP2 AT THE SAME TIME.
THERE MAY BE OTHER WAYS FOR US
TO SAY YOU CAN'T HAVE THESE TWO
THINGS AT THE SAME TIME BUT YOU
CAN HAVE -- SO MAYBE WE REDUCE
TO 49% AND THEN THEY COULD GET A
PIONEER AWARD AT THE SAME TIME.
WE'LL CONSIDER THAT.
I THINK IT'S A VERY FAIR
QUESTION.
>> I HAD A SECOND QUESTION BUT I
CAN GET BACK IN THE CUE.
>> WENDY AND THEN ANGELA.
>> I WAS GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE
SECOND DISCUSSION TOPIC.
CAN I CLOSE THIS ONE UP FIRST?
>> ANGELA, DID YOU HAVE A
QUESTION ABOUT THIS?
>> I ALSO HAVE TWO QUESTIONS SO
I'LL TRY TO KEEP THEM
THEMATICALLY RELEVANT.
THE FIRST ONE IS ACTUALLY JUST A
COMMENT, WHICH IS I THINK YOU
ACKNOWLEDGED, JON, IT'S GOING TO
BE A DISRUPTIVE TIME, RIGHT, AND
TO JUST URGE GM TO DO THE DATA
ANALYSIS TO THINK ABOUT
DISRUPTIVE FOR WHO.
AND IN WHAT WAYS.
BECAUSE I CAN IMAGINE, IT COULD
BE VERY DISPROPORTIONATE.
AND SO TO JUST REALLY BE
THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THAT AND TO
THINK ABOUT HOW TO MAKE IT AS
SMOOTH AS POSSIBLE WITH YOUR
OVERALL LONG TERM GOALS IN MIND.
I JUST SEE SOME POINTS OF
FRAGILITY IN THE SYSTEM HOW
THESE THINGS WOULD LAND.
ESPECIALLY WITH MID-CAREER
FACULTY AT THE MOMENT BECAUSE
THEY'RE SORT OF FALLING IN
BETWEEN A LOT OF DIFFERENT
MECHANISMS.
SO ANYWAY, I SORT OF URGE TO
KEEP EYES ON THAT PART AS WE
TRAVERSE THE CHANGE.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS RELATED
TO THE -- BRINGING UP BOTH PH.D.
STUDENTS AND POSTDOCS AND THE
IDEA THAT LABS MIGHT GET SMALLER
AND THE TRAINING CAPACITY MIGHT
CHANGE, AND I'M WONDERING HOW GM
IS THINKING ABOUT TWO OTHER
TRAINEE POPULATIONS, AND HOW
THEY ALSO FULFILL THE OVERALL
WORKFORCE CAPACITY, WHICH IS
POSTBACS AND MASTERS STUDENTS.
BECAUSE INCREASINGLY I HEAR FROM
MY COLLEAGUES IN THE PRIVATE
SECTOR THAT THAT DEGREE OF
TRAINING IS ACTUALLY REALLY
APPROPRIATE FOR LONG TERM VERY
SUCCESSFUL CAREERS IN THE
PRIVATE SECTOR, AND SO I'M
CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
>> EXCELLENT QUESTION.
SO WE TO HAVE -- PREP WHICH IS
POSTBAC AND WE DO HAVE BRIDGES
TO DOCTORATE, WHICH IS MASTERS
TO DOCTORATE LEVEL, SO THOSE ARE
SOME LEVEL THERE.
BUT YOUR POINT ABOUT NON-PH.D.
LEVEL WORKFORCE FOR THE PRIVATE
SECTOR, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO
HEAR WENDY AND RON'S THOUGHTS
ABOUT THIS AS WELL.
THIS RON.
IS ONE THAT WE'VE BEEN
DISCUSSING A LOT, AND WE MAY
COME TO COUNCIL WITH A CONCEPT
SOON TO THINK ABOUT A PROGRAM
THAT WOULD PROBABLY MAYBE BE AT
THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE LEVEL TO
START WITH, WOULD TRAIN PEOPLE
TO HAVE TECHNICIAN SORT OF LEVEL
JOBS IN INDUSTRY, BECAUSE AS
WE'VE GONE TO IDEA STATES AND
TALKED TO THEM ABOUT WHAT IS A
LIMITING FACTOR IN GETTING
PRIVATE SECTOR BIOTECH GOING
HERE, I'VE HEARD A CONSISTENT
STATEMENT THAT IT'S NOT
PH.D.s.
WE CAN GET PH.D.s TO COME
HERE.
YOU KNOW, I WAS IN PORTLAND,
MAINE.
I GUARANTEE YOU I CAN GET
PH.D.s TO GO TO PORTLAND,
MAINE BECAUSE IT'S REALLY NICE.
BUT IT'S THE PEOPLE AT THE
NON-PH.D. LEVEL WHO WOULD DO THE
LAB WORK AND WHO WOULD RUN THE
REACTORS AND WORK IN THE PLANTS,
ET CETERA.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE THINKING
COULD WE CREATE A PROGRAM TO DO
EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO STAY TUNED, I THINK,
EXCELLENT POINT.
GO AHEAD.
JUMP IN AND THEN WE'LL GO TO
WENDY.
>> AND JUST AS AN EXAMPLE OF
THAT, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE ONE, CAL
STATE L.A., AND SOME OF THE
OTHER NEIGHBORING INSTITUTIONS
INCLUDING KECK HAVE LAUNCHED
PROGRAMS -- SO L.A. COUNTY HAS
HAD THIS PUSH FOR SEVERAL YEARS
OF TRYING TO INCREASE THEIR
PRESENCE IN THE BIO INDUSTRY,
AND KIND OF AS PART OF THAT,
GOTTEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK FROM
INDUSTRY.
INCLUDING YOUR FORMER
INSTITUTION.
AND IT HITS EXACTLY THE COMMENTS
THAT YOU MADE, AND IN RESPONSE
TO THAT, CAL STATE L.A.
SPECIFICALLY, THEIR PROGRAM
LAUNCHED, I THINK IT'S A LITTLE
OVER A YEAR AGO, WHERE THEY --
WITH PRIVATE FUNDS COMING IN TO
ACTUALLY TRAIN TECHNICIANS, ET
CETERA, FOR SPECIFIC TASKS
WITHIN THE INDUSTRY, IN THIS
CASE, PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY,
MANY WHO ARE NOW PRESENT OR HAVE
LOCATED OR EXPANDED INTO
LOS ANGELES COUNTY, AND SO YEAH,
IT'S EXACTLY AS YOU SAY, THAT'S
BEEN THE INTEREST.
AMGEN IS ANOTHER ONE THAT HAS
ALSO BEEN KIND OF AT THE
FOREFRONT OF THAT.
SO THERE'S A BIG PUSH FOR THAT.
AT LESION LEAST FOR L.A. COUNTY.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR SOME OF THE
OTHER PLACES.
>> I AGREE, IT'S A GREAT IDEA
BECAUSE IT'S A CATCH 22, YOU
CAN'T GET A JOB UNLESS YOU HAVE
THE TRAINING, YOU CAN'T GET THE
TRAINING UNLESS YOU HAVE A JOB,
SO WHAT DO YOU DO?
AND THERE ARE COMPANIES NOW THAT
HAVE WONDERFUL INTERNSHIPS AND
FUNDED BUT SO COMPETITIVE.
IT'S SORT OF ALL WHO YOU'RE
CONNECTED TO GET THOSE ROLES, SO
I THINK WHAT YOU SUGGEST IS
TERRIFIC.
>> EXCELLENT.
WE'LL BRING A CONCEPT TO YOU IN
THE COMING COUPLE ROUNDS, I
HOPE.
GO AHEAD.
>> I WOULD JUST SAY TO SORT OF
TRY TO BRING IT BACK TO SOME OF
THE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT IT
LOOKS LIKE DAY TO DAY IN A
SMALLER GM-FUNDED LAB TO THEN
THINK ABOUT HOW MIGHT FACULTY,
WE'RE RUNNING BASIC RESEARCH
PROGRAM, THINKING ABOUT HOW THE
ROLE OF POSTBACS ARE MASTER
STUDENTS IN THEIR LABS IN THE
CONTEXT OF THEIR RESEARCH
PROGRAM, BUT THAT ALSO IS A GOOD
TRAINING EXPERIENCE FOR FOLKS
THAT ARE GOING ON TO NEXT KINDS
OF CAREERS.
SO INDUSTRY INTERNSHIPS MIGHT BE
ONE PART OF THAT, BUT IT ALSO
MIGHT BE HOW FACULTY IDENTIFY
PEOPLE AND HOW THEY THINK ABOUT
INTEGRATING THEM INTO THEIR
RESEARCH PROGRAM IN A PRODUCTIVE
KIND OF WAY FOR THAT TIME FRAME
AND THAT KIND OF CAREER GOAL, SO
THERE MAY BE SOME REORIENTATION
OF FACULTY AROUND THAT CAPACITY
TOO.
>> THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
WENDY, YOU HAD SOME OTHER THINGS
TO SAY.
>> THE SECOND POINT,
TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE NOT
CURRENTLY AVAILABLE AT
REGIONAL -- SO I'D CLICK ON THE
LINK TO SEE WHAT WAS AVAILABLE,
AND TWO IDEAS FROM MISSING
TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE NOT YET
FUNDED.
SO IN DRUG TI DISCOVERY WHEN YOU
MAKE NEW MEDICINES, IT'S WHAT
I'VE DONE FOR 30 YEARS, THE MOST
EXPENSIVE PART AND THE MOST
TIME-CONSUMING PART IS THE
SYNTHESIS PART.
MAKING THE MOLECULE.
YOU CAN TEST IT QUICKLY, OFTEN,
BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO REITERATE,
REITERATE.
SO TWO TECHNOLOGIES THAT ARE NOT
YET FUNDED, ONE IS A BIGGY, IS
LATE-STAGE CHEMISTRY
FUNCTIONALLIZATION, BECAUSE THE
REASON YOU TAKE SO LONG IS YOU
OFTEN HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE
BEGINNING OF THE SYNTHESIS, YOU
CAN'T JUST TURN WHAT YOU GOT
INTO WHAT YOU WANT NEXT.
IT'S REALLY TOUGH AND IT'S
TRICKY.
BUT IF WE MADE PROGRESS THERE,
WE'D SAVE SO MUCH MONEY MAKING
NEW MEDICINES.
SO YOU'D HAVE TO THINK A BIT
MORE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE
IN A CENTER, BUT I CAN THINK OF
IDEAS.
THTHE SECOND ONE THAT IS NOT YET
FUNDED, AND THERE ARE OPEN
SOURCE ONLINE BUT I JUST THINK A
MORE ORGANIZED GROUP COULD DO IT
BETTER, IS RETRO SYNTHETIC
SYNTHESIS.
SO WHEN A STUDENT WANTS TO MAKE
SOMETHING, YOU USUALLY GO INTO
YOUR OWN TOOLBOX OF TRICKS AND
YOU MAY NOT COME UP WITH THE
RIGHT SEQUENCE.
THERE ARE PROGRAMS NOW THAT
SAID, HEY, MACHINE LEARNING,
THAT WILL GIVE YOU THROW ROUTES
THAT ARE MORE EE SISHT.
IF THAT WAS AVAILABLE THROUGH
NIGMS, A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD TAP
INTO IT.
>> WOW, THOSE ARE BOTH
FASCINATING IDEAS.
ONE IDEA WI WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
BEFORE RELATED TO WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING, OR MAYBE IT'S THE SAME
AS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, YOU
KNOW, WE FUND ORGANIC CHEMISTS
TO DEVELOP NEW METHODOLOGIES,
AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THOSE
OFTEN WORK IN THEIR SPECIFIC
CONTEXTS, IN THEIR LAB, BUT
THEY'RE KIND OF BOUTIQUE AT THAT
STAGE, SO IF YOU NOW WANT TO USE
A DIFFERENT MOLECULE OR SCALE IT
UP, IT DOESN'T WORK AND IT TAKES
A LOT OF EFFORT TO GET IT THERE.
SO WE HAVE THE BIOMEDICAL
TECHNOLOGY OPTIMIZATION AND
DISSEMINATION CENTER, IT'S THE
BTODs, AND IT SEEMED LIKE THAT
WOULD BE A GREAT BS BTOD, OF TAG
HIGH VALUE BUT STILL BOUTIQUE
CHEMICAL SYNTHETIC STEPS AND
HARDENING THEM TO THE POINT THAT
THEY COULD BE USED AT AN
INDUSTRIAL SCALE.
IS THAT SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'RE
SAYING?
>> YOU'RE DEAD ON.
THAT'S ALONG THE LINES, THAT
WOULD BE TERRIFIC.
AND THEN I'M SUGGESTING EVEN
EXTENDING TO JUST MORE RESOURCES
THAT WOULD OPEN UP INNOVATION TO
GET CHEMISTRY DONE ON MORE
ADVANCED COMPOUNDS.
BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN YOU
HAVE A SYNTHETIC MOLECULE AND
YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING NEW TO
IT, YOU SCREW UP -- YOU KNOW,
MESS UP LOTS OF THE OTHER
PIECES, SO YOU HAVE TO BACK UP,
PUT ON NEW PROTECTING GROUPS.
SO IT'S TRICKY BUSINESS, BUT
INNOVATION THERE WOULD REALLY
MOVE THE BOUNDARIES FORWARD.
>> ALL RIGHT.
THOSE ARE VERY GOOD IDEAS.
INTERESTING IDEAS.
AND OF COURSE ANY ENCOURAGEMENT
ONE COULD HAVE OF COLLEAGUES TO
APPLY TO US, BECAUSE WE CAN'T
FUND WHAT DOESN'T COME IN FOR AN
APPLICATION.
SO THAT'S MAYBE ONE OF THE NEXT
STEPS WE CAN USE HELP WITH, IS
ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY
APPLY FOR THESE, BECAUSE IT
SOUNDS LIKE A GREAT IDEA.
LUCY.
>> CAN I JUST CIRCLE BACK TO THE
NRSA STIPENDS AND THE QUESTION
THAT YOU POSED, WE HAVEN'T
REALLY TALKED ABOUT -- WE'VE
TALKED A LOT ABOUT HOW
RESEARCHERS MIGHT BE APPROACHING
IT BUT NOT ABOUT HOW
INSTITUTIONS MIGHT BE
APPROACHING THESE INCREASES.
