WELCOME TO DAY 2 OF THE ADVISORY
COUNCIL MEETING.
WE HAD SOME GREAT PRESENTATIONS
AND DISCUSSION YESTERDAY.
I JUST WANTED TO INVITE COUNCIL
MEMBERS, IF YOU REQUIRE ANY
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION OR WANT
TO DISCUSS ANY OF THOSE TOPICS,
WITH US, PLEASE JUST LET US KNOW
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO DO SO.
AND SO TODAY I AM VERY HAPPY TO
WELCOME TO OUR COUNCIL MEETING
DR. BRUCE REED, CSR DEPUTY
DIRECTOR.
IN HIS ROLE HE OVERSEES
ACTIVITIES AIMED AT ADVANCING
THE CSR DIRECTOR'S STRATEGIC
VISION, HAS BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN
STUDY SECTION EVALUATION THROUGH
CSR'S QUALITY REVIEW AND DEVELOP
TARGETED OUTREACH.
HE'S HERE ARE US TODAY TO UPDATE
US ON CSR PROGRAMS AND VERY MUCH
LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING WHAT
YOU HAVE TO SAY, BRUCE.
>> THANKS VERY MUCH.
I APPRECIATE THE INVITATION AND
A CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT
PEER REVIEW.
SO, LET ME BRING UP MY SLIDES.
JUST A SECOND HERE.
OKAY.
YOU SHOULD BE SEEING MY TITLE
SLIDE.
YES?
>> YES.
YOU'RE FINE.
>> OKAY.
ALL RIGHT.
SO, THANKS.
I'M GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT
WHAT WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT BIAS
AND PEER REVIEW AT THE NIH, AND
WHAT CSR IS DOING TO COMBAT IT.
SO, LET'S SEE.
LET'S GET THE SLIDES TO
ADVANCE.
LET'S START WITH DATA AND WHAT
THE LITERATURE SAYS FOCUSING ON,
AGAIN, PEER REVIEW AT THE NIH.
AS PROBABLY ALL OF YOU KNOW, IN
2011 DONNA GINTHER PUBLISHED A
PAPER THAT SHOWED AFRICAN
AMERICAN SCIENTISTS ARE
SUBSTANTIALLY LESS LIKELY TO BE
AWARDED AN R01 COMPARED TO WHITE
COUNTERPARTS.
THIS BASIC OBSERVATION WAS
REPLICATED, IT WAS EXTENDED IN
MULTIPLE PAPERS OVER THE ENSUING
ZEK AID.
THIS GAP IN FUNDING IS
SUBSTANTIAL.
IT'S ON THE ORDER OF 50%.
AT LEAST THROUGH 2020, IT HAD
NOT IMPROVED AT ALL.
SO, PROBABLY BECAUSE AT THE NIH
OVERALL, THERE IS A CLOSE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REVIEW
OUTCOMES AND FUNDING DECISIONS,
MANY PEOPLE ASSUMED THAT IF
THERE'S A FUNDING DISPARITY,
MUST BE DUE TO BIAS IN PEER
REVIEW.
GINTHER WAS CAUTIOUS AND
SKEPTICAL OF THAT EXPLANATION,
BUT MANY OTHERS WERE NOT.
AND THERE HAVE BEEN MANY
COMMENTATORS THAT -- I'M PICKING
UP SOMEBODY.
ANYWAY, SO MANY COMMENTATORS
HAVE ARGUED THAT PEER REVIEW IS
RACIALLY BIASED, FOR EXAMPLE
THIS CARTOON COMES FROM THE
STEVENS ET AL. COMMENTARY IN
"CELL" LARS YEAR, YOU CAN SEE
THE ARGUMENT THAT THE NIH RACIAL
FUNDING DISPARITY IS A RESULT OF
BIASED PEER REVIEWERS PUSHING
THEIR AFRICAN AMERICAN
COLLEAGUES OFF THE CLIFFS OF
ACADEMIA.
THE OBSERVATION WAS ABOUT
FUNDING GAP, THE INTERPRETATION
WAS THAT IT WAS REVIEW BIAS.
BUT THIS PAPER WHICH DID COME
OUT OF THE NIH PURPORTED TO FIND
THERE IS REVIEWER BIAS, NOT ON
THE BASIS OF RACE PER SE BUT ON
BASIS OF TOPIC CHOICE.
SO HOPP AND COLLEAGUES MADE A
NUMBER OF IMPORTANT
OBSERVATIONS, SO, ONE WAS THAT
APPLICATIONS FROM AFRICAN
AMERICAN SCIENTISTS ARE
CONCENTRATED IN A SMALL NUMBER
OF TOPICS.
SO, WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY TOOK
A LARGE BATCH OF NIH
APPLICATIONS, AND USING NATURAL
LANGUAGE PROCESSING THEY GROUPED
IT INTO -- GROUPED THEM INTO
ABOUT 150 TOPIC CLUSTERS.
THEN THEY LOOKED AT THE PERCENT
OF APPLICATIONS WITHIN EACH OF
THOSE CLUSTERS THAT CAME FROM
AFRICAN AMERICAN SCIENTISTS.
AND THAT'S THIS VERY SKEWED
DISTRIBUTION THAT YOU'RE LOOKING
AT HERE.
SO, OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOT OF
TOPICS WHERE THE REPRESENTATION
OF AFRICAN AMERICAN SCIENTISTS
IS VANISHING ILY SMALL BUT
THERE'S A NUMBER OF APPLICATIONS
FROM BLACK SCIENTISTS.
IF YOU TAKE THE FIRST 15 OF
THESE TOPICS, THOSE 15 TOPICS
ALONE ACCOUNT FOR OVER 50% OF
THE APPLICATIONS THAT COME FROM
BLACK SCIENTISTS.
SO, LET'S JUST CALL THOSE
AFRICAN AMERICAN PREFERRED
TOPICS.
SO, HOPP AND COLLEAGUES ALSO
OBSERVED THAT THE AWARD RATES
DIFFER FOUR-FOLD ACROSS THESE
DIFFERENT TOPICS.
AND BASICALLY, THE AWARD RATES
FOR THESE TOPICS, THESE FAVORED
TOPICS, ARE RELATIVELY LOW.
SO, TOPIC CHOICE ALONE IN THEIR
ANALYSES ACCOUNTED FOR OVER 20%
OF THE NIH FUNDING GAP.
AND THERE OF THEIR BOTTOM LINE
CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE REASON
WAS THAT WAS BIAS ON THE PART OF
REVIEWERS, THAT REVIEWERS SEEMED
TO PREFER CERTAIN TOPICS OVER
OTHERS.
SO, THEY WERE RIGHT ABOUT ALL
THEIR FIRST OBSERVATIONS BUT
THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT THIS
CONCLUSION.
AND THEY WERE WRONG ABOUT IT
BECAUSE THEY LEFT OUT ONE
IMPORTANT VARIABLE.
AND THAT WAS I.C. -- INDIVIDUAL
I.C. AWARD RATES.
IN THIS 2021 PAPER MIKE LAUER
AND YOU OF -- AND COLLEAGUES
TOOK ANOTHER LOOK AT THE EXACT
SAME DATASET THAT HOPP USED.
WHEN YOU DO THAT HERE IS WHAT
YOU FIND.
THREE THINGS.
AFRICAN AMERICAN PREFERRED
TOPICS ARE UNEVENLY DISTRIBUTED
ACROSS THE I.C.s.
OF COURSE, FUNDING RATES ACROSS
THE I.C.s ALSO VARY,
THREE-FOLD.
AND AFRICAN AMERICAN PREFERRED
TOPICS ARE PRIMARILY FUNDED BY
I.C.s WITH RELATIVELY LOW
FUNDING RATES.
IF YOU MAP THIS OUT, THIS IS
WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
SO, ON HERE IS THE PERCENTAGE OF
APPLICATIONS THEY GET THAT COME
ON THESE AFRICAN AMERICAN
PREFERRED TOPICS.
AND ON THE ORDINANT YOU HAVE THE
I.C. AWARD RATE.
THERE ARE SOME I.C.s THAT GET
RELATIVELY LARGE NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS ON THESE TOPICS AND
THEIR AWARD RATES ARE PRETTY
LOW.
ON THE OTHER HAND YOU HAVE OTHER
INSTITUTES THAT GET VERY FEW
APPLICATIONS ON THESE TOPICS AND
HAVE RELATIVELY HIGH AWARD
RATES.
AND SO WHEN YOU TAKE THIS INTO
ACCOUNT, THAT EXPLAINS THIS
TOPIC CHOICE EFFECT.
AND SO THE CONCLUSION OF THE
LAUER PAPER WAS THAT, YES, TOPIC
CHOICE MATTERS, BUT PRIMARILY
BECAUSE OF THEIR ASSIGNMENT TO
THE I.C.s NOT TO PEER REVIEW
PREFERENCES.
THEY DID LOOK SPECIFIC LIVE AT
PEER REVIEW OUTCOMES FOR
PREFERRED VERSUS OTHER TOPICS,
SAW NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.
YOU DON'T SEE EVIDENCE OF
REVIEWER BIAS ON THE BASIS OF
TOPIC CHOICE, BUT BACK TO THE
SORT OF CORE ARGUMENT, IS THERE
IDENTITY-BASED BIAS IN NIH PEER
REVIEW?
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF LITERATURE
ON IT.
THIS STUDY WHICH WE CALL CSR'S
ANONYMIZATION STUDY PUBLISHED
LAST YEAR IS A LARGE SCALE
EXPERIMENTAL TEST OF TRYING TO
GET AT THAT ISSUE.
SO, LET ME WALK YOU THROUGH IT.
SO, THIS STUDY USED THREE SETS
OF REAL NIH APPLICATIONS.
400 R01s CAME FROM BLACK
P.I.s, AND THERE WERE TWO
COMPARATOR SETS.
THERE WERE 400 FROM WHITE P.I.
P.I.s MATCHED TO BLACK P.I.s
ON REVIEW RELEVANT FEATURES, AND
ANOTHER RANDOMLY SELECTED SET OF
400 FROM WHITE P.I.s.
IT TOOK THESE ACTUAL
APPLICATIONS, THEY WERE REDACTED
BY STUDY PERSONNEL TO REMOVE
INDICATORS OF PERSONAL IDENTITY
AND INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION.
THEN THE STANDARD FORMAT AND
REDACTED VERSIONS UNDERWENT
SIMULATED PEER REVIEW.
WE LOOKED AT PEER REVIEW
OUTCOMES.
AND REVIEWERS WERE ASKED ALSO TO
GUESS THE P.I. RACE, GENDER, AND
NAME AFTER THEY COMPLETED THEIR
CRITIQUES.
SO, WHAT WERE THE EFFECTS OF
REDACTION?
A COUPLE OF KEY FINDINGS.
SO, FIRST, REDACTION REDUCED THE
ACCURACY OF REVIEWERS' GUESSES
OF P.I. RACE FOR BLACK BUT NOT
FOR WHITE APPLICANTS.
SO, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS TABLE,
HERE'S ACTUAL P.I. RACE.
AND SO YOU SEE THAT WITH
STANDARD APPLICATIONS, THE
REVIEWERS WERE ABLE TO
ACCURATELY GUESS THE RACE OF THE
P.I. 59% OF THE TIME.
WHEN INFORMATION WAS REDACTED
THAT FELL TO ABOUT 30%.
SO IT DID SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE
REVIEWERS' KNOWLEDGE OF RACE FOR
BLACK APPLICANTS.
FOR WHITE APPLICANTS, WHETHER
IT'S MATCHED OR RANDOM SAMPLE
LOOKING AT STANDARD APPLICATIONS
REVIEWERS WERE EXTREMELY GOOD AT
GUESSING THE RACE CORRECTLY, AND
WITH REDACTED APPLICATIONS THEY
WERE EXTREMELY GOOD AT
ACCURATELY GUESSING THE RACE.
SO MADE NO DIFFERENCE THERE.
SO WHAT ABOUT REVIEW OUTCOMES?
REDACTION MADE SCORES WORSE FOR
WHITE APPLICANTS BUT NOT FOR
BLACK APPLICANTS.
SO, WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE
ARE PLOTS OF THE DATA, THE
YELLOW BOXES ARE FOR THE
STANDARD FORMAT APPLICATIONS,
BLUE BOXES ARE FOR THE REDACTED.
THE SCALE HERE IS THE STANDARD
NIH SCALE THAT WE USE FOR
OVERALL IMPACT.
1 IS BEST, 9 IS WORST.
AND SO IF YOU LOOK OVER HERE AT
THE FAR LEFT COLUMN, THESE ARE
THE RESULTS FOR APPLICATIONS
FROM BLACK P.I.s.
YOU CAN SEE REDACTION MADE NO
DIFFERENCE, NO DIFFERENCE
WHATSOEVER, IN THE SCORES FOR
THESE APPLICATIONS.
BUT IT DID MAKE A DIFFERENCE FOR
BOTH OF THE WHITE SAMPLES.
HERE IS THE MATCHED SAMPLE FOR
WHITE APPLICATIONS, AND YOU CAN
SEE THE REDACTION, THE REDACTED
SCORES GET HIGHER, THAT'S WORSE.
AGAIN FOR THE RANDOM SAMPLE,
REDACTION MADE THE SCORES WORSE.
SO THE OTHER THING I'LL POINT
OUT IT'S HARD LOOKING AT RAW
DATA HERE BUT OVERALL, THE
APPLICATIONS FROM WHITE P.I.s
DID SCORE BETTER THAN THOSE FROM
BLACK P.I.s, Xs ARE MEANS,
BOTH WHITE SAMPLES SCORED
SOMEWHAT BETTER AND REDACTION
DOES NOT ELIMINATE THAT
DIFFERENCE BUT CUTS IT ABOUT IN
HALF.
SO, WHAT DO THESE DATA SAY ABOUT
THE NATURE OF BIAS IN NIH PEER
REVIEW?
YOU SEE VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE OF
ANTI-BLACK BIAS IN REVIEW BASED
ON P.I. RACE PER SE.
HOWEVER, YOU DO SEE THE
APPLICATIONS FROM WHITE P.I.s
SCORED BETTER THAN THOSE FROM
BLACK P.I.s, AND THAT
REDACTION REDUCES THAT
ADVANTAGE.
SO WHAT COULD BE GOING ON?
SO, ONE EXPLANATION IS HALO
EFFECT.
BY HALO EFFECT THE MEAN THE
SITUATION OF GLOW OF A BIG NAME
LEADS THE REVIEWER TO GIVE
OVERLY GOOD SCORES.
AND WHO IS GOING TO BENEFIT FROM
THAT?
THAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT THE
PEOPLE WITH THE BIG NAMES.
WHO ARE THOSE?
THOSE ARE TYPICALLY SENIOR
WELL-ESTABLISHED P.I.s, AND
THEY ARE PREDOMINANTLY
NON-HISPANIC WHITE P.I.s.
AND SO THIS IS A FORM OF BIAS,
THIS VOTING ON THE BASIS OF P.I.
OR INSTITUTIONAL REPUTATION IS A
FORM OF BIAS, WHICH TENDS TO
FAVOR WELL-ESTABLISHED
NON-HISPANIC WHITE P.I.s.
AND SO THE POINT IS THAT WITH
REDACTION, WHEN YOU TAKE AWAY
THAT ADVANTAGE, THE SCORES GET
WORSE.
AND THAT COULD EXPLAIN THE
FINDINGS THAT YOU SEE.
SO, THIS KIND OF PHENOMENON
COULD BE PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
AT THE NIH BECAUSE TWO OF THE
FIVE REVIEW CRITERIA, THE FIVE
REVIEW CRITERIA WHICH ARE
LEGALLY REQUIRED OF US, TWO OF
THEM ARE INVESTIGATOR AND
ENVIRONMENT.
SO, REVIEWERS HAVE TO TAKE THESE
FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT IN JUDGING
THE OVERALL IMPACT OF THE GRANT,
AND SO IT'S A PARTICULAR ISSUE
FOR US.
SO, WHAT CAN WE DO ABOUT THIS?
CSR HAS TAKEN MULTIPLE STEPS TO
COMBAT THIS SORT OF BIAS WHICH
JUST TO BE CLEAR I THINK
REPUTATIONAL BIAS IS THE MOST
SIGNIFICANT, MOST COMMON KIND OF
BIAS WE SEE IN PEER REVIEW AT
NIH.
AND IT'S OFTEN AN EXPLICIT BIAS.
SO, WHAT CAN YOU DO ABOUT IT?
THESE ARE THE INITIATIVES.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE
LOOKING AT IS PARTIALLY BLINDED
REVIEW PROCESSES.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE A
THREE-YEAR PILOT UNDERWAY, IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE COMMON
FUND, LOOKING AT THE REVIEW OF
THE NIH DIRECTOR'S
TRANSFORMATIVE RESEARCH AWARDS.
SO, THIS RFA GETS A LARGE NUMBER
OF APPLICATIONS ON A HUGE RANGE
OF SCIENCE.
AND WE REVIEW IT USING AN
EDITORIAL BOARD FORMAT.