YOU MENTIONED THE NEED FOR
INSTITUTIONS TO STEP UP TO
BRIDGE A GAP BETWEEN NRSA
FUNDING AND, SAY, NEW HIGHER
SALARIES LIKE WHAT LESILEE WAS
TALKING ABOUT AT NORTHWESTERN.
IS THERE A WAY TO INCENTIVIZE,
MAYBE I CAN ASK EVERYONE HERE,
IF THERE'S A WAY TO INCENTIVIZE
INSTITUTIONS TO DO THIS?
RIGHT NOW I KNOW MY DEPARTMENT
WILL -- IF A FACULTY DOESN'T
HAVE FUNDS TO TOP OFF AN NRSA
STIPEND, THE DEPARTMENT WILL
COVER FUNDS, WILL GIVE FUNDS TO
THAT FACULTY TO COVER THAT,
WHICH IS WONDERFUL.
BUT I KNOW THAT IN OTHER
DEPARTMENTS AT MY INSTITUTION,
TRAINEES ARE ACTIVELY
DISCOURAGED FROM APPLYING BY THE
DEPARTMENTS BECAUSE THERE ISN'T
A MEANS TO DO THAT.
SO HOW COULD WE INCENTIVIZE
THAT?
>> YOU'RE ALL THE SMART PEOPLE.
WHAT DO YOU THINK, TERRI?
>> SO I DO THINK IT IS
INSTITUTION-DEPENDENT, BUT IF I
THINK OF -- THERE IS A HUGE -- I
GUESS FOR ME, WHAT I'VE ALWAYS
NOWT ABTHOUGHT ABOUT FOR THE TRG
GRANTS IS OUR CHALLENGE IS IT
WAS ALWAYS THE FACULTY THAT RAN
THEM THAT GOT NO CREDIT FOR
DOING IT, SO THERE WAS A LONG
TIME WHERE FOUGHT A BATTLE TO
MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE
INCENTIVIZING PEOPLE TO APPLY.
AS SOMEBODY THAT WAS ON A
TRAINING GRANT AS GRADUATE
STUDENT, I STILL CONSIDER THAT A
TRANSFORMATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN
MY CAREER.
AND THE EXTRA ATTENTION THAT I
GOT AND MEETING WITH THE PANEL,
IT WAS THE METABOLISM TRAINING
GRANT AT CASE WESTERN
UNIVERSITY.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S STILL
THERE, IT MIGHT BE.
IT HAD BEEN THERE LIKE 50 YEARS
BEFORE I GOT THERE.
THE INCENTIVE IS IT DOES GIVE
YOU EXTRA RESOURCES SO THESE
STUDENTS DO HAVE A REALLY
EXCEPTIONAL THING.
YOU KNOW, ONE DISRUPTIVE THING,
REMEMBER THE TALK ABOUT FUNDING
THE STUDENTS DIRECTLY, MORE LIKE
NSF, AND NOT FUNDING THEM ON NIH
GRANTS?
THAT WOULD EVEN THE PLAYING
FIELD AND EVERYONE WOULD HAVE TO
FIGURE IT OUT.
I THINK -- I STILL THINK GETTING
THE TRAINING GRANT IS CONSIDERED
AN INCENTIVE, AND ONE OF THE
REASONS IT'S AN INCENTIVE FROM
AN ADMINISTRATIVE POSITION IS
THAT YOU GET SOME OF THAT
TUITION BACK.
SO WHAT INSTITUTIONS CHOOSE TO
DO WITH TUITION VARIES BASED ON
THAT, BUT IT DOES COME IN AS
FUNDING THAT HAS OTHER WAYS.
AND I THINK PEOPLE JUST HAVE TO
START TO THINK CREATIVELY WITHIN
THEIR INSTITUTIONS.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S ONE
EXAMPLE BUT I DO THINK THAT IS
ONE AREA WHERE THAT IS REALLY A
BIG INCENTIVE TO THE UN INSTITUN
TO COLLECT THAT TUITION MONEY.
SOME INSTITUTIONS MAY HAVE
DIFFERENT RULES BUT FOR THE
MAJORITY, I THINK THEY DO
CONSIDER THAT ONE OF THE BIG
INCENTIVES.
SO THAT'S THE WAY I WOULD LOOK
AT IT.
>> ERIC.
>> BRIEFLY, THE ONE THING ABOUT
TRAINING GRANTS WHEN I WAS A
TRAINING GRANT DIRECTOR WAS THAT
A SMALL GRANT COULD IMPACT AN
ENTIRE INSTITUTION, BECAUSE YOU
HAVE TO CREATE THE POLICIES TO
IMPACT A LOT OF STUDENTS.
AND SO SO LOWERING -- IF YOU'VE
DISCOURAGED HAVING PEOPLE ON
TRAINING GRANTS, YOU'RE PROBABLY
THEN HAVING LESS A SORT OF
POLICIES IN PLACE THAT HELP
STUDENTS MANAGE THEIR CAREERS,
SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE
HAVE TO THINK ABOUT IT.
>> UNIVERSITIES DO HAVE VARIOUS
PIVOT POINTS THEY COULD USE,
RIGHT?
TUITION, YOU MENTIONED IS ONE OF
THEM.
NOT EVERY INSTITUTION CHARGES
TUITION FOR STUDENTS ONCE THEY
GET ON GRANTS, RIGHT?
ON RESEARCH GRANTS, BUT IT
SOUNDS LIKE SOME DO.
SO THAT'S A POINT WHERE THEY
COULD MAKE A DECISION THAT ONLY
IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS BEFORE
CANDIDACY DO THEY CHARGE TUITION
AND THEN ONCE YOU'RE BEYOND
THAT, THEY DON'T.
THAT WOULD HELP YOU AS FACULTY.
THE OTHER THAT I'VE BEEN ON A
SOAP BOX ABOUT FOR YEARS IS
SALARY SUPPORT FOR THE FACULTY.
I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S
JUST BALLOONED OVER THE LAST 20
YEARS, WHERE INSTITUTIONS THAT
USED TO PAY THEIR FACULTY 100%
SALARY ARE NOW REQUIRING THEM TO
GET 90% SALARY ON GRANTS, RIGHT,
AND SO I UNDERSTAND FROM AN
INSTITUTIONAL POINT OF VIEW THEY
HAVE ALL THEIR OWN FINANCIAL
PRESSURES, BUT THAT IS A HUGE
ONE ON PIs.
IF YOU ONLY HAD TO PAY 25% OF
YOUR SUMMER SALARY VERSUS 75% OF
YOUR SALARY, THAT'S GAME
CHANGING IN TERMS OF HOW FAR
YOUR GRANT GOES, RIGHT?
SO IF I COULD CHANGE ONE THING
IN ACADEMIA, THAT WOULD BE IT
RIGHT NOW.
ANGELA.
>> I APPRECIATE THE BRAIN TRUST
OF THIS GROUP AND YOUR
AFFIRMATION TO HOW SMART WE ARE.
I'M ALSO THINKING ABOUT SO MUCH
OF THE -- SO MANY OF THE
IMPLICATIONS THAT YOU'RE
DISCUSSING, WHETHER IT'S ABOUT
CHANGES TO THE NRSA STIPENDS,
TECHNOLOGIES YET TO BE
DISCOVERED, THE PREVIOUS SLIDE
YOU SHARED WITH ISSUES RELATING
TO SUSTAINED ENGAGEMENT WITH
COMMUNITIES WHO ARE
UNDERREPRESENTED IN CLINICAL
RESEARCH.
THESE ARE CULTURE CHANGE ISSUES,
AND WHAT'S COMING UP FOR ME NOW
IS, NIGMS, SINCE YOU HAVE THE
LARGEST TRAINING PORTFOLIO OUT
OF ALL OF NIH, I BELIEVE, HAS SO
MUCH INSIGHT ABOUT THE CHANGING
LANDSCAPE OF OUR RESEARCH
TRAINING ENVIRONMENT.
IT'S NOT LOST ON ME WHAT YOU
SAID, AMY, ABOUT THE DOWNWARD
IMPLICATIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT
EVEN GETS EVALUATED FOR
PROMOTION FOR FACULTY, AND AS
YOU SAID, ANGELA, THE VULNERABLE
FOLK WHO ARE AT MID CAREER, JUST
FINISHED THEIR THIRD YEAR
REVIEW, ET CETERA.
SO THE QUESTION COMING UP FOR ME
IS TO WHAT EXTENT NIGMS IS
CONNECTED WITH PROVIDING THIS
INFORMATION TO, LIKE, THE
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL
COLLEGES.
SO I RODE ON THE PLANE YESTERDAY
WITH MY ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR BASIC
RESEARCH AND THE GREAT GRAND
GROUP IS MEETING RIGHT NOW LIKE
IN D.C. .
AND THEY NEED THIS INFORMATION.
I THINK IT'S A CONVERSATION.
THERE'S A DIALOGUE TO BE HAD.
WITH THOSE FOLKS, SOME OF YOU
ARE FORMER TRAINING DIRECTORS
AND GRADUATE RESEARCH DEANS AND
THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT IT SEEMS
LIKE THERE COULD BE A MORE
DELIBERATE INTENTIONAL SET OF
DISCUSSIONS OR A SMALL WORKING
GROUP BETWEEN THE GREAT GRAND
GROUP AND NIGMS, SO I'M JUST
CURIOUS ABOUT -- I KNOW NIH
STAFF CAN'T LOBBY, PER SE, BUT
THEY CAN INFORM POLICIES AND
PRACTICES THAT ARE RELATING TO
NIH ACTIVITIES AND MISSION.
SO MY QUESTION IS TO WHAT EXTENT
ARE THESE CONVERSATIONS THAT
YOU'RE TEEING UP FOR US TO HAVE
BEING INVITED TO HAVE
CONVERSATIONS WITH DOUB AAMC GRT
GRAND.
>> WE'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY,
THEY'VE BEEN GREAT PARTNERS AND
MANY DIFFERENT THINGS.
I'VE SPOKEN -- I THINK SOME SORT
OF A FORMAL WORKING GROUP,
DISCUSSION WOULD BE AN
INTERESTING THING TO HAVE.
WE COULD TALK TO THEM.
I THINK THEY'RE STILL SEARCHING
FOR ROSS' REPLACEMENT, SO
PROBABLY HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THAT
HAPPENS, BUT -- CERTAINLY
ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO ENGAGE
AAMC AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
FA.FASA IS HERE AS WELL, SO THAS
ANOTHER GREAT PARTNER FOR US.
TERRI?
>> ANGELA, BRILLIANT GROUP,
THAT'S A BRILLIANT IDEA, HAVING
WORKED WITH THAT GROUP, THE
OTHER THING THEIR SOURCE OF
DATA, THEY DO GREAT SURVEYS AND
ANALYSIS THAT YOU CAN'T DO WHERE
THEY CAN GET IN AND FIND OUT
SOME OF THESE BEST PRACTICES AND
THINGS TO HELP DISSEMINATE THAT
THIS IS NOT AN IMPOSSIBLE THING
TO DEAL WITH.
THAT WAS IT.
>> THEY HAVE EXCELLENT DATA.
WE ACTUALLY PAY FOR THEM TO GET
SOME OF THEIR DATA SO WE'RE GLAD
THEY GET SUCH EXCELLENT DATA BUT
IT HAS BEEN VERY USEFUL TO US.
WHAT A FANTASTIC DISCUSSION.
I THINK IT DIDN'T SOLVE ALL THE
PROBLEMS BUT THIS WAS VERY
USEFUL TO US, AND WE'LL TAKE ALL
THIS BACK AND CONSIDER IT
FURTHER.
LET'S TAKE A BREAK UNTIL 11:00,
AND THEN MIKE LAUER WILL
HOPEFULLY BE HERE -- OH, HE'S
HERE.
THERE'S MIKE LAUER.
SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A
10-MINUTE BREAK AND THEN MIKE
WILL BE ON.
>> SO I'VE BEEN ASKED TO TELL
PEOPLE THAT YOUR COMPUTER
SCREENS ARE APPARENTLY VISIBLE
ON THE VIDEOCAST POTENTIALLY, SO
JUST DO BE AWARE OF THAT, IN
CASE YOU HAVE SOMETHING UP THERE
THAT'S CONFIDENTIAL OR
SENSITIVE.
WITH THAT, I'M VERY PLEASED TO
INTRODUCE MIKE LAUER, THE NIH
DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR EXTRAMURAL
RESEARCH, WHO IS GOING TO TALK
TO US ABOUT RESEARCH MISCONDUCT
IN VARIOUS FORMS, WHICH I THINK
IS GOING TO BE VERY USEFUL AND
INTERESTING.
SO MIKE, IT'S ALL YOU.
>> GREAT, JON.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I
REALLY APPRECIATE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE THIS
MORNING.
SO I PUT THESE SLIDES TOGETHER
THE OTHER NIGHT AND THOUGHT I
WAS COMPLETELY UP TO DATE, AND
THEN I OPENED UP YESTERDAY'S
PAPER AND ON THE FRONT PAGE,
THERE'S A HEADLINE CALLED
"COUNTERFEIT STUDIES ARE
INFECTING SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS."
SO THIS CONTINUES TO BE A VERY
AHA TOPIC.
ALL RIGHT.
SO WHEN WE THINK ABOUT
MISCONDUCT, THERE ARE -- THERE'S
CLASSIC MISCONDUCT AND THERE'S
OTHER KINDS OF MISCONDUCT, WHAT
WE MIGHT CALL PROFESSIONAL
MISCONDUCT.
CLASSIC MISCONDUCT IS
FABRICATION, FALSIFICATION AND
PLAGIARISM.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK
ABOUT.
THERE'S OTHER KINDS WE ALSO DEAL
WITH, PEER REVIEW BREACHES,
HARASSMENT, MISREPRESENTATIONS,
SOME PEOPLE MIGHT CALL THOSE
LIES, DUPLICATIVE FUNDING,
CONCEALED FINANCIAL INTEREST AND
A WHOLE VARIETY OF OTHER
INTERESTING TYPES OF BEHAVIORS.
SO IF WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT
CLASSIC MISCONDUCT, PERHAPS ONE
OF THE EARLY CASES OF THE MODERN
ERA WAS THIS ONE.
BY THE WAY, HOW MANY OF YOU
RECOGNIZE THIS PAPER?
SO THIS WAS A LEAD ARTICLE IN
THE NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF
MEDICINE, IT CAME OUT IN JANUARY
OF 1981, IT IDENTIFIED A NEW
DISEASE, A TAURINE DEFICIENCY
LEADING TO MITRAL VALVE PROLAPSE
AND CARDIOMYOPATHY.