THE KEY THING TO UNDERSTAND IS
THAT IN THIS FORMAT YOU TAKE
THIS LARGE INITIAL POOL OF
APPLICATIONS, AND IN A SERIES OF
STEPS IT'S WINNOWED DOWN TO A
SMALL SET OF FINALISTS, AND ONLY
THE FINALISTS GO FORWARD TO THE
MEETING WHERE EVERYONE IS
DISCUSSED AND SCORED.
SO, IN THIS PILOT, ALL OF THOSE
INITIAL STEPS PRIOR TO THE
MEETING, THE WHOLE PROCESS OF
WINNOWING DOWN TO THE FINALISTS,
IS DONE WITHOUT INFORMATION
ABOUT WHO OR WHERE THE
APPLICATION COMES FROM.
SO, THE RFA REQUIRES THE
APPLICANTS WRITE THE ABSTRACT,
SPECIFIC AIMS AND RESEARCH PLAN,
IN A WAY THAT MAKES IT EXTREMELY
DIFFICULT TO IDENTIFY WHO OR
WHERE IT COMES FROM.
WE DO CHECK THIS.
AND THEN IT'S ONLY AT THIS LAST
STAGE WHEN HOPEFULLY KEY
DECISIONS OR JUDGMENTS ABOUT THE
IMPORTANCE AND QUALITY OF THE
SCIENCE HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE,
IS THE IDENTITY REVEALED.
SO, HOW IS THIS WORKING?
WE'LL SEE.
WE'RE HALFWAY INTO THIS PILOT.
THERE'S AN EXTERNAL CONTRACTOR
THAT'S TAKING A LOOK AT IT.
AND WE'VE GOTTEN SOME
INTERESTING PRELIMINARY DATA,
BUT WE'LL -- IT'S TO BE SEEN.
ANOTHER THING THAT WE'VE BEEN
WORKING AT IS WE HAVE BEEN
THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU COULD DO
WITH THE DEFINITION AND THE
STRUCTURE OF THE REVIEW CRITERIA
THEMSELVES.
SO, A COUPLE YEARS AGO, CSR'S
ADVISORY COUNCIL CONVENED TWO
WORKING GROUPS, AND THEY ASKED
THESE GROUPS TO THINK ABOUT
SIMPLIFYING REVIEW CRITERIA WITH
TWO GOALS.
ONE WAS TO REDUCE THE BURDEN ON
REVIEWERS, AND THE SECOND MORE
IMPORTANT ONE IS TO IMPROVE THE
QUALITY OF REVIEW.
SO, ONE OF THESE GROUPS TOOK A
LOOK AT GENERAL RPG REVIEW
CRITERIA AND THE OTHER ONE
FOCUSED ON THE CRITERIA FOR
CLINICAL TRIALS.
MOST OF THEM MADE THIS MAJOR
RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WAS THAT
WE SHOULD REORGANIZE THE CURRENT
FIVE SCORED REVIEW CRITERIA,
INTO THREE FACTORS.
THE THREE FACTORS BEING THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE SCIENCE, ITS
FEASIBILITY AND RIGOR, THEN THE
INVESTIGATORS AND ENVIRONMENT.
SO, THE IDEA BEHIND ORGANIZING
THINGS INTO THESE FACTORS IS TO
REALLY CLEARLY FOCUS REVIEWERS'
ATTENTION ON THE CRUCIAL
JUDGMENTS THEY NEED TO MAKE
ABOUT EACH APPLICATION.
HOW IMPORTANT IS THE RESEARCH?
HOW FEASIBLE AND RIGOROUS IS IT?
AND SO THE OTHER THING THAT I
WOULD POINT OUT IS THAT THIS
STRUCTURE LENDS ITSELF TO HAVING
THOSE CRITICAL JUDGMENTS MADE,
WITHOUT -- AT LEAST SEPARATELY
FROM THIS INFORMATION AND
JUDGMENT ABOUT THE INVESTIGATORS
AND ENVIRONMENT.
SO IT LENDS ITSELF TO THAT SORT
OF MULTI-STAGE PARTIALLY BLINDED
REVIEW PROCESS THAT I JUST
DESCRIBED TO YOU.
SO, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL
BE LOOKING AT GOING FORWARD.
ANOTHER WAY THAT WE'VE COME AT
BIAS TRYING TO REDUCE IT IS
THROUGH TRAINING.
SO, CSR HAS LAUNCHED A BIAS
AWARE AND MITIGATION TRAINING
FOR REVIEWERS.
IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, YOU
SHOULD.
IT'S A 30-MINUTE TRAINING.
IT'S AIMED AT RAISING AWARENESS
AND PROVIDING TOOLS TO MITIGATE
BIAS.
IT TARGETS THE MOST COMMON
BIASES IN PEER REVIEW PROCESS,
FOCUSING ON REVIEW, NOT GENERAL
IMPLICIT BIAS TRAINING.
SO FAR WE'VE INVITED OVER 15,000
REVIEWERS TO TAKE THIS TRAINING
SHORT LOY IN -- SHORTLY IN
ADVANCE OF REVIEW MEETINGS, NOW
ALMOST 11,000 HAVE DONE SO.
THE TRAINING HAS BEEN REALLY
WELL RECEIVED.
WE GOT SOME NICE COMMENTS ON
SOCIAL MEDIA.
BUT MORE TO THE POINT, WHEN WE
ASK -- WHEN WE SURVEYED PEOPLE
AFTER THEY HAVE TAKEN THE
TRAINING WE GET INDICATIONS THEY
THINK THE TRAINING WILL MAKE A
DIFFERENCE FOR THEM.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU ASK THEM
DID THE TRAINING -- HOW MUCH DID
THE TRAINING HELP YOU IN
IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL BIAS IN
REVIEW, 90% OF RESPONDENTS SAID
THAT IT IMPROVED THEIR ABILITY
TO DO SO TO A MODERATE, LARGE,
OR VERY LARGE DEGREE.
AND SIMILARLY IF YOU ASKED THEM
DID IT MAKE YOU, YOU KNOW, HOW
MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE ARE YOU IN
INTERVENING WHEN YOU SEE BIAS,
AGAIN, 90% OF THE RESPONDENTS
ARE SAYING THAT IT MADE THEM
SIGNIFICANTLY MORE COMFORTABLE
IN DOING SO.
AND WE DO HEAR AND SEE INSTANCES
NOW IN REVIEW COMMITTEES WHERE
WE SEE THESE IDEAS PLAYING OUT.
CHAIRS HAVE A REALLY IMPORTANT
ROLE IN SETTING THE TONE AND
CULTURE OF STUDY SECTIONS, AND
SO WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT CHAIRS
REALLY APPRECIATE THESE IDEAS
AND INCORPORATE IT INTO THEIR
PRACTICE.
SO, EVERY SUMMER, ABOUT 90 NEW
STUDY SECTION CHAIRS START THEIR
TWO-YEAR TERMS.
WE REQUIRE THAT ALL OF THEM TAKE
PART IN A TWO-HOUR SMALL GROUP
INTERACTIVE ORIENTATION SESSION.
AND STARTING LAST YEAR, WE MADE
THIS BIAS AWARENESS MITIGATION
TRAINING PART OF IT.
THIS YEAR WE'LL DO SO IN A
BIGGER WAY, REALLY FOCUSING ON
THEIR CRITICAL ROLE AS A CHAIR,
AND THE INFLUENCE THEY HAVE IN
SETTING AND CHANGING THE STUDY
SECTION CULTURE.
YEAH, I JUST WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE WORKING GROUP THAT PUT THAT
TRAINING TOGETHER.
THEY DID A NICE JOB.
OKAY.
ANOTHER INITIATIVE IS TO MAKE IT
EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO REPORT BIAS
WHEN THEY SEE IT.
CSR DOES A LOT OF REVIEW.
WE KNOW THINGS GO WRONG AT
TIMES.
AND WHEN IT DOES, WE WANT TO
KNOW ABOUT IT, AND WE REALLY
WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT
IF THEY SEE SOMETHING, IF THEY
SEE BIAS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT
COULD AFFECT THE FAIRNESS OF
REVIEW, WE WANT TO HEAR ABOUT
IT.
AND SO WE'VE ESTABLISHED WHAT WE
CALL THIS BIAS BOX.
IT'S A BIAS REPORTING E-MAIL
THAT GOES TO OUR ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR FOR WORKFORCE
DIVERSITY.
AND WE'VE REALLY TAKEN EFFORTS,
MADE MULTIPLE EFFORTS TO
PUBLICIZE THIS.
SO IT'S ON THE SIGNATURE LINE OF
EVERY OUTGOING STAFF E-MAIL.
IT'S ON THE HIGHLY TRAVELED
PAGES OF OUR WEBSITE.
BUT MORE THAN THAT, AND I GUESS
THIS IS A KEY MESSAGE HERE, THAT
I HOPE PEOPLE BEGIN TO
APPRECIATE THAT WHEN WE HEAR
ABOUT BIAS OR FLAWS IN REVIEW,
IF WE AGREE THAT SOMETHING WENT
WRONG, WE WILL TRY TO FIX IT AND
WE WILL FIX IT BY REREVIEWING
THE APPLICATION WITHIN THE SAME
REALM.
IN OTHER WORDS, WE WILL NOT SEND
IT FOR APPEAL.
WE WILL TAKE IT ON OURSELVES TO
FIX IT BY RE-REVIEWING AS
RAPIDLY AS POSSIBLE.
SO, WE ARE OFTEN TOLD THAT WE
OUGHT TO BE MAKING OUR STUDY
SECTIONS MORE DIVERSE.
AND WE AGREE.
SO HERE'S HOW WE'RE WORKING AT
DOING THAT.
FIRST IN TERMS OF WORKING WITH
OUR STAFF, WE HAVE MADE -- PUT A
LOT OF EFFORT INTO RAISING
COLLECTIVE AWARENESS, WANT STAFF
TO UNDERSTAND CRITICAL
IMPORTANCE OF DIVERSITY AND LINK
BETWEEN DIVERSITY AND EXCELLENCE
IN REVIEW.
SO THIS IS A MESSAGE WE WORK AT
HELPING PEOPLE UNDERSTAND, WE
SET EXPECTATIONS, WE MONITOR THE
DATA.
YOU CAN LOOK AT THIS AS WE PUSH
PEOPLE TO DIVERSIFY BUT YOU
CAN'T JUST PUSH PEOPLE.
YOU NEED TO HELP PEOPLE FIND NEW
REVIEWERS, AND SO WE PUT
SIGNIFICANT EFFORT INTO BUILDING
UP DATABASES TO BRING IN NEW
SOURCES OF POTENTIAL REVIEWERS
IN THIS REVIEWER FINDER, AND
WE'VE EMPHASIZED A LOT OF
TRAINING FOR SROs HOW YOU DO
THIS.
WE SHOW YOU BRIEFLY THIS TOOL
WE'VE DEVELOPED.
SO, THIS IS A SEARCHABLE TOOL,
ACCORDING TO EXPERTISE AND
VARIOUS OTHER CHARACTERISTICS OF
REVIEWERS THAT HELPS US FIND
POTENTIAL REVIEWERS.
NIH HAS A BIG DATABASE THAT HAS
RECORDS ON EVERYBODY WHO HAS
EVER SUBMITTED A GRANT
APPLICATION, IT'S THIS DATABASE
SROs GO TO TO FIND REVIEWERS.
WE UNDERSTAND WHEN YOU LOOK AT
AN NIH DATABASE TO REVIE GRANT
ASP INDICATIONS, IT'S A CLOSED
LOOP ASPECT TO THAT.
IF YOU WANT TO DIVERSIFY YOU
NEED TO MAKE EFFORTS TO GET
OUTSIDE OF THAT.
SO WE HAVE BY BRINGING MULTIPLE
SOURCES OF DATA, WE HAVE OUR
EARLY CAREER REVIEWER PROGRAM,
ASKED INSTITUTES FOR
RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT POTENTIAL
REVIEWERS, WE'VE GONE TO
PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES AND
MINORITY INTEREST GROUPS AND
ASKED THEM FOR NAMES, AND THIS
ONE IS IMPORTANT SO WE'VE ADDED
11,000 11,000 NAMES OF PEOPLE
FUNDED BY OTHER AGENCIES, MIGHT
BE NSF, DoD, CDC, OR SOME
MAJOR PRIVATE FOUNDATIONS.
AND SO WE'VE ADDED 24,000 NAMES
TO THIS SORT OF CORE NIH
DATABASE, SO DOING BROUGHT A LOT
OF NAMES TO SRO AWARENESS.
EFFORTS ARE MAKING A DIFFERENCE.
IT'S NOT AN EASY TASK.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT A GRAPH OF
PERCENT OF WOMEN ON CSR ROSTERS
OVER THE LAST -- THIS IS OVER
THE LAST THREE YEARS.
THE GRAY LINE IS A PERCENT OF
APPLICATIONS THAT CAME TO --
WERE REVIEWED BY CSR IN THE MAY
COUNCIL ROUND, SO 33%.
GREEN LINE IS PERCENT OF WOMEN
ON OUR STANDING PANEL ROSTERS,
AND RED LINE IS PERCENT OF WOMEN
ON OUR SPECIAL EMPHASIS PANELS.
YOU CAN SEE BOTH ARE GRADUALLY
TRENDING UP.
SIMILARLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE
PERCENT OF UNDERREPRESENTED
MINORITIES ON OUR ROSTERS, THE
REFERENCE POINT HERE, THIS 8.8%,
THAT'S THE PERCENT OF
APPLICATIONS CSR REVIEWED IN THE
MAY COUNCIL THAT CAME FROM
UNDERREPRESENTED MINORITIES,
AGAIN THE GREEN LINE IS PERCENT
ON OUR STANDING PANELS, AND RED
LINE IS ON OUR SPECIAL EMPHASIS
PANELS.
SO, AGAIN, WE ARE SEEING
PROGRESS ON THIS.
AND THEN FINALLY JUST TO MENTION
ADDITIONAL EFFORT WE WERE
UNDERTAKING AT THIS POINT,
EXCUSE ME, SO CSR REVIEWS OVER
90% OF FELLOWSHIP APPLICATIONS
THAT COME TO NIH, AND SO THE
NEXT THING WE'RE LOOKING AT IS
FELLOWSHIP REVIEW.
THE ADVISORY COUNCIL CONVENED
ANOTHER WORK GROUP CHARGING THE
WORK GROUP WITH EXAMINING THE
FELLOWSHIP REVIEW CRITERIA AND
PROCESS WITH AIM TOWARD MAKING
IT AS FAIR AND OPEN AS POSSIBLE.
SO, THAT'S AN EFFORT UNDERWAY,
AND WILL BE PLAYING OUT OVER THE
NEXT YEAR OR SO.
SO, LET ME PAUSE AT THIS POINT.
I'LL TAKE DOWN MY SLIDES.
I CAN COME BACK IF YOU WANT BUT
I'LL TAKE THEM DOWN.
AND WE CAN -- I CAN TAKE YOUR
QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU, BRUCE.
THAT WAS SO INFORMATIVE AND
INTERESTING.
WE HAVE ABOUT 20 MINUTES FOR
DISCUSSION AND EMILY BUSS,
PLEASE.
>> THANK YOU, VERY INTERESTING
AND THOUGHT PROVOKING.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE
FIRST SET OF DATA THAT YOU
SHOWED.
I'M CURIOUS IF YOU ANALYZED IT
BY DEMOGRAPHIC OF THE SIMULATED
REVIEW REVIEWER, THAT IS OUR
PEOPLE FROM UNDERRESOURCED
INSTITUTIONS LESS LIKELY TO DING
AN APPLICATION FROM AND
UNDERRESOURCED APPLICATION, THAT
KIND OF RELATIONSHIP?
>> YEAH, NO, WE DIDN'T -- WE
ACTUALLY DIDN'T HAVE THAT KIND
OF INFORMATION ON THE REVIEWERS.
SO NOT ABLE TO DO THAT.
IT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION
GENERALLY BUT WE DON'T HAVE IT
IN THAT DATASET.
>> THANK YOU.
>> ARGYE?
>> HI.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THIS IS REALLY VERY NICE AND A
NICE EXAMPLE OF KIND OF
INVESTIGATION INTO THE SOURCE OF
THE BIAS, AND FINDING THE
SOLUTION.
I THINK THIS IS SUPER HELPFUL.
I JUST WANTED TO COMMEND YOU AND
THE WORKING GROUP.
>> THANK YOU.
THANKS A LOT.
>> ANDY GROVES?
>> SO, I'LL ECHO OTHER PEOPLE.
THANK YOU.
THAT WAS REALLY TERRIFIC.
I TOOK THE TRAINING COURSE
EARLIER THIS WEEK AT THE REQUEST
OF BECKY WAGENAAR-MILLER.
I FOUND IT TERRIFIC AND HELPFUL.
AND ENTERTAINING AS WELL.
THOUGHT PROVOKING.
IN TERMS OF -- I WAS PLEASED TO
SEE YOUR STATISTIC SUGGESTING
THAT TAKING THIS TRAINING IS
EMPOWERING PEOPLE TO SPEAK UP
MORE, BUT AS WE'RE ALL AWARE ON
STUDY SECTIONS SOME REVIEWERS
ARE AD HOC REVIEWERS WHO MAY BE
THERE FOR OTHER MEETING, OTHERS
WILL ROTATE OFF, EVEN STUDY
SECTION CHAIRS ONLY SERVE A
TWO-YEAR TERM.