IT WAS A RATHER REMARKABLE
STUDY.
THE AUTHORS DESCRIBED A KIN
DRID, THEY GOT HEART SPECIMENS,
BLOOD SPECIMENS, URINE
SPECIMENS, THEY GOT AUTOPSY
SPECIMENS, AND THEY -- AS YOU
MIGHT IMAGINE, THIS WAS A
TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK SO
THEY NEEDED SOME HELP, SO THEY
IDENTIFIED SOME PEOPLE WHO
HELPED THEM, JASON KALDER,
LAWRENCE BERGMAN, BYRON
FILLSTEIN FOR DOING VARIOUS
THINGS, AND I SHOULD POINT OUT
THAT THE AUTHORS ON THIS PAPER,
THERE WERE TWO AUTHORS ON THIS
PAPER, JOHNDANN DARCY -- IT GOTA
LOT OF INTEREST AND THEN
SOMETHING HAPPENED.
SO JON DARCY, RISING
CARDIOVASCULAR RESEARCHER, MOVES
TO EMORY UNIVERSITY WHERE THIS
PAPER CAME FROM, HE MOVES FROM
EMORY UNIVERSITY TO BOSTON, AND
HE'S DOING A DOG EXPERIMENT AND
HIS COLLEAGUES SAID HE'S DOING
SOMETHING RATHER STRANGE, WHICH
IS THAT HE'S WRITING OUT THE
RESULTS OF THE EXPERIMENT THAT
WAS SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN TOMORROW
AND THE NEXT DAY AND THE DAY
AFTER THAT.
AND HE HAD THIS EXPERIMENT
COMPLETELY MAPPED OUT.
SO HE ESSENTIALLY WAS CAUGHT
RED-HANDED FABRICATING DATA.
SO HE'S ASKED ABOUT THIS AND HE
SAID I'M REALLY SORRY, I'M UNDER
A GREAT DEAL OF STRESS, I DON'T
KNOW WHAT HAPPENED, BUT THIS
THEN LED TO AN INVESTIGATION,
AND IT LED TO HARVARD THEN
SUSPENDING HIM BECAUSE OF THESE
VARIOUS PROBLEMS.
NOW, THIS THEN LED TO -- BY THE
WAY, YES, NIH FUNDING WAS
INVOLVED, THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES
GOT INVOLVED, SO THIS LED TO A
HUGE SET OF INVESTIGATIONS
INVOLVING MANY PAPER, INCLUDING
THE ONE THAT I JUST SHOWED YOU,
AND IN THE COURSE OF
INVESTIGATING THIS PARTICULAR
PAPER, THEY DISCOVERED THAT
THESE PEOPLE WHO HE HAD
ACKNOWLEDGED, J DIDN'T EXIST.
THIS WHOLE THING WAS A WORK OF
FICTION.
IT WAS COMPLETELY FABRICATED.
AND THEN IN 1983, THE PAPER WAS
FINALLY RETRACTED, AND IN A
RECENT DISCLOSURE, HARVARD
ANNOUNCED A RESEARCH FELLOW IN
THE SCHOOL OF MEDICINE HAD
FABRICATED DATE DATA THAT FORME
BASIS OF SEVERAL PUBLICATIONS,
AND THERE WAS NIH FUNDING
INVOLVED.
THIS WAS A HUGE SCANDAL AT THE
TIME.
NOW, FABRICATION IS ONE FORM,
AND THIS IS ONE OF THE MORE
EXTREME CASES.
PERHAPS A MORE COMMON FORM OF
MISCONDUCT IS FALSIFICATION.
FALSIFICATION MEANS THAT YOU
TAKE DATA THAT ACTUALLY DO EXIST
BUT THEN YOU DO THINGS WITH
THEM.
I TOOK THESE IMAGES FROM THE
ORI, OFFICE OF RESEARCH
INTEGRITY WEBSITE, AND ALL FOUR
OF THESE ARE VARIATIONS ON THE
SAME THEME, WHICH IS THAT YOU
TAKE SOME -- ONE EXPERIMENT AND
THEN YOU PLAY WITH THE IMAGE,
AND BY PLAYING WITH THE IMAGE,
YOU REPRESENT IT AS MORE THAN
ONE EXPERIMENT.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE TOP ONE,
CONTROL AND PROTEIN A, IT'S THE
EXACT SAME EXPERIMENT BUT WHAT
THEY DID WAS THEY CROPPED IT,
THEY CHANGED THE CONTRAST A
LITTLE BIT, BRIGHTENED UP THE
IMAGE.
THE ONE IN THE UPPER RIGHT-HAND
CORNER, THIS IS A CLASSIC KIND
WHERE M1 AND M4 ARE ABSOLUTELY
IDENTICAL, THEY'RE JUST FLIPPED.
THEN THE WESTERN BLOT IS ALSO
THE SAME THING, THEY'RE
IDENTICAL, THEY'RE JUST FLIPPED.
THEN FOR FIGURE 4, YOU HAVE
THESE DIFFERENT LANES, LANES 1,
4 AND 5 ARE IDENTICAL BUT
THEY'RE IDENTIFIED AS
REPRESENTING DIFFERENT
CONDITIONS.
SO THAT'S SOME EXAMPLES OF
FABRICATION, FALSIFICATION.
NOW WE WANT TO GO INTO A LITTLE
MORE DEPTH BY TELLING THIS
STORY.
THIS IS A STORY THAT -- I'M
GUESSING -- HOW MANY OF YOU ARE
FAMILIAR WITH THIS STORY?
A FEW OF YOU ARE.
OKAY.
SO THIS PAPER, THIS IS ONE OF
MANY PAPERS THAT CAME OUT THAT
WAS PUBLISHED BY NEIL POTTI, HE
WAS A STAR INVESTIGATOR AT DUKE
UNIVERSITY.
AND WHAT HE CLAIMED WAS HE
CLAIMED TO HAVE FOUND MOLECULAR
SIGNATURES THAT COULD IDENTIFY
HOW WELL PATIENTS WOULD RESPOND
TO CERTAIN KINDS OF CHEMOTHERAPY
REGIMENS.
THERE WERE A WHOLE HOST OF
PAPERS PUBLISHED IN ALL THE
MAJOR JOURNALS.
THIS WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A
MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH.
THERE WERE QUESTION, PEOPLE
COULDN'T REPLICATE THE RESULTS.
THERE WERE SOME DATA FROM CELL
LINES THAT WERE SUBJECT TO
FORENSIC ANALYSIS AT MD ANDERSON
AND THEY COULDN'T QUITE FIGURE
OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON.
THERE WAS A LOT OF BACK AND
FORTH ARGUMENTS AND HE SAID WELL
AMERICAS WE MADE SOME CLERICAL
ERRORS HERE AND THERE.
THEN IN 2010, THE CASE BROKE
OPEN.
AND THE CASE BROKE OPEN BECAUSE
A VERY ASTUTE PEER REVIEWER WAS
LOOKING AT DR. POTTI'S BIOSKETCH
AND SAID THIS DOESN'T LOOK
RIGHT.
SO YOU SAW HERE THAT THIS PERSON
HAD -- ANIL POTTI CLAIMED HE HAD
DONE A RESEARCH FELLOWSHIP WITH
SOMEONE NAMED GORDON MCLARIN AND
HE SAID I'VE HEARD OF ANIL POTTI
BUT I DON'T REALLY KNOW HIM AND
HE CERTAINLY NEVER WORKED IN MY
LAB.
THEN ON ANOTHER BIOSKETCH, HE
CLAIMED THAT IN 1995, HE HAD WON
A RHODES SCHOLAR SHIP IN
AUSTRALIA.
NOW SOME OF YOU ARE FAMILY WITH
THEM, SOME OF I MAY HAVE EVEN
WON ONE, BUT THEY'RE NOT IN
AUSTRALIA.
SO THAT'S WHAT BROKE THE CASE
OPEN.
AND THEN IT TURNED OUT THAT
THERE WAS MASSIVE FRAUD
UNDERLYING THE WORK THAT HE HAD
DONE.
AND THIS ARTICLE BY GINA KOLATA
REALLY SUMS IT UP THAT PAPERS
WERE RETRACTED.
DUKE HAD TO SHUT DOWN THREE
CLINICAL TRIALS.
THESE WERE CLINICAL TRIALS OF
PATIENTS WHO HAD SERIOUS CANCER,
YOU KNOW, ADVANCED SPREAD
CANCER, DESPERATE, DESPERATE
PEOPLE, AND THEY WERE ENROLLED
IN THESE TRIALS THAT WERE BASED
ON COMPLETELY FRAUDULENT DATA.
CANCER WORLD WAS REELING, THE
DUKE RESEARCHERS HAD EVEN SET UP
A COMPANY.
SO UNLIKE THE JOHN DARCY CASE,
THIS IS NOT JUST AN ACADEMIC
PROBLEM, A JOURNAL THAT GOT
EMBARRASSED.
REAL PEOPLE WERE HURT BY THIS.
WHO KNOWS HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF
THOUSANDS OF PERSON HOURS WERE
SPENT BY SCIENTISTS WORKING ON
THESE SO-CALLED DISCOVERIES THAT
WEREN'T REAL.
BUT IT GOT EVEN WORSE THAN THAT,
BECAUSE IT TURNED OUT THAT AT
DUKE UNIVERSITY, THERE WERE LOTS
OF PROBLEMS GOING ON.
THERE WAS ANOTHER LABORATORY
THAT WAS DOING -- THEY WERE
USING MOUSE MODELS OF ASTHMA,
AND IT TURNED OUT THAT HUNDREDS
OF EXPERIMENTS IF NOT MORE HAD
BEEN COMPLETELY FAKED, AND
THESE -- SO THIS WAS FABRICATED
DATA.
THIS WASN'T FALSIFIED.
THIS WAS FABRICATED DATA.
AND THEY WOUND UP IN DOZENS OF
NIH RESEARCH GRANTS, MANY OF
WHICH GOT FUNDED.
AND ONCE IT WAS DISCOVERED --
THE WAY IT WAS DISCOVERED WAS
THAT THE PARTICULAR PERSON WHO
WAS FALSIFYING THE DATA WAS
CAUGHT EMBEZZLING FUNDS FROM THE
LABORATORY, BUT IT TURNED OUT TO
BE A LOT DEEPER THAN THAT.
IT TURNED OUT THAT SHE HAD FELT
PRESSURED BY HER P.I. TO DO
SOMETHING TO MAKE THE RESULTS
LOOK BETTER BECAUSE WHEN SHE WAS
DOING THE RESULTS HONESTLY, YOU
KNOW HOW SCIENTIFIC DATA IS,
IT'S ALL MESSY.
IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE.
AND SO SHE COULDN'T GET TO MAKE
ANY SENSE.
AND HE TOLD HER, NO, NO, NO, NO,
NO, YOU WANT TO HAVE CURVES THAT
LOOK LIKE THIS.
YOU MUST NOT BE DOING THE
EXPERIMENT RIGHT.
SO WHY DON'T YOU GO BACK AND DO
IT OVER.
AND THEN SHE EVENTUALLY FIGURED
OUT THE WAY SHE COULD GET HER
BOSS HAPPY WAS BY MAKING UP THE
NUMBERS.
AND THAT'S WHAT SHE DID.
OVER AND OVER AND OTHER OVER AR
AGAIN.
AND EVENTUALLY, ONCE IT WAS
DISCOVERED, THEN INSTEAD OF
IMMEDIATELY TRYING TO CLAMP DOWN
ON IT, THE VARIOUS SCIENTISTS
WERE, WOULDING AROUND IT AND
THEY WERE SENDING EMAILS TO EACH
OTHER THAT SAID THINGS LIKE,
WELL, WE CAN USE THIS BLOT
BECAUSE IT'S ONLY HALF BOGUS
DATA, AND THAT DATA IS REAL
DATA, AND I'M NOT SURE WHETHER
THAT DATA IS BOGUS DATA OR NOT
SO WE'LL HAVE TO KIND OF THINK
IT THROUGH.
AND SO THERE WAS A LAWSUIT, AND
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT TOOK ON
AN ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF MY TIME
WHEN I FIRST STARTED AT OER8 1/2
YEARS AGO, WAS THIS PARTICULAR
CASE, IN WHICH IT WAS CLAIMED
THAT IT WASN'T -- DUKE WAS
TRYING TO SAY THAT THEY JUST HAD
A FEW BAD APPLES.
THEY HAD ANIL POTTI, HE WAS A
BAD APPLE, THEY HAD ERIN POTTS
KANT, BUT THEY WERE SAYING NO,
NO, DUKE IS NOT A GREAT PLACE,
DUKE HAS A REAL CULTURE PROBLEM,
AND EVENTUALLY THIS LED TO A
SETTLEMENT, FOR 112 --
$112.5 MILLION.
IT WAS A MASSIVE SETTLEMENT.
THE PRESIDENT OF DUKE SAYS THIS
IS A DIFFICULT MOMENT, THIS CASE
DEMONSTRATES THE DEVASTATING
IMPACT OF RESEARCH FRAUD AND
REINFORCES THE NEED FOR ALL OF
US TO HAVE A FOCUSED COMMITMENT
ON PROMOTING INTEGRITY.
I'M HIGHLIGHTING THAT BECAUSE
ONE OF KEY THEMES HERE IS THAT
WE CANNOT THINK OF SCIENTIFIC
MISCONDUCT AS BAD APPLES, THAT
THERE ARE BAD APPLES HERE AND
THERE.
OBVIOUSLY THEY HAVE TO BE
RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR MISDEEDS,
BUT THERE'S MORE TO IT THAN
THAT.
AND THE U.S. ATTORNEY PUT OUT A
NOTE HERE SAYING INDIVIDUALS AND
INSTITUTIONS THAT RECEIVE
RESEARCH FUNDING HAVE TO BE
SCRUPULOUS IN CONDUCTING
RESEARCH FOR THE COMMON GOOD.
MAY THIS SERVE AS A LESSON THAT
THE USE OF FALSE OR FABRICATED
DATA IN GRANT APPLICATIONS OR
REPORTS IS COMPLETELY
UNACCEPTABLE.
NOW, THIS WAS NOT AN ISOLATED
CASE, THE CASE AT DUKE.
WE ACTUALLY SEE THIS REASONABLY
OFTEN, WHERE THERE'S FABRICATED
OR FALSIFIED DATA APPEARING IN
GRANT APPLICATIONS.
AND SOMETIMES THAT FABRICATED OR
FALSIFIED DATA IS WHAT MAKES THE
APPLICATION.
IT'S WHAT GETS THE REVIEWERS
EXCITED AND EVENTUALLY LEADS TO
FUNDING.
SO I'VE TALKED ABOUT SOME OF THE
CONSEQUENCES.
PATIENTS IN CLINICAL TRIALS,
SCIENTISTS LOSING THEIR JOBS,
AND DUKE HAVING TO SHELL OUT
$112.5 MILLION.
SO HERE'S ANOTHER CASE THAT WE
WERE INVOLVED WITH.
IT INVOLVED A SCIENTIST WHO PUT
IN FALSIFIED DATA INTO GRANT
APPLICATIONS.
WE WERE REIMBURSED FOR THE GRANT
APPLICATION, SO MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS THAT WE GOT REIMBURSED
FOR THE GRANT APPLICATIONS, BUT
THE DOJ ACTUALLY MADE AN
AGREEMENT WITH THIS SCIENTIST,
IT WAS A CIVIL SETTLEMENT, THAT
HE HAD TO PAY $215,000 OUT OF
POCKET FOR ESSENTIALLY
DEFRAUDING THE U.S. GOVERNMENT.
THERE HAVE BEEN VERY FEW CASES
THAT HAVE ACTUALLY GONE TO
CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
ERIC POEHLMAN DID THIS STUDY ON
MENOPAUSE.
HE HAD SUBMITTED MULTIPLE GRANTS
TO NIH THAT HAD FALSE DATA IN
IT.
HE WOUND UP ACTUALLY GOING TO
PRISON.
THIS IS ONE OF THE VERY FEW
CASES THAT WE KNOW OF WHERE THIS
HAS HAPPENED.
AND EXPERTS SAY THE CASE MARKED
THE FIRST TIME A U.S. SCIENTIST
WILL SERVE JAIL TIME FOR
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT.
AND THERE ARE EVEN CONSEQUENCES
FOR PEOPLE A VERY HIGH LEVELS.
THIS IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF
RELATIVELY JUNIOR INVESTIGATORS.
THIS EER EVEN AFFECTED -- YOU
PROBABLY KNOW ABOUT THIS ONE --
THE PRESIDENT OF STANFORD
UNIVERSITY.
SO THERE WAS AN INVESTIGATION OF
THE WORK THERE.
THEY DETERMINED THAT HE DIDN'T
COMMIT MISCONDUCT, BUT THERE WAS
MISCONDUCT.
AND SO HE DID NOT PROPERLY
OVERSEE WHAT WAS GOING ON IN HIS
LAB.
BY THE WAY, THAT'S A VERY COMMON
THEME HERE.
NOW IN THE CASE OF THE DUKE LAB,
YOU MIGHT SAY IT WASN'T A LACK
OF SUPERVISION, IT WAS
SUPERVISORY MALFEASANCE, WHERE
THE P.I. WAS BASICALLY SENDING
EXACTLY THE WRONG MESSAGE TO THE
STAFF.
WE HAVE SEEP THAT.
SEEN THAT.
WE HAVE SEEN CASES WHERE A
PARTICULAR LABORATORY BASICALLY
TRAINS PEOPLE TO COMMIT
MISCONDUCT, AND THEN WHAT
HAPPENS IS, THEY THEN GO OUT,
THEY FORM THEIR OWN LABS, AND
THEY COMMIT MISCONDUCT.
AND THEY THEN TEACH THEIR STAFF
TO COMMIT MISCONDUCT, AND WE
HAVE SEEN THAT.
BUT THEN PERHAPS A MORE COMMON
SCENARIO IS WHERE THE P.I. IS
TOO BUSY OR SPREAD OUT TOO THIN
OR THE LABORATORY IS TOO BIG,
AND SO ALL YOU NEED IS ONE OR
TWO PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT DOING
THINGS RIGHT, AND YOU CAN GET
YOURSELF INTO A LOT OF TROUBLE.
THEN JUST TO POINT OUT REALLY
HOW SERIOUS MISCONDUCT IS, IT
GETS EVEN WORSE THAN THAT.
SO IT'S BEEN ESTIMATED THAT
HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE
HAVE BEEN ENROLLED IN CLINICAL
TRIALS THAT WERE BASED ON
FRAUDULENT DATA.
THERE'S SOME LITERATURE ON THAT.
BUT HERE, THESE ARE IN THIS CASE
CHILDREN, REAL PEOPLE WHO ARE
BEING AFFECTED.
THIS IS THE INFAMOUS PAPER THAT
WAS PUBLISHED IN THE LANCET IN
1998 CLAIMING THAT THERE WAS A
LINK BETWEEN THE COMMONLY USED
VACCINES AND AUTISM.
THIS WASN'T THE ONLY REASON WHY
PEOPLE STOPPED GIVING THEIR
CHILDREN MEASLES VACCINES.
WHEN I WENT TO MEDICAL SCHOOL,
AND I REALLY ENJOYED PEDIATRICS,
BUT I WAS TOLD DON'T WORRY ABOUT
MEASLES, YOU'LL NEVER SEE A CASE
OF MEASLES, YOU NEED TO READ
ABOUT IT IN THE BOOK AND THEY
MAY ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS ON
THE EXAM, BUT YOU'LL NEVER SEE A
CASE.
AND, WELL, THAT WAS WRONG.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN NOW
OUTBREAKS OF MEASLES AND IT IS
IN PART, NOT THE WHOLE STORY BUT
IT IS IN PART RELATED TO AN ACT
OF SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT.
SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
FABRICATION, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT
FALSIFICATION, WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT SOME OF THE CONSEQUENCES
OF THOSE.
THIS IS THE THIRD KIND OF
CLASSIC MISCONDUCT, AND THAT'S
PLAGIARISM, THIS IS ANOTHER CASE
WE WERE INVOLVED WITH WHERE A
SCIENTIST MANAGED TO GET HOLD OF
A GRANT THAT UNDERWENT PEER
REVIEW, IT WAS A RATHER COMPLEX
SERIES OF EVENTS.
AND THEN WHAT HE DID WAS HE JUST
COPIED THE GRANT, PUT IT UNDER
HIS OWN NAME.
THE PROBLEM WAS, IS THAT THE
PERSON WHO REVIEWED THE GRANT
WAS THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE
ORIGINAL GRANT.
[LAUGHTER]
I THINK THIS IS AN OUTSTANDING
GRANT ACTUALLY!
AND ANYWAY, THIS WAS A LONG,
DRAWN-OUT CASE, IT WENT TO AN
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE, BUT
THE GOVERNMENT EVENTUALLY DID
WIN ITS CASE.
ALL RIGHT.
NOW, I'VE TOLD YOU A BUNCH OF
STORIES.
HOW COMMON IS THIS?
IT IS REMARKABLY COMMON.
IT IS MUCH MORE COMMON THAN WE
WOULD LIKE TO THINK.
THIS IS A CRITICAL PAPER
PUBLISHED BY ELIZABETH BIK.
SHE WENT THROUGH 20,000 PAPERS,
SHE FOUND 4% THAT HAD
PROBLEMATIC FIGURES.
THESE ARE PAPERS THAT HAD
IMAGING FIGURES, AND AT LEAST
HALF OF THEM SUGGESTED SOME KIND
OF DELIBERATE MANIPULATION.
SO THAT'S SUGGESTING A 2%
PREVALENCE RATE.
LET'S IMAGINE THAT THAT'S OFF BY
A FACTOR OF 4.
SO THEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A
.5% PREVALENCE RATE.
THAT'S REALLY HIGH.
IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT.
I MEAN, ONE WAY OF THINKING
ABOUT IT IS THAT SOMEBODY TOLD
ME THAT MY AIRPLANE HAD A 99.5%
CHANCE OF LANDING SUCCESSFULLY,
I'M NOT GETTING ON BOARD.
SO HERE'S ANOTHER STUDY, IT'S A
CLASSIC STUDY BY FANELLI, WHERE
SHE PULSHE POOLED DATA FROM A NF
META-ANALYSES.
2% OF SCIENTISTS ADMITTED THAT
AT SOME POINT IN THEIR CAREER,
THEY HAD FALSIFIED, FABRICATED
OR DONE SOMETHING HIGHLY
PROBLEMATIC, AND 14% OF
SCIENTISTS WERE AWARE OF
SOMEBODY ELSE DOING SOMETHING
LIKE THIS.
SO THIS IS NOT -- THIS IS NOT A
RARE PHENOMENON.
ONE WAY YOU CAN GET AN INSIGHT
INTO THIS IS BY LOOKING AT
RETRACTIONS.
HOW MANY OF YOU LOOK AT
RETRACTION WATCH?
IT'S LIKE ONE OF MY FAVORITE
WEBSITES.
ESPECIALLY WHEN I'M HAVING A BAD
DAY, BECAUSE I CAN READ IT AND
SAY, WELL, SOMEBODY ELSE IS
HAVING A MUCH WORSE DAY THAN I
AM.
SO ANYWAY, THIS IS ONE WAY OF
LOOKING INTO IT, AND THESE ARE
SOME DATA, THESE DATA ARE A BIT
OLD, BUT NONETHELESS, THE
MESSAGE IS THE SAME, WHICH IS
THAT A LARGE CHUNK OF
RETRACTIONS ARE DUE TO SOME FORM
OF MISCONDUCT.
NOT ALL.
I MEAN, SOME RETRACTIONS ARE DUE
TO HONEST ERRORS, AND THAT'S
GOOD.
THAT'S A GOOD THING WHEN THAT
TYPE OF THING HAPPENS.
BUT IT'S A VERY LARGE CHUNK.
AND THERE CAN BE A LOT MORE
RETRACTIONS.
NOW PART OF IT IS THERE ARE A
LOT MORE RETRACTIONS BECAUSE
PERHAPS MISCONDUCT IS BEING
DETECTED MORE FREQUENTLY,
PERHAPS THERE IS MORE MISCONDUCT
ACTUALLY GOING ON.
AND THEN ANOTHER PHENOMENON,
THIS CAME OUT LAST DECEMBER, ARE
THESE PREDATORY JOURNALS OR -- I
DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL
THEM, FRAUDULENT JOURNALS AND
PAPER MILLS, AND THEY BASICALLY
PUBLISH MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF FAKE
PAPERS.
NOT SO MUCH IN THE UNITED
STATES, BUT IN OTHER COUNTRIES,
SAUDI ARABIA, CHINA, TURKEY, AND
IT IS A BIG PROBLEM BECAUSE SOME
OF THESE PAPERS GET CITED.
THERE'S A HUGE NUMBER OF
RETRACTIONS BECAUSE OF PROBLEMS
AT HINDAWI.
A PAPER I SAW THE OTHER DAY
CITED WILEY, THEY HAD TO RETRACT
11,000 PAPERS IN 19 JOURNALS.
SO ANOTHER KEY THING IS THAT WE
HAVE TO THINK OF MISCONDUCT AS
NOT ONLY A SERIES OF ISOLATED
EVENTS AND NOT A SET OF ISOLATED
EVENTS THAT DON'T HAVE
CONSEQUENCES, BUT IT IS MORE
COMMON THAN WE LIKE TO THINK AND
IN SOME -- THIS IS AN ARTICLE
THAT CAME OUT IN PLOS.
IT TALKED ABOUT DIFFERENT WAYS
OF MEASURING THE CLIMATE OF
INTEGRITY, BUT I'M PULLING IT
OUT HERE BECAUSE OF COMMENTS
THAT THESE AUTHORS MAKE.
BREACHES OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY
HAVE SHOCKED THE ACADEMIC
COMMUNITY.
THEY CONTINUE TO.
INITIALLY EXPLANATIONS WERE
SOUGHT AT THE LEVEL OF
INDIVIDUAL RESEARCHERS BUT OVER
TIME, INCREASED RECOGNITION
EMERGED OF THE IMPORTANT ROLE
THAT RESEARCH INTEGRITY CLIMATE
MAY PLAY.
I HAVE TO SAY, OUR OFFICE, WE
HANDLE HUNDREDS OF PROBLEMS
EVERY YEAR, AND WE SEE THAT
THERE ARE INSTITUTIONS THAT HAVE
STRONGER ENVIRONMENTS THAN
OTHERS.
IN FACT, HERE'S OUR DATA.
SO THIS SHOWS -- IT GOES FROM --
THESE ARE CALENDAR YEARS, FROM
2013 ON THE LEFT, 2024 ON THE
RIGHT.
THESE ARE NUMB NUMBERS OF VARIOS
TYPES OF MISCONDUCT CASES WE'RE
HANDLING IN OUR OFFICE.
THIS IS A BUMPER CROP.
THIS HAS BEEN A GROWING
BUSINESS.
WE HANDLE ABOUT 500 TO 600
DIFFERENT KINDS OF ALLEGATIONS A
YEAR.
AND IF YOU LOOK ON THE BOTTOM,
THE BOTTOM PURPLE, THOSE ARE THE
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT CASES.
LAST YEAR WE HANDLED 200, AND AS
OF MAY TENTH, 2024, WE'VE
HANDLED 60.
SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PROBABLY
120 TO 150 OR MAYBE EVEN MORE
CASES OF MISCONDUCT THIS YEAR.
ONE CRITICAL NIH POINT IS THAT
WHEN THERE ARE CONCERNS ABOUT
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT, LET'S SAY
AN INVESTIGATION IS BEING
LAUNCHED, WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT
IT.
IT'S NOT JUST ORI.
AND THE REASON WHY WE NEED TO
KNOW ABOUT IT IS BECAUSE EVEN IF
NO FINDING HAS BEEN MADE, THERE
MAY BE STEWARDSHIP ISSUES.
THIS IS A CASE THAT HAS RECEIVED
A FAIR AMOUNT OF PRESS.
THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT
MISCONDUCT INVOLVING A
PARTICULAR SCIENTIST.
THAT'S NO LONGER GOING.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS THAT THE
QUESTIONS, STUDY, BASIC SCIENCE
STUDIES INFORMED A VERY LARGE
CLINICAL TRIAL THAT NINDS WAS
ABOUT TO LAUNCH.
AND SO NINDS HAS DECIDED TO PUT
THE TRIAL ON HOLD.
NOW IT MAY TURN OUT EVERYTHING
WAS FINE AND THEY'LL GO AHEAD
AND DO THE TRIAL BUT THIS IS NOT
AN ISOLATED CASE.