I WONDERED IF YOU WILL ALSO BE
AT LEAST TO SOME EXTENT
EMPOWERING SROs TO BE ON THE
LOOKOUT FOR THESE EXAMPLES OF
BIAS, ALSO EMPOWERING THEM TO
INTERVENE, IF NO ONE ELSE IS
CAPTURING THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOR?
>> YEAH, YEAH.
NO, YES, THAT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT POINT.
AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE INVESTED A
LOT IN BOTH REALLY HELPING
SROs THINK ABOUT THE IDEAS AND
CONCEPTS BEHIND IT, AND ALSO
JUST TO YOUR POINT, MAKING SURE
THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY
HAVE A VERY APPROPRIATE ROLE IN
INTERVENING THEMSELVES DIRECTLY.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME THROUGH
JUST A CHAIR OR STUDY SECTION
MEMBER, BUT THEY HAVE THE
IMPORTANT ROLE AND THEY HAVE
THE, YEAH, IT'S ABSOLUTELY
APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO STEP IN
WHEN THEY SEE THAT SORT OF
THING.
SO, YES, YEAH, EVERYBODY IN THE
MEETING, THE MORE PEOPLE YOU
HAVE WORKING WITH THOSE IDEAS,
THE BETTER.
>> RUTH ANN EATOCK?
>> THANKS FOR AN INTERESTING
PRESENTATION.
I WANTED TO ASK WHAT YOUR GROUPS
THAT ARE WORKING ON THIS THINK
ABOUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THE
STRONG REQUIREMENTS BY CURRENT
STUDY SECTIONs FOR EXPERTISE,
SO THE THING WE ALL ADVISE SORT
OF NEW APPLICANTS TO DO IS TO
REACH OUT FOR CONSULTING
LETTERS, YOU KNOW, TO SHOW THEY
HAVE TALKED TO THE RIGHT PEOPLE,
TO SORT OF DEMONSTRATE DEEP
EXPERTISE AND I WONDER IF IN
EFFORTS TO REVIEWS BIAS WE'LL
END UP WITH REVIEW PANELS THAT
LACK THAT DEEP EXPERTISE BECAUSE
I DON'T THINK I COULD READ A
REVIEW ON SOMETHING -- AN
APPLICATION ON SOMETHING FROM
REALLY CLOSE TO MY FIELD WITHOUT
HAVING A VERY STRONG IDEA ABOUT
WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.
HOW DO YOU DISCUSS THAT IN YOUR
WORKING GROUPS?
>> SO, EXPERTISE, EXPERTISE IS
THE CORE REQUIREMENT FOR ANYBODY
TO SERVE ON A STUDY SECTION.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE EXPERTISE
THAT'S APPROPRIATE TO THE RANGE
OF APPLICATIONS THAT ARE BEING
REVIEWED WITHIN THAT PANEL.
I THINK -- SO THIS -- THIS CAN
BE A VERY COMPLICATED
DISCUSSION, BUT LET ME MAKE ONE
OF THE POINTS I THINK IS REALLY
IMPORTANT ABOUT IT, THAT WHEN
PEOPLEHINK ABOUTERTISE
THEY SOMETIMES THINK ABOUT WHAT
I WOULD TERM SPOT-ON EXPERTISE,
WHICH IS EXPERTISE AT THE LEVEL
OF -- BASICALLY PEOPLE ARE DOING
VERY, VERY SIMILAR WORK.
SO VERY, VERY CLOSELY ALIGNED.
AND I ACTUALLY THINK THAT, YES,
WE DO NEED THAT EXPERTISE BUT
YOU NEED ANOTHER SORT OF
PERSPECTIVE ON APPLICATIONS AS
WELL BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY TWO
JUDGMENTS THAT STUDY SECTIONS
HAVE TO MAKE ABOUT EACH
APPLICATION.
ONE IS ITS RIGOR AND
FEASIBILITY, AND FOR RIGOR AND
FEASIBILITY YOU REALLY DO NEED
PEOPLE WHO REALLY CLOSELY
UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCES,
METHODOLOGICAL PITFALLS AND SO
FORTH.
BUT THE SECOND JUDGMENT STUDY
SECTIONS HAVE TO MAKE IS THE
IMPORTANCE OF THE SCIENCE.
FOR IMPORTANCE OF THE SCIENCE
YOU NEED A RANGE OF OPINIONS, A
RANGE OF PERSPECTIVES, YOU CAN'T
ASK JUST THE PEOPLE WHO DO THAT
TYPE OF RESEARCH HOW IMPORTANT
IT IS.
YOU KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS,
ANYWAY.
YOU NEED A RANGE OF OTHERS.
SO YOU NEED TO GET THAT BALANCE.
EVERYBODY NEEDS TO SIGNIFICANTLY
UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE, BUT, YOU
KNOW, EXACTLY HOW CLOSE THEY
HAVE TO BE, THERE'S A PROBLEM
WITH GETTING JUST PEOPLE WHO ARE
TOO CLOSE.
BUT WE NEVER WANT TO SACRIFICE
EXPERTISE.
THAT'S A CORE REQUIREMENT IN
TERMS OF WHO WE HAVE TO SERVE.
>> THANKS A LOT.
I WONDERED ACTUALLY IF
THERE'S -- THERE WILL BE A NEED
TO GO TO A MORE INTERNATIONAL
STYLE OF APPLICATION WHICH TENDS
TO BE MUCH LESS DEPENDENT ON
DETAIL.
SO THEY ARE SHORTER, MORE BIG
PICTURE.
BUT I LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR
CONTINUING INVESTIGATION.
THANKS A LOT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> BEN SDROWBRIDGE?
>> YOU BROUGHT UP STEPS, I WANT
TO ASK ABOUT THAT.
WE HEAR DIFFERENT RUMORS AND
PERSPECTIVES.
FLEXIBILITY, MAYBE STEPS
ELIMINATED, MORE TRADITIONAL
STUDY SECTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE A PERSPECTIVE ON
THAT?
WHEN YOU LOOK AT PROBLEMS THAT
HAPPEN THAT ARE REPORTED, IS
THERE A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
STEPS AND REGULAR PANELS?
>> SO, LET ME START WITH THE
SECOND QUESTION FIRST.
DO WE SEE MORE PROBLEMS.
WELL, I WILL SAY YOU SAW THIS A
LITTLE BIT IN THE DATA I SHOWED
YOU ABOUT DIVERSITY ON
DIFFERENT -- ON STEPS VERSUS
STANDING PANEL.
UNTIL RECENTLY, WE PAID LESS
ATTENTION TO STEPS, AND SO I
THINK WE DID SEE MORE PROBLEMS
WITH LACK OF DIVERSITY ON THEM.
BUT WE'RE PAYING CLOSER
ATTENTION NOW AND I THINK THAT
HELPS.
BUT IN TERMS OF OTHER KINDS OF
PROBLEMS, NO, I DON'T THINK THAT
YOU SEE A PREDOMINANCE AMONG --
YOU KNOW, EITHER WAY.
AND SORT OF TO YOUR FIRST POINT,
I DON'T SEE EITHER ONE OF THEM
GOING AWAY.
I MEAN, SO CSR IS REALLY DEEPLY
INVESTED IN MAKING SURE THAT THE
STANDING STUDY SECTIONS ARE
ALIGNED WITH SORT OF THE
PROGRESS OF SCIENCE, JUST TO SAY
SCIENCE CHANGES, STUDY SECTIONS
HAVE TO CHANGE, BUT THE
FUNDAMENTAL STRUCTURE OF HAVING
STANDING STUDY SECTIONS IS
REALLY NOT IN QUESTION AT THIS
POINT.
BUT FOR A WHOLE VARIETY OF
REASONS, THEY JUST CAN'T COVER
THE WHOLE RANGE OF TOPICS.
AND SO, YEAH, THERE'S GOING TO
BE A ROLE FOR STEPS AS LONG AS I
CAN SEE.
WE EXPECT TO HAVE BOTH.
>> THANK THANKS.
>> NIRUPI.
>> YES, THANK YOU.
SO, I'D LIKE TO -- I HAVE A
QUESTION OF MY OWN BUT I'D LIKE
TO ECHO RUTH ANN'S POINT SHE
MADE, WHICH IS THAT SO IN ALL OF
MY YEARS OF BEING CHAIRS AND
REVIEWER AND ALL OF THAT, IT
SEEMS LIKE SROs OFTEN DO TEND
TO PICK PEOPLE WHO ARE VERY
CLOSE TO THE FIELD OF A
PARTICULAR APPLICATION.
AND SO PERHAPS THERE'S ROOM FOR
SOME RETRAINING THERE.
>> YEAH, FOR INTERNAL
DISCUSSIONS THERE CERTAINLY IS.
>> OKAY.
THIS IS NOT TO AT ALL SAY
ANYTHING BAD ABOUT ANY SRO, BUT
IT'S A NATURAL INCLINATION, YOU
KNOW WHO HAS EXPERTISE AND IT'S
EASIEST TO ASSIGN SOMEBODY WHO
YOU CAN BE CONFIDENT WILL KNOW
WHAT'S GOING ON.
>> NONI BURNS, THE DIRECTOR,
TALKS ABOUT HAVING THE MENTAL
ROLODEX.
SO EVERYBODY IS USES THAT.
THIS KIND OF APPLICATION, THESE
ARE THE FOLKS.
YOU HAVE TO GET OUTSIDE OF THAT.
YOU HAVE TO.
>> YEAH.
SO MY QUESTION THAT I HAD TOO
WAS ABOUT THE INSTITUTES THAT
FUND THE PREFERRED TOPICS
BECAUSE OF COURSE WE -- YOU
KNOW, WE ALL READ THAT PAPER
WHEN IT CAME OUT.
AND SO TWO THINGS THAT STRUCK ME
FROM THAT.
ONE IS THAT PREFERRED TOPIC,
WHETHER IT'S THAT PEOPLE ARE
CHOOSING INCORRECTLY OR IN A WAY
THAT SETS THEM UP FOR SORT OF A
TIPPED BALANCE, OR ANYTHING
ELSE, IS IT -- SOME OF THESE ARE
MORE -- I MEAN PERFECTLY
NATURAL, YOU KNOW, SO I LOOKED
AT WHAT THESE INSTITUTES ARE.
AND SO MINORITY HEALTH
INSTITUTE, OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING
TO BE OF PARTICULAR INTEREST.
HOW DONE ONE CORRECT THAT
PARTICULAR PROBLEM?
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE -- AND
NURSING RESEARCH, YOU KNOW.
AND CHILD HEALTH DEVELOPMENT.
SO, ALL OF THOSE ARE REALLY KIND
OF OBVIOUS TOPICS OF INTEREST.
AND SO YOU -- WHERE IS THE
CORRECTION FOR THAT?
THE OTHER THING I THOUGHT ABOUT,
20%, YES, THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT
AMOUNT OF ACCOUNTING FOR THE
BIAS, BUT WHERE IS THE REST OF
IT?
THERE'S A LOT MORE.
>> YEAH, NO, STARTING WITH THE
LAST POINT, I THINK THE
REPUTATIONAL FACTORS, AND IT'S
BROADLY -- AND THESE
REPUTATIONAL THINGS WORK IN BOTH
DIRECTIONS WHICH IS TO SAY THEY
CAN BE POSITIVE FOR THE BIG
NAMES AND BIG-NAME INSTITUTIONS
AND COULD BE NEGATIVE FOR THE
LESS-KNOWN PEOPLE IN THE SMALLER
LESS-KNOWN INSTITUTIONS.
SO I THINK THAT'S PART OF IT.
YOU KNOW, DONNA GINTHER'S WORK
IS THOUGHTFUL.
SHE'S DONE -- YOU KNOW, THERE'S
SORT OF -- TO OVERSIMPLIFY,
SHE'S KIND OF PURSUED TWO
AVENUES.
ONE IS PIPELINE ISSUES, AND SORT
OF CUMULATIVE DISADVANTAGE.
ANOTHER ONE IS THE ROLE OF
CITATION, CITATION METRICS, AND
CONNECTION TO SOCIAL NETWORKS IN
SCIENCE.
AND SO I WOULD -- YOU KNOW, LOOK
AT HER 2018 PAPER.
IT'S A GREAT PAPER.
IT'S REALLY INTERESTING IN THAT
RESPECT.
SHE GETS AT SOME OF THAT STUFF.
AND ON THE REMEDY TO THE
FUNDING, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER
PARTS OF THE FUNDING DISPARITY,
THERE'S TIMES THAT I'M HAPPY TO
BE ABLE TO SAY I JUST DEAL WITH
REVIEW.
REALLY, IT'S A -- AS MIKE LAUER
SAYS THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE
ECOSYSTEM OF FUNDING AT THE NIH.
YEAH, SO --
>> UH-HUH.
THANK YOU.
>> VICKIE DEAL-WILLIAMS?
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE
PRESENTATION.
IT WAS REALLY IMPRESSIVE TO SEE
THE SYSTEMATIC APPROACH THAT
YOU'RE TAKING TO LOOKING AT BIAS
IN THE PROCESS.
I AM VERY GLAD THAT I HEARD YOU
SAY THAT YOU RECOGNIZED AND ARE
NOT THROWING OUT THE IMPORTANCE
OF THE P.I. ON THE POTENTIAL
SUCCESS FOR THE RESEARCH.
BUT COMING BACK I THINK A LITTLE
BIT TO RUTH ANN'S QUESTION, AND
I GUESS A DEFINITION OF
EXPERTISE, I'M WONDERING IF
THERE'S ANY POSSIBILITY THAT YOU
MIGHT BE LOOKING AT ADDING THE
CONSIDERATION OF VARIABLE LIKE
THE EXTENT TO WHICH AN
INDIVIDUAL P.I. MIGHT BRING
ALTERNATIVES TO WHAT WOULD BE
DEEMED TRADITIONAL SCIENTIFIC
EXPERTISE.
LIVED EXPERIENCE, THINGS THAT
MIGHT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SUCCESS
AND FEASIBILITY OF A PROJECT.
I DON'T KNOW SCIENTIFICALLY HOW
YOU MEASURE THAT.
AND I KNOW IT'S A LOT MORE
SUBJECTIVE.
BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE'S
VALUE IN EXPLORING THOSE KINDS
OF VARIABLES AS POSSIBLE WAYS TO
DETERMINE WHAT P.I. MIGHT BRING
TO THE SUCCESS OF A PROJECT.
>> SO, THAT'S AN INTERESTING
POINT.
THE PLACE WHERE WE'VE REALLY
THOUGHT ABOUT THIS MORE,
HONESTLY STRUGGLING WITH THIS
RIGHT NOW, IS WITH THIS LAST
EFFORT THAT I'VE PUT UP, WHICH
WAS THE REVIEW OF FELLOWSHIP
APPLICATIONS.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT FELLOWSHIP,
THE PEOPLE WHO APPLY FOR
FELLOWSHIPS, THERE'S A -- WHEN
YOU THINK ABOUT WHAT QUALIFIES
PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, SO YOU GET
PEOPLE WHO SORT OF -- YOU CAN
SAY ARE ON THE TRADITIONAL
SUCCESS TRACK, RIGHT?
THEY WENT TO AN ELITE SCHOOL,
END UP IN AN ELITE LAB, SORT OF
ALL THESE THINGS, BUT, YOU KNOW,
THOSE ARE NOT THE ONLY PEOPLE
WHO HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE
FABULOUS SCIENTISTS.
YOU HAVE OTHER PEOPLE WHO HAVE
NOT HAD THOSE SAME ADVANTAGES
AND THEIR EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN
MORE COMPLICATED, AND IS MAYBE
NOT -- YOU KNOW, SO MAYBE THEY
SUFFER, MAYBE THEY STRUGGLE WITH
UNDERGRADUATE GRADES, YOU KNOW,
MAYBE THEY WERE THE FIRST IN THE
FAMILY TO EVER GO TO COLLEGE AND
THERE WERE A LOT OF
COMPLICATIONS GETTING THROUGH.
AND SO I THINK PARTICULARLY IN
EVALUATING FELLOWSHIP
APPLICATIONS WE NEED TO FIND A
WAY TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT A
BROADER VIEW OF WHAT THAT PERSON
BRINGS.
AND WHAT THEIR QUALIFICATIONS
ARE.
IT'S -- YOU KNOW, AS YOU SAY
IT'S NOT EASY TO DEFINE.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO FIND A
WAY TO DO BETTER SO THAT PEOPLE
DON'T JUST THINK ABOUT, YOU
KNOW, THAT MORE TRADITIONAL
MARKERS EXCLUSIVELY.
>> THANK YOU.
CAROL ESPY WILSON?
>> OKAY.
I JUST WANT TO THANK YOU SO MUCH
FOR DOING THE HARD WORK OF
LOOKING INTO THIS ISSUE OF BIAS
IN REVIEWS.
SOME OF IT WAS SURPRISING TO ME
BUT I'M GLAD TO KNOW A LOT MORE
ABOUT WHAT'S CAUSING SOME OF THE
ISSUES THAT WE'RE HAVING IN THIS
AREA.
AND I THINK THIS WHOLE ISSUE OF
EXPERTISE, YOU KNOW, AS NIRUPA
POINTED OUT AND SEVERAL HAVE
SAID, YOU KNOW, IT'S A REALLY
HARD THING TO JUDGE AND FIGURE
OUT HOW TO CHANGE.
I'VE SEEN THIS IN ACTION WHEN I
WAS ON STUDY SECTION MYSELF
WHERE WE HAD A PROPOSAL, THIS
PERSON HAD HAD MULTIPLE
PROPOSALS AND THEN THEY WERE
TRYING TO KEEP THAT RESEARCH
GOING BUT THE PROPOSAL WAS NOT
WELL WRITTEN, AND ON THE FACE OF
IT WOULD NOT HAVE GOTTEN FUNDED,
IF YOU JUST LOOKED AT THAT
PROPOSAL BUT BECAUSE OF THE
REPUTATION OF THE PERSON AND,
YOU KNOW, THE HISTORY THEY HAVE
HAD, IT WAS FUNDED.
YOU KNOW, AND EVEN THOUGH SOME
OF US SPOKE UP, INCLUDING
MYSELF, ABOUT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE
WERE OVERRULED IN THAT DECISION.
SO, IT'S A REALLY HARD ONE TO
COMBAT.
AND NIRUPA ASKED A LOT OF
QUESTIONS I HAD.
SOME OF THE AREAS THAT AFRICAN
AMERICANS TEND TO LOOK AT ARE
THINGS WHERE THERE'S BIAS IN
HEALTH CARE, OTHER ISSUES WE
PERSONALLY HAVE TO DEAL WITH SO
OF COURSE THOSE AREAS ARE VERY
IMPORTANT TO US AND I'M NOT SURE
HOW YOU CHANGE THE FUNDING, THE
AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT GOES INTO
THOSE FUNDING, FUNDING LEVELS,
BUT IT DEFINITELY SEEMS LIKE
SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE IN
THAT REGARD AS WELL.
BUT I DO WANT TO THANK YOU FOR
ALL YOU'VE DONE AND I KNOW YOU
GUYS ARE WORKING HARD TO TRY TO
FIGURE THIS OUT.
I HOPE YOU WILL MAKE IT --
YOU'LL HAVE A PUBLICATION THAT
WILL COME OUT SOON WITH THESE
RESULTS BECAUSE I'M SURE THERE
ARE A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE
WHO APPLY TO NIH WHO MAY HAVE
INPUT AND MAY HELP YOU BE ABLE
TO SOLVE THOSE THINGS SO PEOPLE
SHOULD BE -- YOU KNOW, READ ON
WHAT YOU'VE DONE AND GIVE
FEEDBACK, PRESIDENT BROADER
COMMUNITY.
SO THANK YOU.
>> THANKS.
YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS
ABOUT REPUTATIONAL BIAS, WHEN
YOU POINT IT OUT, SO MANY PEOPLE
SERVED ON STUDY SECTIONS HAVE
SEEN THIS, YOU KNOW, HAVE SEEN
THIS IN PLACE, HAVE SEEN THIS
PLAY OUT, IT STRIKES HOME FOR A
LOT OF PEOPLE.
AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE
NOT APPRECIATED THIS
SIGNIFICANCE AS A FORM OF BIAS,
AND HOW IT REALLY PLAYS OUT WITH
RESPECT TO SOME OF THESE
DIVERSITY AND EQUITY ISSUES.
SO, THAT'S ONE OF THE WE NEED TO
HIGHLIGHT AT THIS POINT.
>> RIGHT, RIGHT.
THE FACT THAT PEOPLE, EVEN IF
YOU REDACT, PEOPLE KIND OF KNOW
STILL WHO IS APPLYING BECAUSE
THEY KNOW EACH OTHER AND THEY
KNOW EACH OTHER'S RESEARCH.
AND SO HOW DO YOU GET AROUND
THAT ISSUE, I'M NOT SURE.
>> YEAH.
THANKS.
>> THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR A GREAT
DISCUSSION.
BECKY IS GOING TO SPEAK NEXT.
YEAH, HERE WE GO.
THANKS, BECKY.
>> THANKS, BRUCE, FOR SUCH AN
ENGAGING TALK.
I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING
WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH PEER
REVIEW AT CSR AND WHERE THE
PILOTS GO.
I WANT TO SPEND MY TIME TODAY
GOING OVER BRIEF OVERVIEW OF
PEER REVIEW PROCESS AND
TARGETED EFFORTS.
I WANT TO THANK THE REVIEW
BRANCH FOR ASSISTANCE WITH THIS
PRESENTATION.
SO, WE SPENT TIME FOCUSING ON
WHAT WE CAN DO WITH PEER REVIEW,
THE CORNERSTONE OF THE
EXTRAMURAL REPROGRAM AND MUST
ASSURE SCIENCE IS EVALUATED BY
EXPERTS IN THE FIELD AND AS
BRUCE SAID WE SHARE THE SAME
OPINION EXPERTISE IS PARAMOUNT
CRITERIA WE'RE LOOKING FOR, FREE
FROM BIAS OF ANY SORT.
WE WANT TO WORK WITH EVERYONE,
STAKEHOLDERS AND PARTICIPANTS
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORE VALUES,
WHAT BRUCE TALKED ABOUT ENABLING
PEER REVIEWERS TO SPEAK UP WHEN
THEY SEE BIAS, REPORT STUFF,
WE'RE ALL VITAL PARTNERS IN THIS
TOGETHER.
I WAS GOING TO GIVE BACKGROUND
ON THE REGULATIONS OF PEER
REVIEW BUT WE'LL CUT THAT DOWN.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE PEER REVIEW
IS HIGHLY REGULATED AND THERE
ARE A COUPLE REGULATIONS THAT
FEED INTO THAT AND DICTATE WHAT
WE MUST FOLLOW AT NIH FOR PEER
REVIEW AND SET UP THE TWO-TIERED
PROCESS OF PEER REVIEW, FIRST
LEVEL PER REVIEW AND ADVISORY
COUNCIL.
AND THEN THERE ARE ADDITIONAL
REGULATIONS THAT CODIFY THE
REQUIREMENTS OF PEER REVIEW
INCLUDING AS BRUCE MENTIONED
EVEN THE REVIEW CRITERIA
THEMSELVES.
AND SO THERE ARE -- THEIRS ARE
THE PARAMETERS THAT WE'RE
WORKING IN FOR PEER REVIEW.
AND THEN I WANT TO SAY
EXPERTISE IS PARAMOUNT
CONSIDERATION UPDATING OR
DEVELOPING A ROSTER.
FROM OUR COUNCIL WORKING GROUP
ON DIVERSITY THERE WERE
QUESTIONS WHAT WE LOOK FOR IN
REVIEW, HOW ARE REVIEWERS
SELECTED.
THIS SHOWS EVERYTHING THAT
SCIENTIFIC REVIEW OFFICER OR SRO
DOES TO BALANCE EXPERTISE AND
DIVERSITY AND TAKE IT SERIOUSLY,
ONE OF THE MOST CHALLENGING
TASKS THEY HAVE AS AN SRO.
FOR OUR REVIEW PANELS AT NIDCD
ALL THEY ASSIGNED REVIEWERS OR
APPLICATIONS PROVIDE A FULL
CRITIQUE, IMPORTANT TO FIND
REVIEWERS WITH APPROPRIATE
SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE BUT THAT
ALSO CAN SPEAK TO BREADTH OF THE
FIELD.
SROs CONSIDER THESE ITEMS WHEN
THEY SELECT POTENTIAL REVIEWERS
AND FALL IN THREE MAIN
CATEGORIES RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY
IN THE FIELD, DIVERSITY OF
PERSPECTIVE, AND TIMES OF
SCIENCE REVIEWED IN THE
APPLICATION.
AND OUR SROs USE SEVERAL
DATABASES TO IDENTIFY REVIEWERS,
PROFESSIONAL MATERIALS,
CONFERENCE PROGRAMS, PUBLIC
DIRECTORIES, UNIVERSITY
WEBSITES, AS WELL AS SUGGESTIONS
FROM COLLEAGUES AS WELL.
THERE'S A BALANCING JOB AS AN
SRO, OFTENTIMES DECISIONS HAVE
TO BE MADE WHICH FACTORS ARE
MORE IMPORTANT FOR THATP A
INDICATION OR MEETING.
I THINK SO MANY CAME UP IN THE
QUESTIONS WE HAD AFTER BRUCE'S
TALK.
THERE ARE OTHER RESTRICTIONS
THAT ALSO LIMIT ABILITY TO
REVIEW IDEAL REVIEWERS, SUCH AS
SERVICE RESTRICTIONS, ON
ADVISORY COUNCIL, YOU KNOW THAT
YOU'RE PROHIBITED FROM SERVING
ON BOTH LEVELS.
IF YOU'RE ON ADVISORY COUNCIL
YOU CAN'T SERVE ON FIRST LEVEL
OF PEER REVIEW AND EXPERIENCE
CAN LIMIT DUE TO EXCESSIVE
SERVICE.
THERE ARE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
THOSE ARE ALSO IMPORTANT FACTORS
WHEN RECRUITING.
CONFLICTS RESULT FROM
INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION,
COLLABORATION, PUBLICATION,
MENTORSHIPS, A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT THINGS CAN CONTRIBUTE
TO CONFLICTS, THESE PREVENT
REVIEWERS FROM BEING PRESENT IN
REVIEW.
A FINAL HURDLE IS VOLUNTEER
NATURE.
SO NIH DOES NOT REQUIRE
INVESTIGATORS TO REVIEW.
THERE'S NO MANDATE IF YOU GET
FUNDED OR A CERTAIN NUMBER OF
APPLICATIONS YOU HAVE TO REVIEW.
AND SO THIS VOLUNTEER NATURE IS
THE HURDLE WE'RE CONSTANTLY
TRYING TO JUMP OVER IN
RECRUITING REVIEWERS.
THIS IS ALL TO SAY WE CAN'T JUST
PICK THE THREE PEOPLE WE IDEALLY
WANT TO HAVE REVIEW A PARTICULAR
APPLICATION AND SIGN THEM UP.
IT'S A STRATEGIC DECISION AND
RECRUIT.
BY THE SRO.
LOOKING AT ACTUAL REVIEWS,
APPLICATIONS AT CSR OR I.C.,
HIGH LEVEL SUMMARY OF BREAK DOWN
FOR NICDC, REVIEWING FOR RFA,
EARLY REAR R21, CAREER,
TRAINING, FRIENDSHIP
APPLICATIONS IN HOUSE AND
COMPLEX GRANTS, PROGRAM
PROJECTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
REVIEWED AT NIDCR REVIEW
MEETINGS, CSR REVIEWS EVERYTHING
ELSE.
THIS SHOWS 30% AT EACH ROUND,
70% REVIEWED AT CSR, MAJORITY IN
STUDY SECTIONS, AND THIS IS
EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF NIDCD
MANAGED GRANT REVIEWS MAJORITY
DONE IN SPECIAL EMPHASIS PANELS
CREATED BASED ON SCIENCE
SUBMITTED THAT ROUND AND FUNDING
TRUANT ANNOUNCEMENT HAS MULTIPLE
RECEIPT DATES, BASED ON
SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS.
I'VE ALREADY SHOWN FACTORS IN
RECRUITING, WE'RE WORKING HARD
TO INCREASE DIVERSITY INCLUDING
THE SCIENTIFIC PERSPECTIVE,
DEMOGRAPHICS, CAREER STAGE, AND
REVIEWER EXPERIENCE.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS SUMMARY OF
RANGES OF WOMEN AND MINORITIES
SERVING AS NIDCD PER REVIEWES
FROM 2015 TO 2020.
HIGHER PERCENTAGE EVER WOMEN
THAN AVERAGE, EQUIVALENT WITH
SPECIAL EMPHASIS PANELS.
RANGING FROM 19 TO 29% MINORITY
FOR APPOINTED, 4 TO 19% FOR
TEMPORARY, 1*6 TO 21% SPECIAL
EMPHASIS PANEL MEMBERS.
APPOINTED MEMBERS REQUIRE
APPROVAL BEYOND THE INSTITUTES.
STANDING STUDY SECTIONS REQUIRE
APPROVAL BY NIH, MEMBERSHIP FOR
ADVISORY COUNCIL REQUIRES
APPROVAL AT THE LEVEL OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMIDITIES SERVICES.
THERE ARE MULTIPLE LEVELS TO
ENSURE APPROPRIATE
REPRESENTATION IN SELECTION.
BRUCE INDICATED SROs KNOW WE
MUST DO MORE.
YOU HEARD YESTERDAY FROM JUDITH
TO BROADEN THE POOL.
ONGOING PEER REVIEW OUTREACH AN
TRAINING EFFORTS ARE FOCUSED ON
IDENTIFYING POTENTIAL REVIEWERS,
EDUCATING STAKEHOLDERS ON PEER
REVIEW PROCESS.
THAT'S EQUALLY IMPORTANT.
AND THESE FALL INTO FOUR
INTERRELATED AREAS, CONFERENCES,
WEBINARS, REVIEWER
SELF-NOMINATION AND
COMMUNICATION.
NIDCD SCIENCE COVERS A SMALL
FIELD, TO RECRUIT WE'VE REACHED
INTO ADJACENT FIELDS FOR
BIOINFORMATICS RESEARCHERS AND
CLINICAL TRIALS, EXPANDED
CONSIDERATION AND RECRUITMENT OF
INDIVIDUALS NEW TO REVIEW AND
PROVIDED ADDITIONAL TRAINING AND
OVERSIGHT.
WE'VE SHARED NAMES AMONG SROs
OF THOSE WHO MIGHT NOT FIT ONE
MEETING, MIGHT BE PERFECT FOR
ANOTHER PANEL COMING UP.
AS MEMBERS KNOW WE'RE ALSO
PROMOTING BIAS AWARENESS
TRAINING CSR DEVELOPED, AND
WE'VE GIVEN ACCESS TO CSR MODULE
FOR BIAS TRAINING, HOPEFUL THIS
CAN BE EXPANDED TO NIDCD PEER
REVIEWERS AS WELL.
THE SROs ATTEND CONFERENCES TO
STAY UP TO DATE, TO IDENTIFY
POTENTIAL REVIEWERS IN THE
FIELD.
SROs PROVIDE GENERAL
INFORMATION ABOUT FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES, REVIEW IN
CONJUNCTION WITH PROGRAM
OFFICERS AT MOST CONFERENCES.
THIS IS DONE THROUGH FORMAL
PRESENTATIONS, NIDCD STAFF, OR
INFORMAL DISCUSSIONS AT POSTER
SESSIONS.
EXAMPLE, NIDCD SRO DR. KELLY DID
A TALK FOR EARLY CAREER
INVESTIGATORS, NATIONAL BLACK
ASSOCIATION FOR SPEECH LANGUAGE
AND HEARING MEETING THIS YEAR,
JOINED BY PROGRAM OFFICER DR.
SHACKEM FOR A Q&A SESSION,
COVERING EARLY CAREER R21s.
DR. KELLY HAS BEEN PRESENTING
WEBINARS FOR THE COUNCIL OF
ACADEMIC PROGRAMS AND
COMMUNICATION SCIENCES AND
DISORDERS.
SHE'S GIVEN TWO WEBINARs TO
DATE, TWO MORE PLANNED.
FIRST SHE PRESENTED ON WITH
TRAINING OFFICER DR. RIVERA
RENTAS, RECORDED WEBINAR IS
VIEWABLE ON THE ORGANIZATION'S
WEBSITE.
THE MOST RECENT WEBINAR A FEW
WEEKS AGO DR. KELLY AND A
PROGRAM OFFICER PRESENTED R21s
FOR NEW FACULTY MEMBER.
TWO MORE PLANNED, ONE ON GRANT
APPLICATION REVIEW NOT A BLACK
BOX IN SEPTEMBER, NIDCD FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES TO ENHANCE
DIVERSITY IN THE RESEARCH
WORKFORCE FOR JANUARY OF 2023.
TO SEE UPCOMING EVENTS CHECK
BACK ON THE NIDCD CALENDAR OF
EVENTS PAGE, PAST EVENTS YOU CAN
SEE LINKS TO PREVIOUSLY RECORDED
WEBINARS.
HERE IS AN EXAMPLE WHERE THAT
WOULD TAKE YOU.
THE REVIEW STAFF ARE ALSO
ENGAGED IN OUTREACH THROUGH
PARTICIPATION IN A FREE EVENT TO
ENCOURAGE YOU TO ATTEND, SROs
ARE AVAILABLE FOR ONE-ON-ONE
MEETINGS.
IN ADDITION, A NUMBER OF STAFF
ALSO PRESENTED AT THEMED
WORKSHOPS, SESSIONS, PEER REVIEW
AND TRAINING.
I THINK NIH IS PLANNING FOR
ANOTHER VIRTUAL SEMINAR IN FALL
OF 2020.
BE ON THE LOOKOUT.
WITH ALL EFFORTS WE STILL MIGHT
MISS QUALIFIED INDIVIDUALS,
LAUNCHING A WEB FORM TO ALLOW
INDIVIDUALS TO SELF-NOMINATE.
THERE ARE LINKS TO THE FORM IN
MULTIPLE PLACES ON THE NIDCD
WEBSITE.