WE'VE SEEN CASES LIKE THIS WHERE
KNOWING ABOUT THE FACT THAT
THERE ARE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT MAY AFFECT
THE WAY WE OVERSEE GRANTS.
ANOTHER BIG PROBLEM WITH FACE AT
NIH IS PEOPLE MOVING FROM ONE
INSTITUTION TO ANOTHER.
AND THEY THINK THAT BY MOVING TO
ONE INSTITUTION TO ANOTHER THEY
CAN ESCAPE THEIR PAST TROUBLES.
THIS IS A CASE THAT INVOLVED A
SCIENTIST AT GEORGETOWN, AND HE
WAS FOUND TO HAVE COMMITTED
SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT THERE, AND
SO THEN HE WENT TO EMORY, AND WE
FOUND OUT ABOUT THE PROBLEM AT
GEORGETOWN, BUT THE PEOPLE AT
EMORY WERE COMPLETELY IN THE
DARK.
THEY KNEW NOTHING ABOUT THIS.
SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE SHARED THE
FINDINGS FROM GEORGETOWN WITH
THE LEADERSHIP AT EMORY.
EMORY HANDLED THIS PERFECTLY.
AND SO WHAT EMORY -- THIS PERSON
HAD BEEN AT EMORY NOW FOR ABOUT
A YEAR AT THE TIME THAT WE
INFORMED THEM, AND SO WHAT EMORY
DID WAS THEY IMPOUNDED ALL THIS
EQUIPMENT AND LOOKED TO SEE WHAT
WAS GOING ON, AND IT TURNED OUT
THIS GUY HAD BEEN FALSIFYING
DATA FROM PRACTICALLY THE FIRST
DAY HE SHOWED UP AT EMORY.
SO WE SAVED EMORY A HUGE
SCANDAL, BECAUSE THERE WERE NO
GRANTS AND NO PUBLICATIONS, AND
ORI THEN ACTED ON THIS.
WHAT'S NEW IN THE WORLD OF
MISCONDUCT?
WELL, LIKE WHAT'S NEW IN THE
WORLD OF EVERYTHING IS A.I.
AND WE'RE VERY WORRIED ABOUT
THIS, BECAUSE WHY MANIPULATE AN
IMAGE WHEN YOU CAN CREATE ONE?
AND SO THAT IS A BIG SOURCE OF
WORRY.
SO LET ME CLOSE BY SAYING WE
TALKED ABOUT CLASSIC FORMS OF
MISCONDUCT, FABRICATION,
FALSIFICATION AND PLAGIARISM.
WE NEED TO THINK OF THIS AS
BEYOND ISOLATED EVENTS OF
INDIVIDUALS SCIENTISTS, ALTHOUGH
THEY DO HAVE TO BE HELD
ACCOUNTABLE.
THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES, AND
THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR LOTS
OF PEOPLE INCLUDING PATIENTS.
IT'S NOT AS UNCOMMON AS WE WOULD
LIKE TO THINK IT IS.
THERE ARE INCREASING CONCERNS
ABOUT THIS MATTER, AND I SHARED
WITH YOU A FEW OF OUR NIH
PERSPECTIVES.
SO HOPE YOU FOUND THIS
INTERESTING.
[APPLAUSE]
>> THANK YOU, MIKE.
NOW IT TIME FOR QUESTIONS FOR
MIKE.
GO AHEAD, RON.
>> FANTASTIC PRESENTATION.
I'M EDITOR FOR JOURNAL AMERICAN
DIAGNOSTICS AND WE'RE LOOKING
INTO THE A.I. ASPECTS IN HEAVY
DETAIL.
WE ARE PUBLISHED BY ELSINGER,
AND I HAVE TO ADMIT, THE NUMBER
OF ODDITIES THAT COME THROUGH IS
STAGGERING.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU FOLKS HAVE
BEEN AWARE, BUT THERE'S A -- I
THINK A MATERIALS SCIENCE
ARTICLE THAT ACTUALLY IN THE
INTRODUCTION GOES -- THIS MIGHT
BE ONE POSSIBLE ANSWER, AND THEN
IT CONTINUES ON.
THESE PEOPLE HAVE ACTUALLY COPY
PASTED CHATGPT GAR DAMAGE AND GY
PUT IT INTO THE ARTICLE.
AND IT GOT PEER REVIEWED, IT GOT
ACCEPTED AND IT'S PUBLISHED.
ONE QUESTION I LIKE TO ASK OF
YOU IS, IF ONE -- ONE MIGHT HAVE
PROBLEMS WITH ONE'S LANGUAGE.
MIGHT BE A FOREIGNER WHO DOES
NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH AS WELL,
IS NOT AS FLUENT.
THEY MIGHT POLISH THEIR LANGUAGE
THROUGH CHATGPT.
MANY JOURNALS DON'T HAVE AN
ISSUE WITH THAT.
AS LONG AS SOMEBODY REVIEWS AND
ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THEY HAVE GONE
THROUGH THAT KIND OF ASSISTA A .
THEN AGAIN THERE'S A COLLECTIVE
OF INDIVIDUALS THAT ASSUME I
HAVE MY DATA, I CAN'T WRITE
THIS, I'M TOO BUSY, LET ME GIVE
TO CHATGPT, AND WE'LL COLLECT
AND MAKE SOME KIND OF A
MONSTROSITY.
I'M ASSUMING THAT IT'S CORRECT,
AND I DUMP IT FOR PUBLICATION.
THAT CERTAINLY IS NOT THE BEST
WAY OF LOOKING AT IT, BUT THEN
AGAIN, WHO REALLY IS THE AUTHOR
AT THAT POINT?
IS IT THE PERSON THEORETICALLY
DROPPING THIS INFORMATION INTO
CHATGPT, IS IT THE COLLABORATIVE
THAT DEVELOPED CHATGPT, AND
THAT'S CERTAINLY ONE THING THAT
SOME OF THE PUBLISHERS ARE
REALLY LOOKING AT, HOW DO WE
ACTUALLY THROTTLE THIS IDEA, AND
LET IT JUST GO AWAY?
BUT I'D BE CURIOUS WHAT YOUR
THOUGHTS ARE ON THAT KIND OF A
VIEW.
>> SO WE'RE VERY MUCH AWARE OF
WHAT SOME OF THE JOURNALS ARE
THINKING AND WE'VE MET WITH SOME
OF THE EDITORS.
QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RAISED ABOUT
USING GENERATIVE A.I. FOR
WRITING GRANT APPLICATIONS, AND
I REMEMBER THERE WAS A STORY
THAT CAME OUT NOT THAT LONG AGO
ABOUT HOW SOMEBODY SAVED AN
ENORMOUS AMOUNT OF TIME BY
HAVING CHATGPT WRITE THEIR GRANT
APPLICATION.
SO UNLIKE JOURNALS, WE ARE
AGNOSTIC AS TO WHO ACTUALLY
WRITES THE RESEARCH PLAN.
WE KNOW THAT THE P.I.s DON'T
ALWAYS WRITE THE RESEARCH PLAN.
WE ARE NOT AGNOSTIC AS TO WHO
TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR WHAT'S
IN THE GRANT.
THE INSTITUTION MUST TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE GRANT
THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE P.I.
SO WHAT WE HAVE SAID IS THAT
WHILE WE ARE AGNOSTIC AS TO
WHETHER OR NOT YOU USED TOOLS
LIKE THIS FOR WRITING A GRANT
APPLICATION, IF THERE IS
FABRICATED MATERIAL IN THERE OR
THERE'S PLAGIARISM, WE'LL GO
AFTER YOU.
WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THIS NO
DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER KIND OF
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT CASE.
WHAT WE'RE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT
ALSO -- WELL, WE'RE VERY WORRIED
ABOUT THAT, BUT WHAT WE'RE ALSO
WORRIED ABOUT IS THAT PEOPLE
WILL PRODUCE THESE PRELIMINARY
DATA IMAGES OR PLOTS OR
GRAPHICS, AND THEY MAY LOOK
ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL, AND THEY
MAY NOT REFLECT REALITY.
AGAIN, IF WE DETERMINE THAT THAT
WAS THE CASE, WE'RE GOING TO
PURSUE IT JUST LIKE ANY OTHER
RESEARCH MISCONDUCT CASE.
BUT IT MAY BE MORE -- IT MAY BE
EASIER FOR NEFARIOUS INDIVIDUALS
TO FOOL US NOW WITH A.I. THAN
WITH THE OLDER PHOTOSHOP
TECHNIQUES.
>> ERIC AND THEN WENDY.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS, THE
BIOARCHIVE HAS BECOME SORT OF
LIKE A CHECK SYSTEM, RIGHT,
WHERE IT GOES THROUGH AND LOOKS
AT ALL THE PAPERS AND SORT OF
TRIES TO LOOK FOR VARIOUS
ASPECTS OF PLAGIARISM AND SUCH.
DOES THE NIH INTERACT WITH
BIOARCHIVE AS A GROUP TO SORT
OF -- BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL
PROBABLY THE BIGGEST
CLEARINGHOUSE RIGHT NOW.
>> THAT'S A VERY INTERESTING
IDEA.
WE HAVE INTERACTIVE BIOARCHIVE
BUT NOT ON THAT LEVEL.
SO THAT'S AN INTERESTING
DISCUSSION.
I DO THINK THAT GREATER
TRANSPARENCY THROUGH A VARIETY
OF MEANS, PREPRINTS, PUB PEER,
DATA SHARING, AND IN FACT FOR
DATA SHARING, THERE HAVE BEEN
SOME CASES OF -- SERIOUS CASES
OF MISCONDUCT WHERE THAT'S HOW
IT GOT UNEARTHED AND IT GOT
UNEARTHED A LOT MORE QUICKLY
THAN THE CASES BACK A FEW
DECADES AGO.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT
PRESENTATION.
SUPER INTERESTING.
SO THE NEXT QUESTION IS, SO WHAT
DO WE DO ABOUT IT, WHAT BEST
PRACTICES TO IMPLEMENT AND JUST
WANTED TO SHARE THAT, YOU KNOW,
IN PHARMA COMPANIES, ONE OF THE
BEST PRACTICES PUT INTO PLACE IS
THAT ALL THE RAW DATA BE
SCRUTINIZED BY THE DIRECT
MANAGER AND THEN THE MANAGER'S
MANAGER BEFORE IT GETS
PRESENTED.
AND THEN YOU GOT A LOT OF PEOPLE
RESPONSIBLE WHO DON'T WANT TO
HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEMSELVES ON
THE LINE, AND SO ITEMS LIKE
THAT.
AND I'M JUST WONDERING IF NIGMS
PUTS OUT BEST PRACTICES LIKE
THAT FOR SOMETHING TO THINK
ABOUT.
>> SO I THINK THAT'S A REALLY
GREAT POINT.
WHERE I DID -- I'M A
CARDIOVASCULAR EPIDEMIOLOGIST,
AS A RESEARCHER WAY BACK WHEN.
AND WHERE I DID MY TRAINING, WE
COULD NOT TURN IN A PAPER UNTIL
A DIFFERENT STATISTICIAN HAD
REPLICATED OUR RESULTS.
AND THE WAY THEY WOULD DO IT IS
THEY WOULDN'T JUST TAKE OUR CODE
AND JUST PRESS THE RUN BUTTON.
THEY WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE
PROBLEM AND TRY TO SEE IF THEY
COULD GET THE SAME ANSWER BASED
ON OUR DATA.
AND SO ONE THING WAS, WE ALL
KNEW THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING.
I MEAN, NOT THAT ANY OF US I
THINK WERE SERIOUSLY THINKING
ABOUT ENGAGING IN BAD BEHAVIOR,
BUT JUST THE FACT THAT WE KNEW
THAT, I'M SURE HELPED.
AND THERE WERE TIMES THAT THEY
COULD NOT REPLICATE RESULTS,
THAT HAPPENED TO ME, AND WE
FIGURED OUT WA WHAT WAS GOING O.
THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF A CULTURE
THAT PROMOTES INTEGRITY.
THERE ARE UNIVERSITIES THAT HAVE
VERY STRONG INTEGRITY PROGRAMS.
IT'S NOT ONLY THAT THEY HOLD
PEOPLE ACCOUNTABLE, BUT THEY
RAISE IT AT THE VERY HIGH LEVELS
AND MAKE IT VERY CLEAR TO THEIR
FACULTY, THIS IS SOMETHING
THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO THEM.
THEY DO NOT WANT TO BE IN THE
NEWSPAPER FOR SCANDALS.
AND PART OF THE WAY THAT THEY DO
THAT IS THEY FOSTER ALL KINDS --
YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE
APPROPRIATE PRACTICE IS FOR THE
KIND OF SCIENCE IN ORDER TO
PROMOTE THE BEST POSSIBLE
BEHAVIOR.
>> TERRI AND THEN ANGELA.
>> SO THANKS, MIKE.
ONE OF THE THINGS, OF COURSE, IS
THAT WE REQUIRE TRAINEES TO GO
THROUGH ETHICS TRAINING AND
EVERY GRADUATE SCHOOL DOES IT A
LITTLE DIFFERENT.
SOME REQUIRE IT OF ALL STUDENTS.
DO WE HAVE ANY EVIDENCE THAT
THAT'S ACTUALLY HAD AN IMPACT ON
OUTCOMES OR REPORTING OR
UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORS IN TERMS OF
ETHICS?
>> NOT THAT I KNOW.
JON, DO YOU KNOW?
>> NO, I THINK IT'S A GREAT
QUESTION.
>> SO AS A FOLLOW-UP, I USED TO
INTEREST SO TEACH THIS AND
REQUIRED IT, SO WE DID DO A PRE
AND POST SURVEY, I SHOULD FIND
THE DATA FOR YOU, THIS IS YEARS
AGO, AND TO LOOK AT IDEAS ABOUT
ETHICS BEFORE AND AFTER, AND THE
SHOCKING THING WAS IS THERE'S
ALL THESE DIFFERENT THINGS, AND
GOING IN, EVERY STUDENT THOUGHT
THAT PLAGIARISM WAS THE WORST
THING, AND THEY DIDN'T REALLY
CARE IF YOU MISENROLLED SOMEBODY
IN A CLINICAL TRIAL.