SROs WILL REVIEW INFORMATION
PROVIDED, IN TERMS OF EXPERTISE,
EXPERIENCE, ET CETERA.
AND IT DOES NOT ENSURE BUT WILL
LET US KNOW YOU'RE INTERESTED.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING HARD TO GET
INFORMATION OUT TO STAKEHOLDERS
ABOUT WEBINARS AND NEW FORMS.
PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT SOCIAL MEDIA
AND DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE, I
ENCOURAGE YOU TO SHARE THIS AND
HELP US EXPAND OUR REACH.
FINALLY I WANT TO THANK THE
SCIENTIFIC REVIEW BRANCH FOR
HARD WORK AND DEDICATION
MANAGING GRANT APPLICATIONS.
TIME FOR QUESTIONS?
>> IN THE INTEREST OF TIME WE
SHOULD GO AHEAD AND TAKE A
BREAK, BUT IF YOU DO HAVE A
QUESTION FOR BECKY PLEASE PUT IT
IN THE CHAT.
AND THANK YOU AGAIN, BRUCE.
THERE ARE A COUPLE QUELLS FOR
YOU IN THE CHAT SO IF YOU HAVE A
CHANCE TO ANSWER THEM, PLEASE
DO.
BUT IF YOU DON'T WE'LL E-MAIL
THEM TO YOU AND GET BACK TO THE
QUESTIONER.
LET'S COME BACK AT 11:15 AND
START WITH OUR "BRAIN"
PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU.
I'M DELIGHTED TO WELCOME DR.
JOHN NGAI TO OUR COUNCIL
MEETING, DIRECTOR OF THE NIH
BRAIN INITIATIVE WHERE HE
OVERSEES THE LONG-TERM STRATEGY
AND DAILY OPERATIONS OF THIS
LARGE SCALE EFFORT.
HE JOINS OUR COUNCIL MEETING
TODAY TO PRESENT AN OVERVIEW OF
THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND TO
HIGHLIGHT SOME OF ITS
ACCOMPLISHMENTS.
AFTER THAT PRESENTATION SEVERAL
NIDCD PROGRAM STAFF WILL
HIGHLIGHT BRAIN RESEARCH AT THE
NIDCD AND THEN THE NIH BRAIN
DEPUTY DIRECTOR DR. DR.
BECKEL-MITCHCUSS
MORE.
WELCOME, JOHN.
>> THANKS FOR HAVING US HERE.
ALWAYS DELIGHTED TO SPEAK TO
MEMBERS OF YOUR COUNCIL AND
SEEING AT LEAST THE NAMES OF
SOME OLD FRIENDS AND SOME OTHER
PEOPLE THAT I OF COURSE
RECOGNIZE QUITE WELL.
I'M GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN.
CAN YOU SEE MY FIRST SLIDE?
>> YES.
>> TERRIFIC.
OKAY, THANKS.
UH-OH.
WHAT DID I DO?
OH NO.
>> UH-OH.
>> LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN.
LET'S SEE.
OKAY.
HOLD ON A SECOND.
I KICKED MYSELF OUT OF
PRESENTATION MODE.
LET'S TRY THIS AGAIN.
SORRY, YOU WOULD THINK I HAD
NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE.
NOW I LOST MY ZOOM WINDOW.
OH MY GOODNESS.
THIS IS NOT GOOD.
>> DO WE HAVE YOUR SLIDES JOHN?
>> THAT'S NOT THE PROBLEM.
I LOST MY ZOOM WINDOW.
THERE IT IS.
OKAY, SORRY.
>> YEAH, THAT HAPPENS.
>> SORRY, SORRY.
I SHOULD START BY SAYING THE
BRAIN INITIATIVE IS A TECHNOLOGY
INITIATIVE, YOU WOULD NEVER KNOW
IT BY WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
THERE WE GO.
I WOULD SAY THIS HAS NEVER
HAPPENED BEFORE BUT I WOULD NOT
BE TRUTHFUL.
HERE WE GO.
OKAY.
ARE WE BACK?
>> YES.
>> THANKS SO MUCH.
ANYWAY, A PLEASURE TO BE HERE.
I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT THE NIH
BRAIN INITIATIVE AND WHERE WE'RE
GOING IN THIS BRAIN 2.0 PHASE,
THIS REMARKABLY EXCITING
ENDEAVOR.
SO, THE MISSION OF THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE, OR THE BRAIN
RESEARCH TO ADVANCING INNOVATIVE
TECHNOLOGIES INITIATIVE, IS TO
REVOLUTIONIZE UNDERSTANDING OF
THE HUMAN BRAIN ACCELERATING
APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY, NO
SMALL ASK.
ANNOUNCED BY THE WHITE HOUSE IN
2013 WITH FIRST AWARDS IN 2014,
AND REPRESENTS PARTNERSHIP
BETWEEN FIVE U.S. FEDERAL
AGENCIES AND PRIVATE
FOUNDATIONS, ALL EFFORTS ONGOING
IN THE NIH HAVE BEEN GUIDED BY
TWO STRATEGIC PLANS, FIRST
PUBLISHED IN 2014, THE BRAIN
2025 REPORT, AND THEN REVISIT OF
THE STRATEGIC PLAN BY THE BRAIN
2.0 REPORTS ISSUED IN LATE 2019.
THE NIH BRAIN INITIATIVE
INVOLVES TEN INSTITUTES AND
CENTERS, OF WHICH NIDCD IS ONE.
AND OUR GOAL IS TO DEVELOP AND
APPLY TOOLS FOR UNDERSTANDING
HOW NEUROCIRCUIT UNDERLIE
COMPLEX BEHAVIORS IN HEALTH AND
DISEASE.
WE MUST LEVERAGE EMERGING
TECHNOLOGIES TO ENABLE
DISCOVERIES ABOUT HOW NEURAL
CIRCUITS FUNCTION, TO USE
DISCOVERIES AS FOUNDATION FOR
NEW THERAPEUTIC STRATEGIES FOR
HUMAN BRAIN DISORDERS, AND VERY,
VERY IMPORTANTLY TO DISSEMINATE
AND DEMOCRATIZE TECHNOLOGIES FOR
DISCOVERIES AND CLINICAL
APPLICATIONS.
I MENTIONED THE STRATEGIC PLAN
THAT GUIDE ALL OF OUR EFFORTS.
THE BRAIN 2.0 REPORTS WERE
ISSUED IN 2019, SO THIS WAS
ISSUED BY WORKING GROUPS
COMMISSIONED BY THE NIH
DIRECTORS ADVISORY COUNCIL.
HIGHLIGHTING A FEW MAJOR
FINDINGS FROM THIS BRAIN 2.0
REPORTS, TO USE THIS TO FRAME
WHAT WE'RE DOING MOVING FORWARD.
SO THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION WAS
TO KEEP ON WHAT'S WORKINGEL
WITH, SUPPORT DEVELOPE FOR
TARGETING EVER MORE PRECISE
STUDIES OF NEURAL CIRCUIT
COMPONENTS, BALANCE INDIVIDUAL
INVESTIGATOR RESEARCH WITH TEAM
SCIENCE, LEVELS ARE VITAL.
WE NEED GREAT QUESTIONS, BETTER
TECHNOLOGIES WITH WHICH TO ASK.
AND THIRD TO DEVOTE AMPLE
RESOURCES TO LARGE SCALE
TRANSFORMATIVE PROJECTS, THE
IDEA WAS BRAIN HAD COME A LONG
WAY, OUR FIELDS ADVANCED
INCLUDING PHYSICS, COMPUTER
SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, THE
WORKING GROUP FELT THIS WAS A
GREAT TIME TO TAKE STOCK OF
WHERE WE ARE AND TO REALLY PUT
IN RESOURCES THAT COULD TRULY
TRANSFORM HOW WE DO NEUROSCIENCE
RESEARCH.
ULTIMATELY TREATMENT OF HUMAN
DISEASE.
FINALLY TO UP HANS INTEGRATION
OF WHAT WE DO AT THE BENCH AND
CLINIC WITH NEUROETHICS TO
SUPPORT WORK THAT CONSIDERS
BROADER ETHICAL, LEGAL, SOCIETAL
IMPLICATIONS OF WHAT WE DO.
OKAY.
SO LET ME FRAME THIS AS WELL IN
THE CONTEXT OF THE BRAIN BUDGET.
AS I MENTIONED, THE NIH BRAIN
INITIATIVE INVOLVES THE
CONTRIBUTIONS AND ACTIVITIES
FROM TEN NIH I.C.s, STARTED
WITH A FAIRLY MODEST INVESTMENT
IN 2014 OF ABOUT $46 MILLION OF
NIH MONEY.
SO THERE ARE TWO SOURCES OF
FUNDING TO THE NIH BRAIN
INITIATIVE.
ONE IS THE SO-CALLED BASE
FUNDING, THESE ARE ALLOCATIONS
MADE IN THE ANNUAL
APPROPRIATIONS TO EACH OF THE
TEN I.C.s, THAT ADDS UP THIS
YEAR TO $468 MILLION, WE
RECEIVED $8 MILLION INCREASE IN
THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR SINCE
2021, $100 MILLION INCREASE FROM
2020 TO 2021.
NOW, IN ADDITION TO THIS BASE
FUNDING, WE ALSO RECEIVED FUNDS
FROM THE 21ST CENTURY CURES ACT,
WHICH ALSO SUPPORTS CANCER
MOONSHOT AND PRECISION MEDICINE
"ALL OF US" PROGRAM.
FOR REASONS I'M NOT CLEAR ON
CONTRIBUTIONS OR AUTHORIZATIONS
BY THE CURES ACT VARY FROM YEAR
TO YEAR, SO IN THE LAST -- THIS
YEAR IT'S $152 MILLION, LOWER
LAST FISCAL YEAR AT $100 MILLION
BUT YOU'LL NOTE THIS HUMONGOUS
BUMP IN CURES, BRINGING YOU THE
NORTH OF $950 MILLION.
IN 2022 FUNDING LEVEL OF $620
MILLION, QUITE FOCUSED ON HOW TO
INVEST FUNDS AND USE ANTICIPATED
INCREASE IN 2023 TO LEVERAGE
TECHNOLOGIES AND PUSH THE FIELD
FORWARD.
WE'VE BEEN EYEING THIS LARGE
INCREASE IN FUNDING AT 2023 TO
LAUNCH THESE LARGE PROJECTS AS
INSPIRED BY THE BRAIN 2.0
REPORTS.
SO, THIS IS WHAT I'LL SPEND MY
TIME TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
SO, THE SIMPLE SHORT DESCRIPTION
OF WHAT WE'RE DOING IS THAT WE
NEED A PUNCH LIST AND WIRING
DIAGRAM OF THE BRAIN, A WAY TO
INTERROGATE AND MODULATE BRAIN
CIRCUITS IN ORDER TO UNDERSTAND
HOW THE BRAIN ULTIMATELY WORKS
AND HOW TO FIX IT WHEN IT
DOESN'T.
THE PARTS LIST, A CATALOG ON
ATLAS OR CENSUS OF CELL TYPES IN
THE BRAIN, UNDERSTANDING THEIR
PROPERTIES PROVIDES TOGETHER
WITH WIRING DIAGRAM OF THE
CONNECTOMIC PROPERTIES PROVIDES
A GROUND TRUTH INFORMATION ABOUT
WHAT THE CIRCUITS OF THE BRAIN
LOOK LIKE AND THEN WE FURTHER
NEED A WAY TO TEST HYPOTHESES
ABOUT HOW THESE CIRCUITS
FUNCTION AND SO THE BIG
CHALLENGE HERE FOR LOOKING AT
THE HUMAN BRAIN IS, ONE, HOW
DOES IT FUNCTION NORMALLY AND
WHAT GOES WRONG IN VARIOUS HUMAN
BRAIN DISORDERS.
THE HUGE CHALLENGE IS THE HUMAN
BRAIN COMPRISES ON THE ORDER OF
86 BILLION NEURONS, EQUIVALENT
NUMBER OF NON-NEURONAL CELLS
INCLUDING THOSE IN INFLAMMATORY
RESPONSES IN CONDITIONS SUCH AS
LONG COVID AND NEURODEGENERATIVE
DISEASES, AND HOW DO WE ACTUALLY
GENERATE TOOLS TO ATTACK SUCH A
LARGE PROBLEM.
SO, THIS IS THE BASIS OF THE
BRAIN 2.0 TRANSFORMATIVE
PROJECTS, AGAIN INSPIRED BY THE
BRAIN 2.0 WORKING GROUP REPORTS
WITH THE GOAL TO CHANGE THE
TRAJECTORY OF NEUROSCIENCE
RESEARCH, PROVIDING NEW TOOLS
AND RESOURCES THAT CAN BE USED
TO STUDY NEURAL CIRCUITS AIR
CROSS THE BRAIN AND DO SO AT
DEPTH AND SCALE.
SO, THESE THREE PROJECTS ARE IN
ORDER FROM THE TOP A
COMPREHENSIVE BRAIN CELL ATLAS
SHIFTING EMPHASIS FROM MOUSE AND
I'LL TELL YOU ABOUT THAT IN A
MOMENT TO CREATING COMPREHENSIVE
PARTS LIST OF HUMAN -- CELL
TYPES IN THE HUMAN AND NON-HUMAN
PRIMATE BRAIN.
NEXT IS THE WHOLE BRAIN
MICROCONNECTIVITY PROJECT, TO
DEVELOP TOOLS NECESSARY TO
GENERATE WIRING DIAGRAM OF
MAMMALIAN BRAINS, AND FRANKLY WE
FEEL WE DO HAVE TECHNOLOGIES
AVAILABLE OR DEVELOPING, WE CAN
CATALOG IN THE HUMAN BRAIN,
TECHNOLOGY AT SCARE FOR
MAMMALIAN BRAINS IS NOT THERE
AND WE'RE FOCUSING RIGHT NOW ON
DEVELOPING THE TOOLS IN ORDER TO
MAKE THAT HAPPEN OVER THE IN
EX-FICHE OR - NEXT FIVE OR TEN
YEARS, AND FINALLY TOOLS FOR
GAINING PRECISION TO ALLOW US TO
MODULATE NEURAL CIRCUITS FROM
THE BASIC DISCOVERY SIDE BUT
ALSO TO EVENTUALLY PROVIDE THE
FOUNDATION FOR PRECISION GENE
THERAPIES.
SO I'D LIKE TO GIVE AN UPDATE
WHERE WE ARE WITH THESE PROJECTS
AND TRANSITION TO TALK ABOUT
VARIOUS OTHER COOL FINDINGS
GOING ON IN PARTICULAR BY
NIDCD-FUNDED INVESTIGATORS.
OKAY.
SO HERE'S A LIST OF BRAIN 2.0
PROJECTS SEPARATED BY TOPIC AND
CURRENT AND ONGOING RFAs.
FIRST IS THE BRAIN CELL CENSUS,
PHASE III, WHICH WILL ENCOMPASS
A CONSORTIUM THAT WE REFER TO AS
BRAIN INITIATIVE CELL ATLAS
NETWORK.
THIS ABOUT BUILD ON SUCCESS OF
THE NETWORK WHICH IS SO FAR
FOCUSED MAINLY ON THE MOUSE
BRAIN BUT ALSO DEVELOPING TOOLS
FOR LOOKING AT LARGER BRAINS,
AND IN THE NEXT PHASE OF THE
CELL CENSUS PROJECT WILL SHIFT
EMPHASIS TO HUMANS.
THERE ARE THREE RFAs ISSUED
AND WE'RE EXPECTING FIRST AWARDS
TO BE ISSUED LATER THIS SUMMER.
SO THAT'S THE FIRST BIG PROJECT.
THE SECOND IS TO ORGANIZE
RESOURCES FOR BRAIN CELL TYPE
ACCESS AND MANIPULATION ACROSS
SPECIES.
WHAT WE CALL INSIDE THE CELL
TYPE-SPECIFIC ARMAMENTARIUM.
THIS IS TO DEVELOP TOOLS FOR
CELL ACCESS ACROSS MULTIPLE
SPECIES, AS WELL AS HUMAN CELLS
AND TISSUE.
THE LONG-TERM GOAL IS TO DEVELOP
NEW THERAPEUTIC STRATEGIES FOR
HUMAN BRAIN DISORDERS BUT FOR
NOW NEED TO DEVELOP BETTER
REAGENTS FOR GAINING ACCESS TO
CELL TYPES ACROSS MULTIPLE
SPECIES.
FIRST AWARDS HAVE BEEN MADE,
SECOND ROUND ABOUT TO BE ISSUED
IN JULY, COMPRISING VARIOUS
PILOT PROJECTS TO DEVELOP AND
VALIDATE TECHNOLOGIES FOR
ACCESS.
TO DATE, I DON'T MEAN TO BE
LIMITING, BUT TO DATE THESE
PROJECTS HAVE BEEN FOCUSING ON
ADENOASSOCIATED VIRUS DELIVERY
STRATEGIES AND ACTIVE RFA TO
BUILD CAPACITY FOR R&D AND DES
AND -- DISSEMINATION REQUIRING
PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN TOOL
DEVELOPERS AND A MINORITY
SERVING INSTITUTION OR
INSTITUTION IN AN IDeA
ELIGIBLE STATE.