AND AT THE END, YOU DID SEE A
DIFFERENCE IN WHAT THEY SAW IN
TERMS OF WHAT IS REALLY, REALLY
BAD BEHAVIOR, NOT THAT
PLAGIARISM ISN'T BAD, BUT THAT
REALLY OUR STUDENTS DIDN'T COME
IN WITH A BROAD UNDERSTANDING OF
THE DIFFERENT THINGS THEY MIGHT
SEE, SO I DO THINK IT'S AN
INTERESTING POINT.
>> AND PERHAPS ALONG THOSE
LINES, YOU KNOW, MAKING NOT JUST
STUDENTS BY EVERYONE AWARE OF
THE FACT THAT THE PROBLEMS
EXIST, AND THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF
A BEST PRACTICE OF SETTING UP
HOT LINES.
SO THE INSTITUTION I WAS AT, WE
HAD A HOTLINE.
WE GOT INTERESTING REPORT ON THE
HOTLINES AND SOME OF THEM TURNED
OUT TO BE TRUE, AND THE ONLY
REASON WHY WE GOT THOSE REPORTS
WAS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE FELT THAT
THEY WERE SAFER, THAT THEY WERE
LESS LIKELY TO BE SUBJECT TO
RETALIATION.
>> BOTH OF THESE COMMENTS ARE
ACTUALLY RELATED TO THE TWO
THINGS I WANTED TO BRING UP.
THE FIRST ONE IS THINKING ABOUT
THE EARLIER THEME OF EVALUATION
CULTURE, AND IT TAKES TIME AND
CAPACITY AND INCENTIVE TO RUN A
RIGOROUS RESEARCH CULTURE IN A
LAB.
AND ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT SMALL LABS.
RIGHT?
THIS IS -- IT'S IMPORTANT TO
THINK ABOUT WHAT REVIEW CULTURE
REWARDS.
AND HOW YOU HAVE ANY VISIBILITY
INTO THOSE KIND OF RESEARCH
PRACTICES.
I DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER FOR
THAT, BUT THERE WAS NOT A LOT OF
INCENTIVE FOR THE KIND OF LAB
CULTURE WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING
TO HAVE MULTIPLE VIEWS ON THE
PRIMARY DATA OR EVEN REPLICATE
EXPERIMENTS FROM DIFFERENT
PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT TIMES,
RIGHT, AND THERE'S NOT ANY
CAPABILITY -- [INAUDIBLE] SO
THAT'S ONE THING TO THINK ABOUT.
THE SECOND IS RELATED TO YOUR
POINT ABOUT HO HOTLINES.
AS I WAS LISTENING TO SOME OF
THE STORIES THAT YOU TOLD, THERE
WAS A REALLY PROFOUND
INTERSECTION ACTUALLY WITH
TRAINING AND MENTORING CULTURE,
AND TRUST IN SCIENTIFIC
RELATIONSHIPS.
SO NOT JUST MENTEE-MEMENTOR
RELATIONSHIPS AND WHAT THOSE
LOOK LIKE BUT ALSO THE
RELATIONSHIP OF PEOPLE IN LABS
TO THEIR SURROUNDING SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY.
SO WHEN SOMETHING IS HAPPENING
ON THE GROUND, THAT THEY KNOW IS
MAYBE NOT ETHICAL, WHO CAN THEY
TALK TO, SO HOTLINES ARE ONE
ANSWER TO THAT, BUT THERE'S
ALSO, I THINK, SOME CULTURAL
WORK AROUND HOW OUR SCIENTIFIC
RELATIONSHIPS WORK AND WHAT WE
VALUE IN THEM.
SO I THINK THAT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT PIECE TO BE THINKING
ABOUT TOO.
IN THE CULTURE PIECE.
SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST
ENFORCEMENT, BUT IT'S ALSO, YOU
KNOW, CARETAKING AND TRAINING OF
THE PEOPLE DOING THE WORK.
>> THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT
POINT, AND I THINK THIS IS TRUE
IN THE ERIC POEHLMAN CASE BUT IT
WAS FOR SU SURE TRUE -- THERE WA
CASE INVOLVING A PSYCHOLOGIST, I
THINK HE WAS IN HOLLAND, NAMED
DEDRIC STAPEL.
SOME VERY COURAGEOUS GRADUATE
STUDENTS CAME FORWARD.
THEY WERE JUST SEEING TOO MANY
WEIRD THINGS.
ONE THING THAT THEY SAW THAT WAS
VERY STRANGE WAS THAT HE
INSISTED ON COLLECTING HIS OWN
DATA.
WHICH THAT SEEMED VERY WEIRD.
BUT THERE WERE ALL KINDS OF
THINGS THAT THEY SAW, AND IT
TOOK THEM A WHILE BEFORE THEY
ACTUALLY WORKED UP THE COURAGE.
IT WASN'T JUST ONE PERSON.
IT WAS A SMALL GROUP OF THEM TO
THEN COME FORWARD AND GO TO THE
UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION.
THIS GUY WAS AT THAT TIME ONE OF
THE MOST FAMOUS RESEARCHERS IN
HIS FIELD, AND HIGHLY RESPECTED,
TO SAY WE THINK THERE'S
SOMETHING WRONG HERE, AND
EFFICIENTLEVENTUALLY IT TURNED S
A HORNET'S NEST OF FRAUD.
THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOMETHING
RIGHT ABOUT THE CULTURE, NOT
PERFECT BUT SOMETHING RIGHT
ABOUT THE CULTURE THAT THAT
COULD HAPPEN.
>> LAST QUESTION FOR LUCY.
>> AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE IS
NOW SOFTWARE DESIGNED TO HELP
RECOGNIZE THINGS LIKE IMAGE
DUPLICATIONS, POTENTIAL OTHER
IRREGULARITIES AND HOW DATA ARE
PLOTTED.
AND AS A P.I., I WOULD CERTAINLY
WELCOME ACCESS AND TRAINING TO
THIS TO SCREEN OUR OWN PAPERS,
MAYBE FOR UNINTENTIONAL IMAGE
DUPLICATIONS, FOR INSTANCE, OR
SCREEN PAPERS OF A COLLABORATOR,
JUST AS ANOTHER LEVEL OF
PROTECTION FOR OURSELVES BEFORE
WE SUBMIT OUR OWN WORK, AND
CURIOUS WHETHER THOSE THINGS ARE
AVAILABLE, IF NIH COULD MAYBE
FACILITATE ACCESS TO THEM.
>> I KNOW THAT -- AND WE'VE BEEN
IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OFFICE
OF RESEARCH INTEGRITY ON SOME
SOFTWARE THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED
TO DETECT PROBLEMS WITH IMAGES,
AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S QUITE
YET REACHED PRIME TIME.
PART OF THE CHALLENGE, OF
COURSE, IS THAT WE -- FOR
EXAMPLE, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A
GRANT APPLICATION, WE'RE NOT
GETTING HIGH RES IMAGES.
SO WE WANT TO HAVE TECHNOLOGY
THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH TO SAY THERE
MAY BE A PROBLEM HERE WITHOUT
GIVING US TOO MANY FALSE
POSITIVES.
AND SO THERE IS WORK THAT'S
GOING ON IN THAT SPHERE, BUT I'M
NOT SURE THAT THERE'S ANYTHING
THAT IS RIGHT NOW PUBLICLY
AVAILABLE.
I WILL SAY THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM
VARIOUS SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE
CONGRESS TACONTACTED US.
THERE WAS ALL THIS EC EXCITEMENT
LAST FALL ABOUT PLAGIARISM.
SO WE HAVE HEARD FROM SOME
SCIENTISTS WHO HAVE CONTACTED US
AND SAID COULD YOU CHECK TO SEE
IF ANY OF MY WORK HAS BEEN
PLAGIARIZED, WHICH IS GOOD,
THAT'S HEALTHY.
NOW THAT TECHNOLOGY IS A LOT
BETTER WITH TOOLS LIKE
AUTHENTICATE AND SO FORTH THAT
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO THAT.
FORTUNATELY IN ALL THE CASES
THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED, WE'VE
BEEN ABLE TO SAY NO, IT LOOKS
LIKE EVERY YOU'VE TURNED IN IS
ORIGINAL.
CAN'T TELL YOU WHETHER IT'S GOOD
BUT IT'S DEFINITELY ORIGINAL.
>> OKAY, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, MIKE.
IT WAS A GREAT DISCUSSION.
I THINK TO WENDY'S POINT,
CLEARLY WE HAVE MORE WORK TO DO,
BOTH NIH BUT ALSO IN THE
COMMUNITY, I THINK THIS IS AN
ISSUE THAT WE WOULD -- WE IGNORE
AT OUR OWN PERIL.
SO THANKS AGAIN, MIKE.
[APPLAUSE]
WE'RE GOING TO TURN NOW TO A
COUPLE CONCEPT CLEARANCES.
THE FIRST IS THE SERVICE CENTERS
FOR CRYOELECTRON TOMOGRAPHY.
AND DOROTHY BECKETT IS GOING TO
GIVE THAT.
>> WHILE DOROTHY IS GETTING SET
UP I JUST WANT TO GIVE A
REMINDER TO, IF YOU CAN, PLEASE
SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE.
THERE'S FOLKS LISTENING ONLINE
AND I'M HEARING THAT THE SOUND
ISN'T GREAT.
>> OKAY.
CAN YOU HEAR ME?
OKAY.
TODAY I'M GOING TO TELL YOU
ABOUT A CONCEPT CLEARANCE FOR
CONTINUING SUPPORT OF THE
CRYO-EM CENTERS.
SO, THE CONCEPT CLEARANCE, OUR
PURPOSE IS TO TRANSITION THE
SUPPORT OF THE CRYO- CRYO-ET FRE
COMOND FUND TO NIGMS.
AND THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE THE
RESEARCH COMMUNITY WITH ACCESS
TO SAMPLE PREPARATION AND
TOMOGRAPHIC DATA COLLECTION.
YOU'RE PROBABLY ALL FAMILIAR
WITH CRYO-EM BUT YOU MAY NOT ALL
BE AS FAMILY WITH CRYO ET, I'M
GOING TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT
OF BACKGROUND.
SO THE COMMON FUND CRYO-ET
NETWORK FUNDING WILL END IN
2026.
SO THE CURRENT CRYO -- COMMON
FUND CRYO-EM ET PROGRAM
INITIATIVE ACTUALLY SUPPORTS
THREE CRYO EM CENTERS HERE IN
OREGON AT STANFORD.
THAT'S S2C2 AT THE NEW YORK
STRUCTURAL BIOLOGY CENTER.
SO THOSE ARE SINGLE PARTICLE
CRYO-EM CENTERS.
THOSE ARE TRANSITIONING TO GM,
EVEN AS WE SPEAK.
THE CRYOET IS A NETWORK THAT IS
COMPRISED, AND I'LL GIVE YOU
MORE DETAILS LATER ON, OF A HUB
AT WISCONSIN, AND THREE SPOKES,
ONE AT THE NEW YORK STRUCTURAL
BIOLOGY CENTER, ONE AT BOULDER,
AND THE THIRD AT STANFORD.
SO WHY HAVE BOTH CRYO-EM AND
CRYO-ET?
SO CRYO EM, AS I'M SURE MANY OF
YOU ARE AWARE, IT'S A METHOD
WHERE YOU PURIFY COMPLEXES,
APPLY THEM TO A GRID, AND
THEY'RE GOING TO LAND IN
MULTIPLE ORIENTATIONS, YOU'LL
IMAGE THAT GRID, AND THEN YOU'LL
USE ALL OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL
PARTICLE IMAGES THAT YOU PULL
FROM THE IMAGE TO RECONSTRUCT A
3D MODEL.
SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF APOE
BIOTIN, MANY OF YOU I'M SURE ARE
VERY -- USE BIOTIN -- SORRY --
APOE STREP -- AND THE
BIOTIN-BOUND FORM.
SO THIS ENABLES DETERMINATION OF
STRUCTURES OF PURIFIED SAMPLES.
THE ADVANTAGE OF CRYO-ET IS THAT
YOU CAN -- ADVANTAGE OF CRYO-ET
ON THE OTHER HAND IS THAT YOU
CAN ACTUALLY LOOK AT SAMPLES IN
SITU IN CELLS.
SO THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF -- DO
WE HAVE ANOTHER POINTER?
THIS IS NOT WORKING.
WE DON'T NEED THE POINTER.
SO YOU CAN BASICALLY LOOK AT
ULTRA STRUCTURE IN CELLS.
THESE ARE B BACILLUS CELLS.
IN THE END YOU CAN SEE THE
SAMPLE.
I'LL GIVE A LITTLE MORE DETAIL
LATER ON, BUT THIS SHOWS -- THIS
IS WHAT IS CALLED THE PROTO
SPORE AT THE END OF THE
BACTERIUM.
OKAY.
NOW THE ISSUE WITH CRYO-ET IS
THAT THE SAMPLE PREPARATION IS
MUCH MORE INVOLVED THAN WITH
CRYO-EM.
BECAUSE MOST CELLS AND TISSUES
EXAMINED BY KREE CRYO ET, THEYO
THICK TO BE IMAGED IN THE
ELECTRON MICROSCOPE.
SO BEFORE YOU CAN IMAGE IT, YOU
HAVE TO SLICE IT.
BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO SLICE IT
AND IT'S CALLED FIB-MILLING, YOU
HAVE TO KNOW WHICH REGIONS ON
THE GRID YOU'RE GOING TO SELECT.
SO ACTUALLY YOU USE A
COMBINATION OF A CORRELATIVE
LIGHT AND ELECTRON MICROSCOPY
ALONG WITH FOCUSED ION BEAM
MILLING TO GENERATE THE SAMPLES.
SO YOU'RE GOING TO USE THE LIGHT
MICROSCOPY, MAYBE YOU'LL HAVE A
FLUORESCENTLY TAGGED PROTEIN,
AND THAT WILL SAY OKAY, I WANT
TO SLICE OR PRODUCE THIN SLICES
OF THIS REGION ON THE GRID.
AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO USE
FOCUSED ION BEAM MILLING TO
GENERATE A THIN SLICE, IT'S
ABOUT 100 TO 200-NANOMETERS
THICK, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO PULL
THAT OUT, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A
SLICE THAT HAS A COLLECTION OF
YEAST CELLS, AND THIS IS ONE
PORTION OF THE IMAGE, AND IF YOU
ZERO IN ON IT, YOU CAN SEE THESE
ARROWS ARE NUCLEAR PORE
COMPLEXES.