THAT'S ARMAMENTARIUM.
AND FINALLY THE BRAIN
CONNECTIVITY ACROSS SCALES,
MICROCONNECTIVITY PROJECT WHICH
WE REFER TO AS BRAIN CONNECTS,
THE EFFORTS HERE WERE GUIDED BY
WORKSHOP WE HELD IN CONJUNCTION
WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY'S
OFFICE OF SCIENCE, IN 2021.
AND HERE THE IDEA IS TO DEVELOP
AND LEVERAGE NEW TECHNOLOGIES TO
GENERATE COMPREHENSIVE ATLASES
OF BRAIN CONNECTIVITY ACROSS
WHOLE MAMMALIAN BRAINS FOCUSING
ON THE MOUSE, AT SYNAPSE
RESOLUTION, IN NON-HUMAN PRIMATE
AT HUMANS OR MICRON OR AXON
REVOLUTION, THESE WERE JUST
ISSUED THIS SPRING, AND FIRST
RECEIPT DATES ARE COMING UP THIS
SUMMER.
I SHOULD MENTION CONGRESS HAS
BEEN VERY GENEROUS SUPPORTING
EFFORTS, AND THEY HAVE PROVIDED
TO US FUNDS TO SPECIFICALLY
STAND UP THESE PROJECTS, SO STAY
TUNED.
THERE'S A LOT OF EXCITING STUFF
TO COME.
AGAIN, THE IDEA HERE IS BETWEEN
THE CELL ATLAS PROJECT AND
CONNECTIVITY PROJECT TO PROVIDE
WHAT NEURAL CIRCUITS LOOK LIKE
AND ARMAMENTARIUM PROJECT WILL
PROVIDE FOR US TOOLS TO ACCESS
THESE CIRCUITS WITH EVER GREATER
PRECISION WITH LONG-TERM GOAL OF
DEVELOPING PRECISION GENE
THERAPIES.
THAT'S A BIT FURTHER OFF IN THE
FUTURE.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW IS
BRIEFLY HIGHLIGHT WHAT'S GOING
ON IN THE CELL CENSUS PROJECT,
IN WHICH I WAS ACTUALLY INVOLVED
AS AN INVESTIGATOR BEFORE I
JOINED NIH ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO,
AND THEN I'LL SEG RAY INTO SOME
-- SEGUE USING BRAIN FUNDING BUT
INVOLVING VERY IMPORTANTLY
NIDCD-FUNDED INVESTIGATORS,
USING THIS TO HIGHLIGHT THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS COMMUNITY
TO BE INVOLVED IN THE COOL
TECHNOLOGY INITIATIVE.
OKAY.
SO THE PARTS LIST.
THIS WAS -- BRAIN INITIATIVE
CELL CENSUS PROJECT LAUNCHED IN
2014, STARTED WITH A SET OF TEN
PILOT PROJECTS THAT TOGETHER
COMPRISED THE BRAIN INITIATIVE
CELL CENSUS CONSORTIUM.
I WAS FORTUNATE TO BE AMONG THE
P.I.s IN THIS INITIAL EFFORT.
THE IDEA WAS AT THE TIME THIS
WAS IN 2014, A LOT OF THE SINGLE
CELL OMICS TECHNOLOGIES WERE
JUST COMING ON BOARD.
I THINK THE PROGRAM FOLKS HERE
AT NIH REALLY SAW AN OPPORTUNITY
TO LEVERAGE THIS OPPORTUNITY,
AND TO BEGIN A COMPREHENSIVE AND
RATIONAL ANALYSIS TO CELL A
COMPREHENSIVE CELL CENSUS.
NOW, THIS PILOT PHASE QUICKLY
GOT SCALED UP INTO WHAT IS
CURRENTLY CALLED THE BRAIN CELL
CENSUS NETWORK.
AGAIN I WAS FORTUNATE TO BE A
P.I. IN THIS EFFORT.
THE ASPIRATIONAL GOAL TO
REVOLUTIONIZE ABILITY TO
CLASSIFY BRAIN CELL TYPES BASED
ON INTEGRATED ANALYSIS OF
MOLECULAR ANATOMICAL AND
PHYSIOLOGICAL PROPERTIES.
WHILE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF
EMPHASIS AND PRESS ABOUT SINGLE
CELL TRANSCRIPT OMICS AND
EPIGENOMICS THIS IS JUST THE
FOUNDATION TO BUILD A
MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS.
A TRAUNCH OF PAPERS WAS
PUBLISHED, WE HAD A TAKEOVER OF
THE OCTOBER 7 ISSUE OF "NATURE"
IN 2021, WITH 17 PAPERS IN
"NATURE" AND 10 PUBLICATIONS IN
"NATURE" SISTER JOURNALS
DESCRIBING MULTI-MODAL ANALYSIS
OF CELL TYPES IN THE MAMMALIAN
PRIMARY MOTOR CORTEX.
SO HERE AGAIN WE USE NOT ONLY
SINGLE CELL RNA SEQUENCING,
SINGLE CELL TRANSCRIPTOMICS BUT
THIS ANALYSIS WAS COMBINED WITH
SINGLE CELL EPIGENOMICS LOOKING
AT DNA METHYLATION AND TO MORE
LIMITED EXTENT CONNECTIVITY, TO
CHARACTERIZE THE MOLECULAR
PROPERTIES, SPATIAL
DISTRIBUTION, PHYSIOLOGY, ET
CETERA, OF THESE CELL TYPES.
ACROSS A NUMBER OF SPECIES, THE
MOUSE, NON-HUMAN PRIMATE, AND
HUMAN BRAIN, USING A WIDE
VARIETY OF TECHNIQUES HERE.
AND THIS LED TO ELUCIDATION OF
ORGANIZATIONAL PRINCIPLES
UNDERLYING DIVERSIFICATION OF
CELL TYPES, HIERARCHICAL
ORGANIZATION OF CELL TYPES AND
SAW REMARKABLE CONSERVATION
BETWEEN MOUSE, MARMOSET, HUMANS,
SETTING THE STAGE FOR HUMAN
BRAIN ATLAS.
AT THE HIGHER LEVELS WE SEE
EXTREME CONSERVATION BETWEEN ALL
OF THESE MAMMALIAN SPECIES AND
WHERE YOU START TO SEE
DIFFERENCES OF VARIATION IS
FINER LEAVES, SPECIALIZATION.
OF YOU START TO SEE.
THIS IS GOING TO BE GREAT GROUND
FOR FUTURE WORK.
I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT POWER
OF TEAM SCIENCE.
IT DOESN'T WORK FOR EVERYTHING
BUT FOR SOME THINGS IT'S
CRITICAL.
THIS EFFORT INVOLVED OVER 250
RESEARCHERS FROM 45 INSTITUTIONS
ACROSS THREE CONTINENTS AND I
WOULD ARGUE THIS IS
UNPRECEDENTED FOR THE FIELD OF
NEUROSCIENCE BUT REALLY IS I
THINK THE KEY TO MOVING THIS
LARGE PROJECT FORWARD WHICH WILL
PROVIDE RESOURCES FOR
HYPOTHESIS-DRIVEN RESEARCH THAT
REALLY WILL ELUCIDATE THE
MECHANISMS UNDERLYING BRAIN
FUNCTION.
SO, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE THERE
REALLY IS A GREAT ALIGNMENT OF
MISSIONS BETWEEN THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE AND THE NIDCD
MISSION.
"BRAIN" IS BY DESIGN DISEASE OR
SYSTEM AGNOSTIC BUT THAT'S NOT
TO SAY THAT WE AREN'T GOING TO
DEVELOP SOME GREAT TOOLS BASED
ON I.C.-SPECIFIC NEEDS AND SEE
PRINCIPLES EMERGING.
INVESTIGATORS ARE THE LEADING
EDGE OF DEVELOPING TOOLS IN A
VARIETY OF AREAS INCLUDING
INVESTIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES AND
COMPUTATION UNDERLYING AUDITORY
PROCESSING AND VESTIBULAR
PROCESSING, UNDERSTANDING
PRINCIPLES OF SPEECH AND
LANGUAGE, LIMIT OF ELIMINATING
MECHANISMS OF CHEMO SENSATION,
SMELL AND TASTE, NEAR AND DEAR
TO MY HEART.
I STILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE
OLFACTORY SYSTEM, AND NEXT
GENERATION SENSORY AND
SENSORIMOTOR NEURAL PROSTHESIS,
A LOT OF GREAT SCIENCE GOING ON
IN NIDCD AND SUPPORTED PROJECTS
OF GREAT MUTUAL INTEREST, THERE
COULD BE A LOT OF TERRIFIC
SYNERGY HERE.
SO LET ME HIGHLIGHT A FEW
PROJECTS, I'LL START CLOSE TO
HOME IN MY DOMAIN, IN THE
OLFACTORY SYSTEM.
AS I THINK MANY KNOW SOON AFTER
THE COVID PANDEMIC HIT, PEOPLE
HAD NOTICED, INVESTIGATORS AND
CLINICIANS HAD NOTICED THIS
INTERESTING ASSOCIATION OF
ANOSMIA WITH PATIENTS WHO
DEVELOPED THE SYMPTOMS OF
SARS-COV-2 INFECTION, OR COVID.
NOW, SOON AFTER THE ONSET OF
PANDEMIC IN 2020 I GOT A CALL
FROM A GOOD FRIEND, BOB, AT
HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL.
HE AND OTHERS WERE INTRIGUED BY
THIS ASSOCIATION.
AND AS YOU RECALL, MANY WERE
SITTING AT HOME NOT IN A LAB,
AND BOB AND HIS LAB AND
COLLEAGUES WERE STILL VERY
ACTIVELY USING THEIR BRAINS.
AND THE REAL QUESTION WAS WHAT
IS UNDERLYING THIS ASSOCIATION
BETWEEN COVID AND ANOSMIA?
AND WHAT IF ANYTHING MIGHT IT
TELL US ABOUT THE BROADER
RAMIFICATIONS OF COVID ON THE
PATIENT'S LET AND RECOVERY,
SPECIFICALLY EFFECTS ON NERVOUS
SYSTEM.
BOB APPROACHED THIS BY ASKING A
SIMPLE QUESTION WHICH IS ON
WHICH CELLS IN THE PERIPHERAL
OLFACTORY SYSTEM ARE RECEPTORS
EXPRESSED, RECEPTOR IS A ACE-2,
PROTEOMIC RAILS IS REQUIRED FOR
VIRAL ENTRY THROUGH THIS
RECEPTOR MEDIATED MECHANISM.
SO, THE APPROACH WAS HE WENT
ABOUT TO MINE THE AVAILABLE
PUBLISHED DATABASES, ON BOTH
BULK AND SINGLE CELL RNA
SEQUENCING ON OLFACTORY
EPITHELIUM, ASKING ME IF I I
MINDED I IF HE USED A DATASET I
PUBLISHED.
THEY ARE PUBLIC DOMAIN, DO AS
YOU WISH, BUT I GOT TO TELL YOU
THE STUDIES WE PUBLISHED TO DATE
WERE FEWER THAN ABOUT A THOUSAND
CELLS, USING THE OLDER LABORIOUS
TECHNOLOGIES.
I HAVE 50,000 CELLS IN MY POCKET
WE HAVEN'T PUBLISHED, LEADING TO
A COLLABORATION BETWEEN MY LAB,
BOB'S LAB, EVENTUALLY WITH THE
LABS AT DUKE AS WELL AS THE U.K.
SO, TOGETHER WE USED SINGLE CELL
RNA SEQUENCING NOT JUST OF MOUSE
OLFACTORY EPITHELIUM BUT TURNS
OUT EVENTUALLY WITH HUMANS,
HUMAN OLFACTORY EPITHELIUM AND
HOME OLFACTORY BULB TO LOOK FOR
ACE-2 AND TMPRSS EXPRESSION,
CRITICAL FOR SARS-COV-2 ENTRY,
EXPRESSED IN THE SUSTENCARULAR
CELLS BUT NOT OLFACTORY NEURONS,
I THINK BY NOW THIS HAS BEEN
WELL VALIDATED.
THIS IS HISTOCHEMISTRY IN 2020
EXPRESSION OF THESE MOLECULES.
THIS WAS FURTHER VALIDATED IN
HUMAN AUTOPSY MATERIAL AT MAX
PLANCK WITH OTHER COLLEAGUES I
BELIEVE IN BELGIUM.
SO, AGAIN, THIS IS A BIT
CONTROVERSIAL BUT I THINK THE
PAPER DOES PUT THIS TO REST,
SHOWING THEY COULD NEVER FIND
SARS-COV-2 VARIANT IN ANYTHING
BUT SUSTENCARULAR CELLS AND
NEVER SAW IT IN NEURONS.
STILL BASIC QUESTION HOW
SARS-COV-2 INFECTION IS CAUSING
ANOSMIA, HERE IS A STUDY JUST
PUBLISHED IN "CELL," RAPID
DOWNREGULATION OF OTORECEPTOR
GENE EXPRESSION AND GENES
ENCODING SIGNALING MOLECULES IN
THE SIGNALING CASCADE.
AND THEY SAW THIS BOTH IN
HAMSTERS AS WELL AS HUMANS,
HAMSTERS HAVE BEEN A GREAT MODEL
FOR LOOKING AT COVID,
PROGRESSION OF COVID.
WHAT THEY FOUND WAS DISRUPTION
OF NUCLEAR ARCHITECTURE AS
REQUIRED FOR HIGH LEVEL
OTORECEPTOR EXPRESSION AND
OLFACTORY SENSORY NEURONS, THIS
EFFECT IS NON-CELL AUTONOMOUS.
INI BELIEVE THIS MAY HAVE
IMPLICATIONS NOT ONLY FOR AS
THOSE WITH COVID AND WITH
NEURODEGENERATIVE DISORDER
INCLUDING PARKINSON'S AND
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE.
IT'S COOL TO SEE HOW WE CAN TAKE
CELL CENSUS TYPE INFORMATION AND
USE THAT AS PLATFORM FOR
DEVELOPING MECHANISTIC STUDIES.
SO HERE'S A COOL STUDY LOOKING
AT THE PROCESSING OF SPEECH IN
HUMANS.
THIS IS A STUDY FROM EDDIE
CHANG'S LAB AT UCSF CONDUCTED BY
LIBERTY HAMILTON NOW ASSISTANT
PROFESSOR AT U.T. AUSTIN,
LIBERTY WAS A POSTDOC WITH
EDDIE.
I HAVE TO SAY LIBERTY WAS ALSO A
GRADUATE STUDENT AT UC-BERKELEY
IN THE PROGRAM I DIRECTED BEFORE
COMING TO NIH.
THEY USED RECORDINGS AND
STIMULATION ACROSS HUMAN
AUDITORY CORTEX TO DETERMINE HOW
INFORMATION IS PROCESSED ACROSS
THESE REGIONS AND HOW CUES IN
THE SPEECH SIGNAL ARE MAPPED
ACROSS THE ENTIRE AUDITORY
CORTEX.
THEY FOUND THAT THROUGH RESPONSE
LATENCY AND RECEPTOR FIELD
ANALYSES THE INFORMATION IS NOT
PROCESSED SERIALLY BUT IN
PARALLEL ACROSS VARIOUS REGIONS
OF THE PRIMARY AND NON-PRIMARY
AUDITORY CORTICES, ARGUES
AGAINST SIMPLE HIERARCHY OF
CORTICAL PROCESSING.
WHAT THEY FOUND IN CASE STUDY
USING DIRECT STIMULATION OF
EITHER AUDITORY CORTEX OR
REGIONS IN THE SUPERIOR TEMPORAL
GYRUS AUDITOR CORTEX IS NEITHER
NECESSARY FOR SPEECH PERCEPTION
AND FOUND STIMULATION IN STG
CAUSED DISRUPTION IN PATIENT'S
ABILITY TO HEAR AND REPEAT A
WORD THAT WAS GIVEN TO HER.
COOL STUFF.
HIGHLIGHTING THE INVESTIGATIONS
OF SPEECH PROCESSING IN HUMANS
BUT REALLY ALSO HIGHLIGHTING THE
RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES IN
HUMANS, WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY
LEARN ABOUT HUMAN NEURAL CIRCUIT
FUNCTION IN THESE COMPLEX
BEHAVIORS.
HERE'S A COOL STUDY, CARRIED OUT
BASED AT STANFORD, TO DEVELOP
BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACES AS
NEURAL PROSTHESES.
THEY HAD A PARALYZED PATIENT,
THEY USED RECORDINGS AND
INTERPRETATIONS OF NEURAL
SIGNALS ACROSS ELECTRODES PLACED
IN THE BRAIN TO ALLOW THIS
INDIVIDUAL TO COMMUNICATE IN
CONTRAST TO EDDIE CHANG'S VERY
FAMOUS SPEECH PROSTHESES TO TURN
ELECTRICAL ACTIVITY IN THE BRAIN
TO TEXT.
SO, USING THIS BRAIN-COMPUTER
INTERFACE COULD ALLOW THIS
PATIENT TO TYPE CHARACTERS AT 90
CHARACTERS PER MINUTE WITH GREAT
ACCURACY BY SIMPLY IMAGINING THE
KEY STROKES OF WRITING THE
LETTERS THEMSELVES.
SO THEY WOULD RECORD NEURAL
ACTIVITY, USE RECURRING NEURAL
NETWORK TO LEARN ACTIVITY
ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN THE
IMAGINED LETTERS AND THE ACTUAL
WRITTEN LETTERS, AND THEN TO USE
THIS TO CATEGORIZE EACH IMAGINED
KEY STROKE BASED ON CHANGES IN
ACTIVITY TO CLUSTER THEM AND
AGAIN TO ALLOW THIS PATIENT TO
LITERALLY TYPE OUT WORDS ABOUT
AS FAST AS I CAN ON A BAD DAY,
CLICKING ON MY iPHONE,
REMARKABLE TO INTERPRET THIS
INFORMATION AND TURN IT INTO A
COMMUNICATION PROSTHETIC DEVICE.
NOW, I'VE HIGHLIGHTED TWO
STUDIES INVOLVE INVOLVING
HUMANS.
WE HAVE TO BE MINDFUL AS WE WORK
WITH HUMANS AND DEVELOP
TECHNOLOGIES THAT CAN AFFECT
HUMAN BRAIN FUNCTION ARE THE
ETHICAL, LEGAL, SOCIETAL
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS WORK.
TO THIS END THE BRAIN INITIATIVE
HAS BEEN QUITE DILIGENT IN
INCORPORATING THESE ISSUES INTO
ALL WE DO AND WE HAVE AN ACTIVE
NEUROETHICS WORKING GROUP THAT
ADVISES US ON THESE ISSUES, THEY
HAVE HELPED US DEVELOP GUIDING
PRINCIPLES AND WE HAVE A TEAM
FOCUSED ON ON ON THESE THESE
ISSUES.
IN JUNE WE HAVE OUR EIGHTH OF
EIGHTH MEETING, THREE TALKS FROM
PROFESSOR BAUTISTA, AND OTHERS,
YOU CAN FIND THE INFORMATION ON
THE WEBSITE AND STAY UP TO DATE
ON ALL WE DO BY VISITING OUR
WEBSITE AND I NEED TO FINISH BY
ACKNOWLEDGING THE GREAT FOLKS
BEHIND ALL OF OUR WORK, I HAVE A
TERRIFIC GROUP AROUND ME IN THE
OFFICE OF THE BRAIN DIRECTOR AND
OVER 100 STAFF CONTRIBUTING TO
THE EFFORT INCLUDING MANY OF OUR
COLLEAGUES HERE AT NIDCD, YOU
CAN SEE ON THE SLIDE.
I'LL STOP HERE, APOLOGIES FOR
RUNNING A BIT LATE.
IF THERE'S TIME FOR QUESTIONS
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THEM.
>> NOT AT ALL, JOHN.
THAT WAS FANTASTIC.
WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS FROM
COUNCIL MEMBERS.
JOHN, I HAVE A QUESTION.
YOU MENTIONED THE CURES FUNDING
THAT WILL GIVE A BIG BUMP TO
YOUR BUDGET NEXT YEAR.
AND I KNOW THAT IT'S CHALLENGING
TO DEVELOP PROGRAMS THAT DON'T
EXTEND PAST THAT ONE YEAR.
SO THAT CREATES SOME CHALLENGES
WITH ONGOING FUNDING NEEDS.
HOW WILL YOU SPEND ALL THAT
MONEY IN ONE YEAR?
>> THANKS, DEB.
I GLOSSED OVER THAT.
NOT TO GET IN THE BUDGETARY
WEEDS TYPICALLY APPROPRIATIONS
MADE YEAR TO YEAR HAVE TO BE
SPENT IN EACH YEAR.
THE CURES ACT ARE NO-YEAR MONEY,
ALLOWS US TO CARRY FUNDS IN THIS
FISCAL FORWARD TO THE NEXT ONE.
SO WHAT WE BY DESIGN HAVE BEEN
DOING, WHAT OTHER CURES ACT
FUNDED PROGRAMS ARE DOING, WE'RE
LOOKING FURTHER AHEAD INTO THE
FUTURE.
AS I THINK THE FOLKS HERE OF
COURSE KNOW, WHEN WE FUND A
PROJECT, THERE ARE OUT-YEAR
COMMITMENTS.
THREE-YEAR PROJECT OR FIVE-YEAR
PROJECT, WHATEVER.
WE CAN USE THE FUNDS TO SMOOTH
OUT THE BACK END OF THE CURVE
ABOUT TWO-THIRDS OF OUR FUNDS GO
TOWARD SUPPORTING THESE OUT-YEAR
COMMITMENTS, CURRENT
COMMITMENTS.
AND THE BEAUTY OF THE CURES ACT
FUND ALLOWS US TO SMOOTH OUT
BACK END OF THE CURVE,
ESPECIALLY SINCE WE HAVE THIS
GIGANTIC BUMP IN FY23, THIS
ALLOWS US TO MAINTAIN A PRETTY
STEADY LEVEL OF FUNDING THAT'S
ACTUALLY ABOVE BASE ALLOCATION,
THAT'S OUR STRATEGY FOR USING
THESE FUNDS.
A QUESTION FROM BEN.
>> HI.
WELCOME FROM THE OLFACTORY SIDE.
GREAT TO SEE YOU AND STUDIES YOU
HIGHLIGHTED FROM THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE I THINK ARE ACTIVIC
TOO.
THANKS FOR HIGHLIGHTING THOSE.
SO, I WANTED TO GET YOUR
PERSPECTIVE ON HOW YOU SEE THE
BRAIN INITIATIVE FUNDING
CONNECTING TO MAINSTREAM NIH
FUNDING.
I KNOW I TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE
ON THE ORIGINAL PANEL WHEN THEY
WERE FORMULATING THIS, AND I WAS
SAYING, WELL, WHAT HAPPENS IF
THE BRAIN INITIATIVE BECOMES SO
SUCCESSFUL IT DRAWS SO MANY
PEOPLE AWAY FROM CLASSIC
CELLULAR MECHANISTIC QUESTIONS.
AND THEY WERE EXPLICIT, THEY SEE
THIS BRAIN INITIATIVE AS
CREATING SEPARATE FUNDING,
EXPANDING THE POOL, BUT IT HAS
HAD THIS EFFECT OF DRAWING SO
MANY PEOPLE AWAY THAT LIKE THE
CLASSIC METHODS THAT ARE STILL
GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR A LONG
TIME VERY FEW LABS ARE DOING
THEM ANYMORE, WRITING DOWN
PAIRED RECORDING BEFORE THE LAST
PERSON IS GONE.
DO YOU STILL SEE THIS AS SORT
OF, YOU KNOW, THIS SEPARATE
MISSION THAT'S A WAKE BEHAVING
ANIMAL FOCUSED AND CORE NIH
PROBLEM OR SORT OF CONNECTED
SOMEHOW?
IS YOUR FUTURE SOMEHOW CONNECTED
TO STUFF TRADITIONALLY FUNDED BY
NON-BRAIN NIH STUFF?
>> RIGHT.
THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION, BEN.
I THINK THE -- THIS IS GOING TO
REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, MUCH LONGER
CONVERSATION TO GET AT IN
DETAIL.
MY SHORT TAKE ON THIS IS IT IS
SOMETHING WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT.
NOW, IN THE TALKS I'VE BEEN
GIVING RECENTLY, I'VE BEEN
FOCUSING ON BIG PROJECTS BUT
REALLY THESE BIG PROJECTS AS
WELL AS OTHER SMALLER
TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN PROJECTS ARE
DESIGNED TO ENABLE US TO DO
BETTER EXPERIMENTS.
WE JUST NEED BETTER TOOLS TO ASK
BETTER QUESTIONS.
AND IN FACT IN THE 2025 REPORT
THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO
SPEND -- WELL, BACK THEN THEY
WERE SAYING IT WAS A TEN-YEAR
VISION, RECOMMENDATION THERE WAS
TO SPEND FIRST HALF DEVELOPING
TOOLS AND SECOND HALF TO APPLY
THEM TO UNDERSTAND HOW NEURAL
CIRCUITS WORK.
NOW, YOU RAISE A REALLY
IMPORTANT QUESTION ABOUT THIS
CONCERN OF THE LOST ARTS.
I WOULD ARGUE LOOKING BACK I
THINK EVERY GENERATION OF
SCIENCE HAS WORRIED ABOUT THE
PREVIOUS GENERATION'S LOST ART.
WHAT IS THE NEXT GENERATION
GOING TO FOR GET THEY NEED TO
KNOW TO REALLY ASK -- CONTINUE
ASKING GOOD QUESTIONS?
IT'S A FAIR CONCERN.
TO THE EXTENT BRAIN IS A
REFLECTION OF THAT GOING ON IN
THE FIELD, OR TO THE EXTENT
BRAIN IS EITHER CONTRIBUTING TO
OR EXACERBATING THAT ISSUE I
CAN'T REALLY SAY BUT, AGAIN, OUR
FOCUS IS ON ENABLING RESEARCHERS
TO DO EXPERIMENTS THAT THEY
COULDN'T DO BEFORE, AND IN FACT
A VERY LARGE FRACTION OF THE
BRAIN PORTFOLIO IS FOCUSED ON
UNDERSTANDING NEURAL CIRCUIT
FUNCTION, WHAT I CALL THE
CIRCUIT BUSTING PART OF A
PORTFOLIO.
AND I THINK WORKING CLOSELY, THE
TEAM IS FOCUSED ON THAT.
THERE WILL BE GIVE AND TAKE.
THE KEY THING WE AS A SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY MAKE SURE THAT OUR
STUDENTS AND POSTDOCS AND JUNIOR
FACULTY KEEP THEIR EYES ON
WHAT'S GOING TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY
IMPORTANT AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE
ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS.
I THINK BRAIN'S ROLE IS TO HELP
DEVELOP TOOLS TO MAKE THE TOOLS
AVAILABLE IN ORDER TO DO THOSE
STUDIES.
SO LOVE TO CONTINUE THIS
DISCUSSION PERHAPS IN PERSON AT
A LATER DATE.
>> THANK YOU.
NIRUPA?
>> HOW HAVE YOU ARE YOU?
LONG TIME.
AND YOU'RE MUTED.
>> OH DEAR.
SORRY.
OKAY.
SO, ACTUALLY BEN'S POINT IS
SOMETHING THAT IS ENDLESSLY
DISCUSSED, RIGHT?
YOU KNOW, OVER DRINKS AT EVERY
CONFERENCE.
AND I'M WONDERING IF BRAIN
ACTUALLY HAS COME UP WITH A WAY
OF TRACKING WHERE -- SO ARE
THERE MORE REGULAR TRADITIONAL
R01s THAT ARE SPINOFFS FROM
THE SAME LAB?
AND CAN YOU TRACK THAT SOME OR
ALL OF THAT CAME FROM
BRAIN-FUNNED WORK --
BRAIN-FUNDED WORK?
ALSO CAN YOU TRACK UTILIZATION
OF THE BRAIN DERIVED
TECHNOLOGIES, AND SO WHILE I
DON'T DISAGREE WITH BEN ON THIS,
I THINK THAT THERE ARE ACTUALLY
METRICS THAT YOU CAN USE TO SAY
HOW BAD IS THE PROBLEM.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
GREAT POINT.
WE ALWAYS TRY TO REMIND
OURSELVES OUR DECISIONS TO THE
EXTENT POSSIBLE NEED TO BE DATA
DRIVEN.
THE QUESTION IS WHAT DATA CAN WE
USE TO HELP DRIVE THESE
DECISIONS?
YOUR QUESTION IS BOTH ON THE
MONEY AS WELL AS TIMELY.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE WORKING ON
TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO --
WHAT METRICS TO USE, HOW TO
MEASURE AN INTERPRET THEM TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT OF
BRAIN IS HAVING, RIGHT?
WE CAN ALL POINT TO A COOL PAPER
THAT JUST CAME OUT AND SAY THIS
IS EVIDENCE WE'RE DOING WELL BUT
THAT'S BEING HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE
AND HIGHLY SELECTIVE.
WE HAD THIS COOL -- THERE WAS A
COOL PROGRAM, THERE IS A COOL
PROGRAM AT NIH BRINGING IN DATA
SCHOLARS AND BRAIN WAS FORTUNATE
TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROGRAM.
AND WE STARTED THIS BRAIN WORKS
WHETHER OUR DATA SCHOLAR DR.
GASIMI FROM MICHIGAN STATE USED
NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING
ALGORITHMS TO HELP IDENTIFY
CONNECTIONS, SO IT'S A WORK IN
PROGRESS BUT WE THINK THESE
EFFORTS AND OTHER EFFORTS BEING
DONE BY INFORMATION SCIENTISTS
MIGHT HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT
ARE THE CONNECTIONS BETWEEN
THESE DIFFERENT -- NOT JUST
DIFFERENT PROJECTS BUT DIFFERENT
KINDS OF PROJECTS AND WHAT MIGHT
BE THE IMPACT AND REALLY WE'RE
APPROACHING THIS AS NOT UNLIKE
THE WAY THAT I HAVE APPROACHED
SINGLE CELL BIOLOGY WHICH IS
LET'S KIND OF GET A GOOD FEELING
FOR WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE
AND SEE WHAT KIND OF HYPOTHESES
MIGHT EMERGE THAT WE CAN THEN GO
ON AND TEST.
SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS AND
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO
UNDERSTAND THAT.
>> THANKS.
>> THANK YOU.
MEG WALLHAGEN?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR
PRESENTATION.
I'M NOT SURE HOW TO BEST
ARTICULATE THIS BUT I'M
INTERESTED IN SOME OF THE
TRANSLATIONAL ISSUES, WHETHER
YOU'VE ALREADY THOUGHT ABOUT --
SOME OF WHAT YOU PRESENTED DID
SHOW SOME OF THAT BEGINNING
TRANSLATION IN TERMS OF THE
SPEECH AND SO FORTH, BUT HOW ARE
YOU ABLE TO LOOK AT THE
CROSS-MODALITY EXPERIENTIAL
ASPECT SOME CONNECTIONS MAKE, OR
BEGIN TO ALREADY BUILD IN SOME
OF THE WAYS IN WHICH THE DATA
THAT YOU'RE COLLECTING CAN BEGIN
TO TRANSLATE INTO MORE
CLINICALLY DERIVED QUESTIONS, SO
THAT THERE CAN BE QUICK
TRANSLATION OF YOUR FINDINGS
INTO MORE CLINICALLY BASED
PRACTICES, IF THAT IS CLEAR.
>> YEAH, WELL, LET ME SEE IF I
UNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION.
YOU CAN TELL ME AFTER I RESPOND.
THERE'S AN EMPHASIS ON BOTH
BASIC DISCOVERY, BUT IN
TRANSLATION, AND IMPACTS IN
HUMANS, AND WITH AN EYE TOWARD
TRANSLATION.
WE HAVE A WHOLE PROGRAM THAT WE
REFER TO, RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
IN HUMANS THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS TO
THE EXTENT POSSIBLE IN HUMANS
NEURAL CIRCUIT FUNCTION AND
RELATION TO THE BEHAVIOR.
IN FACT WE'RE ABOUT TO STEP UP A
PROGRAM IN LOOKING AT
SYNCHRONIZING BEHAVIOR AND
NEURAL ACTIVITY.
ONE EXAMPLE OF TRANSLATION IS
COMING OUT OF THE CELL CENSUS
PROJECT, MAKING A HUGE
INVESTMENT IN CHARACTERIZING AND
ORGANIZING CELL TYPES IN
MAMMALIAN BRAINS.
ALREADY WE'VE SEEN FROM THE
BICCN THE IDENTIFICATION OF
HUMAN-SPECIFIC CELL TYPES THAT
ARE SELECTIVELY VULNERABLE IN
ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE.
THIS IS COMING OUT OF THE ALLEN
INSTITUTE.
RECENTLY EVAN McCOSTKO AT THE
BROAD PUBLISHED A COOL PAPER
PROFILING USING OMICS
TECHNOLOGIES, MID-BRAIN DOPAMINE
NEURONS IN HUMANS AND HUMANS
WITH PARKINSON'S DISEASE,
IDENTIFIED SUBSET OF THESE
NEURONS THAT MAPPED SECTIONS OF
THE SUBSTANTIALLY NIGRA IN P.D.
PATIENTS, AND THESE CELLS ARE
ONES THAT EXPRESS GENES THAT
HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED IN GWAS
STUDIES.
NOW WE HAVE MUCH GREATER
GRANULARITY OF WHAT CELLS ARE
AFFECTED AND OF IN VARIOUS
NEURODEGENERATIVE DISEASES, THIS
IS ONE EXAMPLE.
AND WITH THE ARMAMENTARIUM
PROJECT WE NOW HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO START MODELING
THIS IN ANIMAL MODELS AND
EVENTUALLY WE HOPE TO UNDERSTAND
BETTER HOW CELLS FUNCTION, WHY
ARE THEY BEING AFFECTED,
ULTIMATELY TO HOPEFULLY GO IN
AND INTERVENE.
I THINK THERE'S JUST THE
POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS, WE
HAVE TO BE FOCUSED ON WHERE TO
LOOK AND LEVERAGE THIS
INFORMATION.