SO HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF A
PROJECT THAT WAS DEVOTED TO
DETERMINING THE STRUCTURE OF
HUMAN CYTOMEGLOVIRUS.
AND WHAT IT'S FOCUSING ON IS
THAT THEY WANTED TO DETERMINE
THE STRUCTURE OF THE PRE AND THE
POST FUSION PROTEINS ON THE
SURFACE OF THE VIRUS.
SO THIS IS AN ENVELOPED VIRUS,
YOU'VE GOT THE CAPSID IN THE
CENTER, AND THIS SHOWS DIFFERENT
SLICES THROUGH THE VIRAL
STRUCTURE.
I FAILED TO MENTION THAT WHEN
YOU HAVE THESE SLICES, YOU
ACTUALLY DO A TILT IMAGE SERIES,
SO YOU GET DIFFERENT SLICES,
SLICED IMAGES OF THE 3D
STRUCTURE, AND THEN YOU TAKE
THOSE AND RECONSTRUCT THE 3D
IMAGE, WHICH IS SHOWN HERE.
SO THE SAMPLE PREPARATION IS
COMPLICATED, AS IS THE DATA
COLLECTION.
SO THIS BRINGS ME TO THE CURRENT
STRUCTURE OF THE COMMON FUND
NETWORK.
SO THE NETWORK HAS A HUB, AND IN
THE HUB, THEY HAVE ACTUALLY THE
MICROSCOPES, AS WELL AS THE
CAPABILITY TO PREPARE SAMPLES.
THE SPOKES AT NEW YORK, AT
SLACK -- STANFORD AND AT
BOULDER, THEY HAVE THE
CAPABILITY FOR SAMPLE
PREPARATION.
SO USER KS GO TO -- USERS CAN O
ANY OF THESE FOUR SITES TO DO
THE SAMPLE PREPARATION TO
PRODUCE THESE LAMELLAE THAT CAN
EITHER BE SENT TO THE HUB FOR
DATA COLLECTION OR THEY CAN
COLLECT THE DATA AT HOME.
SO WHAT ARE OUR PLANS?
I STI SHOULD MENTION THAT THE
CRYO-ET CENTERS, THEY'RE
RELATIVELY YOUNG.
SO THIS IS JUST THE FOURTH YEAR
FOR THAT HUB AND SPOKES SYSTEM
AND THEY ARE RAMPING UP, SO YOU
CAN SEE THAT THE LAMELLAE
PRODUCED IS INCREASING STEADILY,
SO FOR EACH LAMELLA, YOU'RE
GOING TO ACTUALLY COLLECT A
LARGE NUMBER IMAGES BECAUSE YOU
DO THIS TILT SERIES COLLECTION.
SO THEY ARE INCREASING, AND SO
AT THIS POINT, THEY HAVE TWO
MORE YEARS, AND THEN THEY'LL
TRANSITION TO GM SUPPORT.
SO WHAT ARE OUR PLANS?
THE PLANS ARE WE WANT TO
CONTINUE TO PROVIDE TRAINING IN
AND ACCESS TO SAMPLE
PREPARATION.
OF COURSE AS I SAID, THE SAMPLE
PREPARATION IS MULTISTAGE, SO
THAT INCLUDES PROVIDING THE
CORRELATIVE LIGHT AND ELECTRON
MICROSCOPY AND THE FIB MILLING
AND PROVIDE CRYO ET DATA
COLLECTION.
WE DO NOT KNOW AND HAVE NOT
DECIDED ON THE PROGRAM
CONFIGURATION AT THIS POINT
BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO DEPEND,
THIS IS A RELATIVELY NULL
TECHNOLOGY, SO IT'S GOING TO
DEPEND ON THE DEMAND FROM THE
TECHNOLOGY, BUT ALSO ON THE
TECHNOLOGICAL DEVELOPMENTS.
THIS IS A VERY RAPIDLY MOVING
AREA.
AND OF COURSE THE AVAILABILITY
OF FUNDS.
SO I AM AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS,
AND AS WELL AS LET ME RECOGNIZE
PAULA FLICKER, OUR IN-HOUSE CRYO
EXPERT.
SO WE'RE QUITE HAPPY TO ANSWER
ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU, DOROTHY.
QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS?
>> YES, AMY.
AND PAULA WILL CHIME IN IF --
>> A COUPLE QUESTIONS.
IF DATA COLLECTION AND SAMPLE
PREP CAN BE ACCOMPLISHED AT ALL
FOUR PLACE, WHY DOUGH WITH HAVE
THE HUB MODEL?
>> OH, NO, NO, SAMPLE
PREPARATION IS ONLY -- SAMPLE
PREPARATION IS PERFORMED AT ALL
FOUR PLACES.
DATA COLLECTION IS ONLY
PERFORMED AT THE HUB.
>> BUT IF YOU CAN COLLECT THE
DATA WITH THE CREOS, WHY CAN'T
YOU COLLECT THE DATA AT THE
OTHER PLACES?
I GUESS A COROLLARY TO THAT IS I
UNDERSTOOD THE LAMELLAE ARE KIND
OF FRAGILE SO IT SEEMS YOU CAN
BREAK THEM WHEN THEY SEND THEM.
>> THIS IS WHERE A LOT OF
UNCERTAINTY EXISTS.
SO NUMBER ONE, NOT ALL OF THE
PEOPLE WHO GO TO THESE CENTERS
HAVE ACCESS TO A CREOS.
SO IN FACT, I WOULD SAY ONE OF
THE TREMENDOUS ASPECTS OF THESE
CENTERS IS THAT PEOPLE FROM IDEA
STATES, RELATIVELY
UNDERRESOURCED INSTITUTIONS GO
TO THESE CENTERS, THEY PRODUCE
LAMELLAE, AND SOME OF THEM ARE,
IN FACT, THE DATA ARE COLLECTED
AT WISCONSIN, OR THEY MAY HAVE
ACCESS TO AN INSTRUMENT THAT IS
REASONABLY, YOU KNOW,
GEOGRAPHICALLY CLOSE SO THAT
THEY DON'T HAVE TO SEND THEM.
THE QUESTION ABOUT SENDING
LAMELLAE, THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN
SETTLED.
BECAUSE WE JUST HAVEN'T DONE IT
ENOUGH.
AND I THINK -- SO WHAT WOULD YOU
SAY, PAULA?
>> YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THERE IS
THIS FEAR IN THE COMMUNITY, BUT
I'M NOT SURE THAT WE KNOW ENOUGH
TO BE CERTAIN THAT THAT FEAR IS
JUST --
>> IT'S AMAZINGLY ROBUST.
>> THEY'RE ROBUST, YEAH.
>> IT NEARLY ALWAYS WORKS, OF
COURSE, IF YOU SHIP ANYTHING,
THE SAME AS IF YOU SHIP
CRYSTALS, THINGS HAPPEN,
PACKAGES GET LOST, THEY GET
STUCK SOMEWHERE AND YOU THINK
OH, THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK.
BUT THE WAY THE LAMELLAE ARE CT
ALLOWS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF
WIGGLE ROOM AND THAT HELPS THEM
TRAVEL.
>> SO WE'RE NOT -- PEOPLE ARE
NOT COLLECTING ET DATA AT LIKE N
CCTT OR --
>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT
YOU WERE REFERRING TO.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY SEPARATE
CENTERS.
>> YES.
>> AND SO THEY ARE NOT THE
SINGLE PARTICLE CENTERS, IT JUST
SO HAPPENS THAT TWO OF THE
LOCATIONS OF THE CRYO ET SPOKES
ARE AT THE LOCATION OF THOSE,
BUT THEY ARE ACTUALLY SEPARATE
CENTERS SO THEY CAN USE LOCAL
INSTRUMENTS AT THE SPOKES JUST
TO CHECK THINGS, BUT THE DATA
WAS SET UP AT THE -- BECAUSE
WHEN WE SET IT UP, WE DIDN'T
KNOW, AND WE DO NEED TO KEEP
THEM SEPARATE BECAUSE THEY'RE
SEPARATE GRANTS.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS.
AND THE OTHER THING IN NEW YORK
IS THAT SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO
USE THAT CRYO-ET FACILITY ARE
PART OF THE NEW YORK STRUCTURAL
BIOLOGY CENTER.
>> SO YOU HAVE OVERLAP OF --
YES.
>> [INAUDIBLE] -- MILL CHECK,
MILL CHECK.
IS IT REITERATIVE BECAUSE THEN
IT WOULD BE HARDER IF YOU HAVE A
GEOGRAPHICAL CONSTRAINT.
>> IT'S ITERATIVE TO FIGURE OUT
THE BEST WAY TO PREPARE YOUR
LAMELLA AND PREPARE YOUR SAMPLE.
BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU
UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE NOT DOING
SERIAL SECTIONS.
>> YEAH.
OKAY.
>> YOU'RE DOING ONE LAMELLA.
>> IT'S ITERATIVE IN TERMS OF
CROSS-CHECKING WITH THE LIGHT
MICROSCOPY AND THE MILLING
AND -- YEAH.
MAKING SURE THAT YOU'RE GETTING
THE MATERIAL THAT YOU'RE
INTERESTED IN.
YES, LUCY.
>> COULD YOU COMMENT ON THE NEED
FOR DATA STORAGE FOR THIS KIND
OF TECHNOLOGY, PARTICULARLY FOR
REMOTE USERS WHO MAY NOT HAVE
CAPACITY FOR DATA STORAGE AT
THEIR INSTITUTIONS?
>> IT'S A BIG PROBLEM, BECAUSE
THESE TOMOGRAMS, YOU'RE TAKING
MULTIPLE IMAGES AND YOU WANT TO
COMBINE THEM AND THEY ARE A HUGE
AMOUNT OF DATA, AND THE WAY WE
ARE SET UP NOW IS THEY'RE
TEMPORARILY HELD AT THE HUB, BUT
THE DATA BELONGS TO THE USERS.
>> THE HUBS AND -- THEY DO NOT
HAVE THE CAPACITY TO STORE THE
DATA INDEFINITELY.
AND IN IS SOMET THIS IS SOMETHIS
A LOT, BECAUSE IT'S TERABYTES OF
DATA.
>> HOW IS THAT BEING TRANSFERRED
NOW FOR REMOTE USERS?
DO THEY COME WITH A LOT OF HARD
DRIVES IN THEIR SUITCASE?
OR IS THERE A WAY TO PORT THE
DATA?
TO THEM?
>> OH, I DON'T KNOW ALL THE
NAMES OF THE ARE -- VARIOUS WAYS
THAT THEY DO BUT YEAH, THEY CAN
ACCESS IT, GET IT TRANSFERRED.
I FORGET WHAT THE LATEST ONE IS
CALLED.
>> THANKS.
I WONDER IF YOU WANTED TO
COMMENT ON SORT OF THE RELATIVE,
I DON'T KNOW, BALANCE OF SORT OF
THE GOAL FOR TRAINING NEW USERS
VERSUS, I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW,
HAHAVING ECK SITION USERS WHO AE
DOING CRYO-ET, IS THERE A
RELATIVE RATIO OF WHAT THE FOCUS
OF THOSE CENTERS IS GOING TO BE?
AND ALSO HAS THE CRYO-EM -- I
KNOW THERE'S TRAINING FOR SINGLE
PARTICLE PROGRAM.
THERE'S SORT OF DEMAND FOR YOU
KNOW TRAINING OF NEW USERS WHO
MAYBE DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO HIGH
RESOLUTION AND INSTRUMENTS IN
THEIR INSTITUTIONS.
IS THAT DEMAND KEPT -- HAS THAT
DEMAND KEPT UP WITH AVAILABILITY
OF THOSE AT THE CENTERS?
>> ALL OF THE CENTERS, BOTH
SINGLE PARTICLE CRYO-EM AND
CRYO-ET PROVIDE TRAINING, THAT
IS PART OF THEIR MISSION.
SO HAVE THEY KEPT UP WITH THE
DEMAND?
BASED ON THE NUMBERS, 95% OF THE
APPLICATIONS FOR TIME AT THESE
CENTERS HAS BEEN -- 95% OF THE
REQUESTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED.
ONLY 5% HAVE NOT.
AND BASED ON THE -- SO THERE'S A
NATIONAL MEETING -- THERE'S AN
ANNUAL MEETING HELD FOR THESE
CENTERS EVERY YEAR, AND IT'S
REALLY HEARTENING TO SEE THE
BREADTH OF THE INSTITUTIONS FROM
WHICH THE USERS COME.
IT'S VERY ENCOURAGING.
>> AND NEARLY EVERY USER WHO
APPLIES SO FAR TO THE CRYO ET
CENTERS NEEDS TRAINING.
>> IT REALLY IS RELATIVE TO
SINGLE PARTICLE CRYO-EM AS FAR
AS I CAN TELL, AND I'M NOT AN
EXPERT, BUT IT'S REALLY IN ITS
INFANCY, AND THERE'S A LOT OF
VERY EXCITING TECHNOLOGY
DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING ON IN
THIS SPHERE.
THAT'S WHY WE CAN'T COMMIT TO A
PARTICULAR MODEL, BECAUSE IN TWO
YEARS, I THINK THERE ARE GOING
TO BE SOME PRETTY ASTOUNDING
DEVELOPMENTS.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THINKING
ABOUT WE WANT TO BRING NEW
TECHNOLOGIES FORWARD FOR PEOPLE
TO USE THEM, AND THAT MEANS
PEOPLE HAVE TO FEEL WELCOMED AND
THERE HAS TO BE ACCESS.
AND I REALLY LIKE THIS IDEA THAT
YOU HAVE A HUB AND A SPOKE
BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT NICE
GEOGRAPHIC DISTRIBUTION, WHICH
WE DON'T ALWAYS SEE FOR IM
TECHNOLOGIES AND MY HOPE IS THAT
IT'S VERY COLLABORATIVE SO THAT
WE'RE MOVING FORWARD FASTER
BECAUSE THERE'S SHARING
HAPPENING.
SO THAT SEEMS LIKE A NICE MODEL.
>> THANK YOU.
AMY?
>> SO ONCE YOU COLLECT THE DATA,
IS THERE A PLAN TO SUPPORT
TRAINING IN DATA PROCESSING?
BECAUSE PEOPLE GO HOME AND THEY
HAVE NO IDEA WHAT TO DO WITH
THEIR DATA, AND MY UNDERSTANDING
IS THAT THE CENTERS DON'T HAVE
THE CAPACITY TO EVEN RECOMMEND
SOFTWARE.
>> THEY DO A LITTLE BIT OF THAT
KIND OF TRAINING, BOTH OF THE
SINGLE PARTICLE AND THE -- AND
THEY'RE CONSTANTLY COMPLAINING
TO ME THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO MO
MORE.
WE JUST CHOSE EARLY ON THAT WE
NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET THE
IMAGES BEFORE THE IMAGE
PROCESSING.
AND IT'S A CONTINUED PROBLEM,
AND PARTICULARLY IN TOMOGRAPHY,
AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THE ACTUAL
SOFTWARE IS CHANGING ALL THE
TIME.
AND ACTUALLY THAT'S TRUE WITH
THE SINGLE PARTICLE AS WELL.
SO WE HAVE SOME ONLINE TRAINING.
WE HAVE A NEW ONLINE CRIM LUM
THAT'S IN ITS BETA STAGE, AND
THAT'S REALLY FOR SINGLE
PARTICLE FOR THE PROGRAM RELY ON
THAT WILL BE GOING LIVE THIS
MONTH FROM UNIVERSITY OF
MICHIGAN, THAT WAS FUNDED BY
COMMON FUND, BUT YES, I
ACTUALLY -- ALL I CAN SAY IS I'M
NOT SURE WHAT THE ANSWER IS FOR
THAT.
>> SO THIS IS ONE WE NEED TO
VOTE ON.
SO ERICA?
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS
CONCEPT FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
AS A FUNDING OPPORTUNITY.
IS ANYONE OPPOSED?
IT'S UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
THANK YOU.
>> GREAT.
AND I THINK I'LL JUST SIT HERE
AND YOU CAN RUN THE SLIDES.
WE HAVE ONE MORE CONCEPT
CLEARANCE.
THIS IS -- I MENTIONED TO YOU
DURING MY TALK, THE NATIONAL AND
REGIONAL RESOURCES PROGRAM, AND
WE'D LIKE TO REISSUE THAT.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM AS
I ALREADY MENTIONED TO YOU IS TO
PROVIDE ACCESS TO MATURE BUT
CUTTING EDGE MISSION, NIGMS
MISSION-RELEVANT TECHNOLOGIES
FOR THE COMMUNITY.
THEY CREATE ECONOMIES OF SCALE,
SO IT'S MORE EFFICIENT FOR US TO
FUND.
THEY CREATE ECONOMY OF SCALE IN
THAT MORE PEOPLE CAN GET ACCESS
TO THEM RATHER THAN TRYING TO
FUND INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTIONS TO
HAVE CERTAIN EQUIPMENT, AND
THEREFORE IT'S REALLY A
WIN-WIN-WIN SITUATION, I THINK.
THE RESOURCES ARE ABLE TO
MAINTAIN THE TECHNOLOGIES AT THE
STATE OF THE ART RATHER THAN
HAVING TO TRY TO GET EACH
INSTITUTION TO DO SO.
AND THE USER BASIS FOR THESE ARE
SUPPOSED TO BE VERY SUBSTANTIAL,
ON THE ORDER OF WHAT WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT FOR THE CRYOEM
CENTERS, FOR EXAMPLE.
I ALREADY GAVE YOU A LINK TO THE
CURRENTLY FUNDED RESOURCES BUT
THERE IS A LINK THAT SHOWS WHAT
WE'RE CURRENTLY FUNDING.
AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER
AS THE ONLY REAL CHANGE TO THIS
PROGRAM, ADDING TRAINING
RESOURCES AS THE POSSIBILITY FOR
THE KINDS OF RESOURCES THAT WE
WOULD CA SUPPORT.
SO ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON
THAT?
WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS
PROGRAM A LITTLE BIT, BUT I
THINK IT'S ALREADY BEEN HIGHLY
IMPACTFUL, AND IF WE COULD
INCREASE THE TYPES OF
TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE GIVE ACCESS
TO, IT MIGHT EVEN BE MORE
IMPACTFUL.
SO LOOKS LIKE WE WANT TO VOTE.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS
CONCEPT FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT
AS A FUNDING OPPORTUNITY.
ANY OPPOSED?
>> GOOD.
WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH REISSUES
THAT.
NOW, FOR THE FIRST TIME SINCE
THE PANDEMIC, WE ARE ACTUALLY
GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT
PERIOD.
I HAVE WILLIAM R ONE OF THESE
YELLOW CARDS SAYING OUR GOOD
FRIEND YVETTE SEGAR WANTS TO
MAKE A COMMENT.
ON BEHALF OF
FAFSA.
BUT IF YOU JUST GO UP TO THE
FRONT OF THE ROOM, YOU CAN USE
THOSE MICS.
>> I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT, I
GUESS IT WAS JANUARY 2020 WAS
THE LAST TIME I HAD THE
OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT WHAT
FASEB IS DOING, AND WE'RE HUGE
FANS OF COUNCIL, SO I JUST --
BEFORE I GET STARTED, I WANT TO
POINT OUT THAT I HAVE TWO
COLLEAGUES WITH ME.
FRANEC AND -- NAOMI IS PROBABLY
WATCHING AND JUDGING US FROM
AFAR ON THE VIRTUAL SPACE.
SO THIS IS MUST SEE TV FOR US AT
FASIB.
SO WHAT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT
TODAY, I HAD TO CONDENSE
EVERYTHING DOWN BECAUSE WE'VE
DONE A LOT SINCE JANUARY OF
2020.
BUT I WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE
BIT ABOUT OUTPUTS FROM OUR
ANNUAL SCIENCE POLICY SYMPOSIUM.
IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH
FASIB, WE ARE A COALITION OF 22
SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES IN THE
BIOLOGICAL AND BIOMEDICAL
SCIENCES, AND IN THE SCIENCE
POLICY SHOP, WE HAVE AN ANNUAL
SCIENCE POLICY SYMPOSIUM THAT IS
INTENDED TO REALLY GRAB ON TO
THE MEATY TOPIC SIMILAR TO WHAT
YOU DO HERE AT COUNCIL, AND
START THINKING ABOUT WHAT CAN
FASIB DO TO GROW THESE THINGS.
AND SO I'M GOING TO TELL YOU
ABOUT THE OUTPUTS OF TWO
COUNCILS, VERY QUICKLY, JON, I
REASSURE YOU, I WILL BE QUICK.
SO IN 2018, AND I THINK I WAS
SITTING OVER THERE DURING
COUNCIL WHEN DR. GAMMY WAS
TALKING ABOUT REORGANIZING THE
TRAINING PROGRAM, I USED THAT AS
A RUNWAY TO THINK ABOUT HOW
FASIB APPROACHINGS DIVERSITY,
EQUITY, ACCESSIBILITY AND I
COLLUSION PROGRAMS IN ITS OWN
PROGRAMMING.
SO THAT LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT
OF TWO PROGRAMS THAT WE'VE BEEN
GROWING SINCE THAT TIME.
THE FIRST ONE IS CARES.
IT IS A TORTURED ACRONYM BUT IT
DOES HAVE MEANING.
SO IF STANDS FOR CAREER
ADVANCEMENT AND RESEARCH
EXCELLENCE SUPPORT.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS THAT THIS IS
A $5,000 AWARDS TO SUPPORT
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT OF
CAREGIVERS.
AND REALLY JUST THINKING ABOUT
HOW DO WE DEFRAY COSTS THAT MAY
PREVENT INDIVIDUALS FROM
PURSUING CAREER OPPORTUNITIES
LIKE GOING TO CONFERENCES OR
SPENDING EXTRA TIME IN THE LAB
WORKING ON A MANUSCRIPT OR
TAKING A SCIENTIFIC COURSE.
SO SINCE THE PROJECT LAUNCHED IN
2022, WE'VE MADE 17 SUCH AWARDS
AND WE ANTICIPATE MAKING 10 MORE
THIS YEAR.
SO IF YOU WANT TO TALK MORE
ABOUT THAT, HAPPY TO ALWAYS
ENGAGE AFTERWARDS.
ANOTHER PROGRAM THAT CAME OUT OF
THAT SYMPOSIUM IS ONE THAT WE'RE
REALLY PROUD.
IT HAS THE ACRONYM LEADERSHIP
ENGAGEMENT AND APPRECIATION OF
DIFFERENCES, LEAD.
THIS IS OUR REVERSE MENTORING
PROGRAM.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE HEARD OF
REVERSE MENTORING.
IT IS VERY POPULAR IN THE
BUSINESS SECTOR, BUT WE REALLY
HADN'T SEEN IT HAPPEN IN
SCIENCE.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS SOMETHING WE
LAUNCHED IN 2022.
WE'VE MATCHED 12 PAIRS.
APPLICATIONS ARE ACTUALLY OPEN
NOW AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE
AFFILIATION WITH A FASIB MEMBER
SOCIETY.
SO WE'LL PARAJUNIOR LEVEL MENTOR
WITH A SENIOR LEVEL MENTEE, AND
WHAT WE CAN OFFER AT AN
ORGANIZATION LIKE FASIB THAT YOU
MIGHT NOT GET AT A PRIVATE
INDUSTRY IS THAT THERE ISN'T
THAT DIRECT TIE OF
EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE RELATIONSHIP
SO WE'RE ABLE TO GET MENTORS AND
MENTEES WHO DON'T HAVE --
THEY'RE WELL MATCHED BUT THEY
DON'T HAVE TO RELY ON EACH OTHER
FOR THEIR JOBS.
SO THOSE M ALLOCATIONS ARE OPEN
THROUGH JUNE 14TH.
AGAIN, HAPPY TO TALK ABOUT THAT.
MOVING FORWARD IN TIME, OUR MOST
RECENT SYMPOSIUM WAS
OCTOBER 2023.
WE FEATURED A GUEST SPEAKER, JON
LORSCH, YOU MIGHT KNOW HIM, AND
WE LOOKED AT WAYS FASIB COULD
SUPPORT CAPACITY BUILDING
THROUGH THE IDEA AND UPSCORE
PROGRAM, SO AS USUAL, JON GAVE A
VERY INSPIRING TALK AS WELL AS
WE HAD REPRESENTATION FROM NSF.
SINCE THAT CONVENING, YOU KNOW,
FFASIB LEADERS LATCHED ON TO
THIS.
MANY OF OUR BOARD MEMBERS AND
SCIENCE POLICY COMMITTEE MEMBERS
ARE IN IDEA STATES, SO THIS IS A
PASSION PROJECT FOR THEM.
AND SO WE HAVE TWO ACTIVITIES
THAT WE'RE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW.
AND THE FIRST ONE IS A SERIES OF
WEBINARS FEATURING IDEA AND
UPSCORE SUPPORTED INVESTIGATORS
AND THE FIRST WEBINAR IS
SCHEDULED FOR JUNE 26 AND WE
WILL HAVE A P.I. AND TWO EARLY
CAREER RESEARCHERS FROM
MISSISSIPPI.
WE'LL HAVE TWO ADDITIONAL STATES
FEATURED, NEW MEXICO AND KANSAS
IN WEBINARS IN AUGUST AND
OCTOBER.
AND THEN BECAUSE WE LOVE A GOOD
FACT SHEET AT FASIB, I DON'T
KNOW IF ANY OF YOU GO TO THE
FASIB WEBSITE KNOW WE HAVE A TON
OF ADVOCACY MATERIALS TO SUPPORT
YOUR WORK.
WE ARE ALSO WORKING ON
DEVELOPING FACT SHEETS ABOUT THE
IMPACT OF IDEA AND UPSCORE
FUNDING STATE BY STATE SO THAT
WE CAN ADD THESE TO OUR ADVOCACY
MATERIALS.
SO KEEP WATCHING THIS SPACE, AND
WE'RE WORKING ON THE DEVELOPMENT
OF THE 2024 SCIENCE POLICY
SYMPOSIUM RIGHT NOW, AND SO
USUALLY THAT'S FODDER TO COME
TALK TO YOU ABOUT.
LAST THING I JUST WANTED TO
MENTION IS FASIB'S SUPPORT AND
COORDINATION OF A BIOMEDICAL
TRAINING PROGRAM DIRECTOR'S
CONFERENCE LATER THIS SUMMER,
JULY 8TH THROUGH TENTH.
I'M WORKING WITH MY COLLEAGUE
ANDREA BOWERFIND WITH SOME LONG
TIME TRAINING DIRECTORS TO
DEVELOP THAT AGENDA.
I HAVE A QR CODE IF YOU'D LOVE
TO SCAN THAT, BULL IF YOU ARE A
PROGRAM DIRECTOR OR HAVE
COLLEAGUES WHO WOULD BENEFIT
FROM THAT NETWORK OF PROGRAM
DIRECTORS, WE'RE REALLY EXCITED
TO HAVE THIS MEETING.
IT'S THE FIRST TIME THEY'RE
GETTING TOGETHER SINCE 2019.
SO PLEASE DO SCAN MY QR CODE OR
FOLLOW UP WITH US TO LEARN MORE
BECAUSE THE BIGGER -- THE MORE
PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THAT ROOM,
WE'RE ALSO HOPING TO REACH
ASPIRING PROGRAM DIRECTORS
THROUGH THIS CONFERENCE AS WELL.
SO THAT'S EVERYTHING I HAVE FOR
YOU.
I COULD GO ON AND ON BUT JON
WILL GIVE ME THE HOOK.
SO THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, YVETTE.
IT'S ALWAYS GREAT TO WORK WITH
FASIB.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER GROUPS THAT
WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT?
I COULDN'T CONVINCE KEVIN.
ALL RIGHT.
WELL, NEXT TIME MAYBE WE'LL GET
MORE, BUT THAT'S ALL THE
BUSINESS WE HAVE FOR YOU.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY
BUSINESS THEY WOULD LIKE TO
BRING UP?
OKAY.
WELL, THEN WE ARE FREE TO HAVE
LUNCH BEFORE THE CLOSED SESSION.
I BELIEVE WE CAN LEAVE OUR
THINGS HERE.
MATT, WILL THERE BE SOMEBODY IN
THE ROOM?
PERFECT.
AND IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE
LUNCH OUTSIDE ON THIS BEAUTIFUL
DAY, DORIT AND I WILL LEAD AN
EXPEDITION, SO ONCE YOU PICK UP
YOUR LUNCH, MEET US AT THE
BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS, BUT THANK
YOU, EVERYBODY.
>> THEY WILL BE IN THE HALLWAY
HERE AND OF COURSE THE CAFETERIA
IS OPEN UPSTAIRS.
[GAVEL POUNDING]