I HOPE THAT ANSWERS AT LEAST
PART OF YOUR QUESTION.
>> VERY HELPFUL.
THANK YOU.
>> I THOUGHT I WOULD GIVE THE
LAST WORD TO DAN, OUR
REPRESENTATIVE TO THE
MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP OF
BRAIN.
AND THANK YOU, DAN, FOR
REPRESENTING NIDCD.
>> THANKS, DEB.
I WANT TO THANK JOHN FOR A
TREMENDOUS PRESENTATION, OPEN TO
BEING CONTACTED AND QUERIED
ABOUT IT.
I WOULD URGE YOU IF YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS TO CONTACT JOHN OR
PROGRAM OFFICERS THERE.
I JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY EMPHASIZE
A COUPLE THINGS.
FIRST, WE, ROB AND AMY AND
MARIA, ORGANIZED AN ONLINE
ESSENTIALLY INFORMATIONAL
SESSION THAT WAS SPONSORED BY
MARIA GEFFIN'S SEMINAR SERIES IN
WHICH THE TITLE WAS
DEMYSTIFYING, AND I WOULD URGE
YOU TO HAVE A LOOK AT THAT IF
YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AT ALL.
I'M PUTTING IT IN THE CHAT,
LINKS TO THAT TALK ARE AVAILABLE
TO YOU.
I THINK THAT WILL ANSWER A LOT
OF PEOPLE'S SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
ABOUT GETTING INVOLVED IN THE
BRAIN INITIATIVE.
SECOND POINT JOHN DIDN'T COVER
BUT I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE IS
THAT THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS
CONSTANTLY COMING UP WITH,
EXAMINING, DISCUSSING NEW
INITIATIVES AND CONCEPTS, AND
I'M GOING TO PUT ONE OF THOSE
ALSO IN THE CHAT.
THEY ARE CURRENTLY CONSIDERING
ESSENTIALLY SOMETHING CALLED THE
BRAIN BEHAVIOR QUANTIFICATION
AND SYNCHRONIZATION INITIATIVE,
AND THESE ARE CONCEPTS THAT ARE
AIMED AT DEVELOPING NEW HIGH
RESOLUTION TOOLS AND DATA
SCIENCE APPROACHES TO PRECISELY
QUANTIFY BEHAVIORS AND
SYNCHRONIZE THEM WITH BRAIN
ACTIVITY DATA.
SO JOHN EMPHASIZED BRAIN DATA
PERIODONTAL SAY BUT OF COURSE IN
THE LONG RUN PHENOTYPE IS
BEHAVIOR, WHETHER NORMAL
BEHAVIOR OR ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR.
I FIND THESE KINDS OF
INITIATIVES TO BE EXTREMELY
EXCITING, AND PROBABLY BROADEN
INITIATIVE TO A LARGE NUMBER OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE PRIMARILY
INTERESTED IN BEHAVIORAL
PHENOTYPES OR DYSFUNCTION.
I'LL PUT THAT IN THE CHAT AND
YOU CAN HAVE A LOOK AT THAT
PARTICULAR INITIATIVE.
THAT'S ALL I HAD FOR YOU.
>> THANKS, DAN.
I HOPE EVERYBODY CAN SEE WHY
IT'S OF I APPRECIATE DAN'S
PARTICIPATION IN "BRAIN" AS A
REPRESENTATIVE OF NIDCD ON THE
MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP.
THANKS AGAIN.
>> THANK YOU.
>> GREAT.
WELL, THANK YOU ALL.
WE'LL TURN TO AMY AND MERAV NOW
TO LEAD THE REST OF THE PROGRAM.
>> THANKS.
CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME?
THANK YOU.
GOOD MORNING.
I'M AMY POREMBA, PROGRAM
DIRECTOR, I A REPRESENTATIVE WHO
WORKS WITH THE BRAIN INITIATIVE
FORTUNE OUR INSTITUTE.
I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO DR.
JOHN NGAI FOR COMING TO UPDATE
US ON THE PROGRESS AS DIRECTOR,
AND AS YOU HEARD THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE IS VERY LARGE
NIH-WIDE PROGRAM, WILL PROVIDE
OVER $5 BILLION IN NEUROSCIENCE
FUNDING BY 2026.
NEXT SLIDE.
SO OVER 120 PEOPLE AT NIH WORK
IN SEVERAL CAPACITIES AT JOHN
MENTIONED TO SUPPORT THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE.
MANY ARE VOLUNTEERING OR ON LOAN
FROM INSTITUTES.
REPRESENTATIVES ARE MYSELF, DR.
ROGER MILLER AND DR. RIVERA
RENTAS AND OTHERS ON AD HOC
BASIS LIKE DR. SULLIVAN AND DR.
SANES, DOUBLE DUTY, AND ON THE
BRAIN INITIATIVE MULTI-COUNCIL
WORKING GROUP.
WE'RE GREATLY APPRECIATIVE OF
DAN'S REPRESENTATION OF OUR
INSTITUTE.
NEXT SLIDE.
IN ORDER TO PROMOTE INCREASED
SYNERGY BETWEEN BRAIN INITIATIVE
AND OUR OWN INSTITUTE, DR. MERAV
SABRI CAME TO JOIN US THIS PAST
OCTOBER.
AREAS OF EXPERTISE IN COGNITIVE
NEUROSCIENCE, BRAIN IMAGING
TECHNOLOGY, RECEIVED HER Ph.D.
AT UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA IN
ONTARIO, CANADA.
PRIOR TO JOINING THE NIH SHE WAS
ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF NEURAL
AND OTOLARYNGOLOGIY IN AT
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.
WE'RE QUITE LUCKY TO HAVE HER ON
BOARD PROVIDING A STRONG BASE OF
COMMUNICATION FOR P.I.s ABOUT
THE BRAIN INITIATIVE.
I SUGGEST YOU REACH OUT TO HER
AND THE OTHER REPRESENTATIVES
AND WE'LL BE HAPPY TO FILL YOU
IN BUT SHE'S SPENDING A LOT OF
TIME AND DEDICATED TO HER WORK
IN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE.
HER POSITION IS SHARED BETWEEN
OUR INSTITUTE AND THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE, 50/ 50, FOCUSING ON
HIGHER OLFACTORY AND TASTE
PROCESSING.
NEXT SLIDE.
THE BRAIN INITIATIVE IS
INTERNALLY ORGANIZED IN TEAMS OF
PROGRAM OFFICERS, SCIENTIFIC
REVIEW OFFICERS.
THE TEAMS HELP WRITE FUNDING
ANNOUNCEMENTS RELATED TO THEIR
MISSION, ATTEND GRANT REVIEWS,
SUGGEST FUNDING PLANS,
VOLUNTEER.
IT'S A GREAT ENVIRONMENT TO BE
IN.
IT'S VERY INTERACTIVE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF EXCITED
PEOPLE HELPING TO DO THESE
ACTIVITIES.
FUNDING PLANS ARE GENERATED BY
THE TEAMS, PROGRESS TO
COORDINATING TEAM, WHICH HAS ONE
MEMBER FROM EACH I.C. AS A
PROGRAM OFFICER.
AND THAT INFORMATION GOES TO THE
I.C. DIRECTOR'S GROUP WHO TAKES
ANOTHER BIG LOOK AT IT.
THE BRAIN INITIATIVE
MULTI-COUNCIL WORKING GROUP.
WORK IS INVOLVED IS GETTING
TOGETHER TO DO THE FUNDING
PLANS.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO AS JOHN MENTIONED, THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE WAS ESTABLISHED IN
2013 BY PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA,
AND ESSENTIALLY GAVE NIH THIS
GRAND CHALLENGE TO FIGURE OUT IN
THE FUTURE AND IMPETUS FOR THE
BRAIN RESEARCH EFFORT WAS REALLY
A SIMPLE STAGGERING STATISTIC
THAT ONE IN FOUR FAMILIES
WORLDWIDE INCLUDE SOMEONE WHO
SUFFERS FROM A BRAIN INJURY,
BRAIN DISEASE, BRAIN DISORDER.
THIS INITIATIVE HONES TO
ACCELERATE DEVELOPMENT OF
INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY TO
DISCOVER NEW THINGS, AND UTILIZE
INTERDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH.
THE PLAYBOOK ON HOW RESEARCH IS
DONE HAS BEEN DE-EMPHASIZED,
HIGH RISK, HIGH REWARD RESEARCH
PROJECTS HAVE BEEN EMBRACED FOR
THIS INITIATIVE.
IN ORDER TO DO THAT REALLY IT
TAKES SPECIAL ATTENTION BY
PROGRAM OFFICERS, SCIENTIFIC
REVIEW OFFICERS, REVIEWERS FROM
EXTRAMURAL COMMUNITY, AND
COUNCILS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN
THIS MAVERICK APPROACH AND WE
KEEP THOSE IDEALS IN MIND.
ON THE SLIGHT THERE'S SEVEN HIGH
PRIORITY RESEARCH AREAS, AS JOHN
MENTIONED TWO WORKING GROUPS OF
EXPERTS HAVE HELPED CONTINUE TO
DEFINE DIRECTIONS AS WE MOVE
FORWARD.
I'M GOING TO UPDATE YOU BRIEFLY
ON HOW THE BRAIN INITIATIVE
INTERACTS WITH OUR MISSION,
BUILDING ON MY LAST
PRESENTATION IN 2021.
WHAT DO WE HOPE TO GAIN?
WELL, I PERSONALLY MIGHT WANT TO
MAP THE BRAIN TO FIND MY CAR
KEYS OR REMEMBER MY COMPUTER
PASSWORDS THESE DAYS.
WHAT DOES NIDCD WANT?
ARE WE BENEFITING FROM MONEY
SPENT THROUGH THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE?
IT'S CLEAR AFTER SEVEN YEARS
THAT WE'RE GAINING SOME POWERFUL
GLOBAL TECHNIQUES AND TOOLS TO
ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS HELPING
ANSWER MISSION-RELATED
QUESTIONS, AND WE'RE DIRECTLY
BENEFITING.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT HOW THE
MONEY IS BEING USED.
THE NEXT FEW SLIDES WILL
HIGHLIGHT THE PORTION OF GRANT
INITIATIVE FUNDED GRANTS.
GO BACK ONE.
SORRY.
THANKS, GINGER.
RELATED EITHER BY COUNTING
GRANTS DEVELOPING TOOLS RELATED
TO BE TESTED IN BRAIN AREAS
IMPORTANT TO OUR MISSION AREA,
SO TECHNOLOGY, OR THESE GRANTS
MIGHT BE USED IN A RELATED MODEL
SYSTEM SUCH AS OLFACTION WHICH
JOHN SHOWED IN HIS SLIDES OR
MIGHT BE STUDYING QUESTIONS THAT
ARE CRITICAL TO OUR MISSION
AREA.
WHILE ALSO BROADY STUDYING
NEURAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND
BEHAVIORS.
I WOULD SAY MERAV AND I CAN TALK
TO YOU IN PERSON OR OVER ZOOM
ABOUT NEURAL CIRCUIT CIRCUITRY
ACTIVITIES.
THE MONEY PASSES FROM CONGRESS
TO OUR INSTITUTE, NOT CODED AT
NIDCD SO IT TAKES DETECTIVE WORK
TO DISCOVERY WHICH GRANTS ARE
RELATED TO OUR VERY BROAD NIDCD
MISSION AREAS OF TASTE AND
SMELL, VOICE SPEECH AND
LANGUAGE, AND HEAR AND BALANCE.
NEXT SLIDE.
SHOWN HERE ARE RAW NUMBER OF
NIDCD-RELATED BRAIN INITIATIVE
GRANTS AWARDED OVER SEVEN YEARS
THROUGH 2021.
IN THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE IN 201458 GRANTS WERE
GIVEN OUT OVERALL WITH FOUR
RELATED IN SOME WAY TO OUR
MISSION AREAS.
LAST YEAR IN 2021 THAT NUMBER
GREW TO 221 OVERALL AND 21
GRANTS RELATED TO NIDCD.
REPRESENTS ABOUT 10%,
APPROPRIATE GIVEN IT INCLUDES
TEN INSTITUTES AND FOUR NIH
OFFICES AND NIH-WIDE
RESPONSIBILITIES.
THIS GRAPH REPRESENTS MILLIONS
OF DOLLARS TOTAL FIRST YEAR
RELATED TO NIDCD MISSION AREAS,
THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR TOTAL
COST, 2021, $41 MILLION AWARDED
FOR NIDCD-RELATED MISSION AREAS,
UP FROM $36 MILLION IN 2020.
THERE ARE LOTS OF -- THE NUMBER
MUCH GRANTS MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN
INCREASED OVERALL, THE BUDGETS
ARE GETTING LARGER AND THERE ARE
LARGE U MECHANISM GRANTS WHICH
INCLUDE A LOT OF TEAM MEMBERS,
SO THOSE GRANTS ARE QUITE LARGE
AS WELL.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
OUR INSTITUTE COVERS A LOT OF
DIFFERENT MISSION AREAS.
I'D LIKE TO SHOW SOME NUMBERS BY
MISSION AREA, TO BE EXACT.
NEXT SLIDE.
OVER SEVEN YEARS BRAIN
INITIATIVE GRANTS HAVE COVERED
ALL OF OUR MISSION AREAS WITH
MOSTLY OLFACTION, PRIMARILY
HEARING AND SOME BALANCE IN THE
SECOND GROUP, AND SPEECH
FOLLOWED BY LANGUAGE AND VOICE
IN THE LAST CATEGORY.
THE NUMBERS ARE SLIGHTLY LARGER
FOR HEARING AND BALANCE, IN
TERMS OF DOLLARS, NEXT SLIDE
PLEASE, IT SHOWS THAT THE
CHEMICAL CENSUS ACTUALLY
RECEIVED MORE THAN $200 MILLION
IN TOTAL FUNDING, ACROSS SEVEN
YEARS.
HEARING AND BALANCE WITH $143
MILLION, VOICE SPEECH AND
LANGUAGE WITH $93 MILLION OVER
THE PAST SEVEN YEARS.
THAT EQUALS ABOUT $437 MILLION
TOTAL FOR THE YEARS 2014-2021.
FOR COMPARISON, EACH YEAR NIDCD
AWARDS $85 MILLION IN NEW
COMPETING GRANTS, PLUS $14
MILLION FOR SMALL BUSINESS
GRANTS, TOTAL OF ABOUT $100
MILLION PER YEAR OF OUR BUDGET
GOES TO NEWLY AWARDED GRANTS.
SO COMPETING GRANTS.
AND IN 2021 THE BRAIN INITIATIVE
AWARDED $41 MILLION IN COMPETING
GRANTS RELATED TO OUR MISSION
AREAS WHICH EQUALS ROUGHLY 41%
OF WHAT WE TYPICALLY SPEND IN
TOTAL FOR NEW AWARDS EACH YEAR
AT NIDCD.
THESE DOLLARS ARE ADDING TO OUR
MISSION AREAS WITH TECHNOLOGY TO
UTILIZE AND ANSWER QUESTIONS, TO
DIRECTLY ANSWER SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE RELATED
TO OUR MISSION.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
NEXT.
IN SUMMARY, NIDCD BENEFITS IN A
NUMBER OF INDIRECT WAYS FROM
BRAIN INITIATIVE FUNDING.
SO FIRST IS EXPANSION OF CUTTING
EDGE TECHNIQUES APPLIED TO OUR
MISSION AREAS, AND THIS GOES TO
ONE OF THE QUESTIONS ASKED
EARLIER, ACTUALLY DOES INCREASE
NUMBER OF INVESTIGATORS DOING
WORK IN OUR MISSION AREAS, SOME
INVESTIGATORS HAVE CHOSEN OUR
MODEL SYSTEM IN ORDER TO LOOK AT
THEIR NEW TECHNOLOGIES BECAUSE
IT TURNS OUT TO BE QUITE
ADVANTAGEOUS TO USE OLFACTION OR
AUDITORY, FOR EXAMPLE, TO DO
THAT.
AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE
TRANSLATIONAL FOR HUMANS ARE
BEST DONE IN SPEECH.
SO, IT'S REALLY GREAT THAT THIS
IS HELPING INCREASE THE NUMBER
OF INVESTIGATORS THAT CONTRIBUTE
BACK TO OUR MISSION AREAS.
AND ALSO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO NEW
TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES.
AND TRAINING WILL BE TALKED
ABOUT BY DR. RIVERA RENTAS.
NEXT SLIDE.
ON THIS SLIDE, IF WE CAN HIT
ENTER AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A
QUICK SAMPLING OF SOME TITLES
AND INVESTIGATORS ASSOCIATED
WITH THE GRANTS WE CONSIDER
NIDCD RELATED.
EVERY ONE OF OUR MISSIONARIES IS
OR HAS BEEN SUPPORTED BY THE
BRAIN INITIATIVE IN SOME WAY.
AND AS WE SCROLL I'D LIKE TO
THANK DR. LISA KENNEDY, AND
OTHERS, FOR SUPPORT GATHERING
INFORMATION AND ALSO TO BRAIN
INITIATIVE PROGRAM OFFICERS HERE
AT NIDCD.
SO IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT
SLIDE.
IT LISTS MY THANK YOU SLIDE.
IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT
SLIDE THEN, I'D LIKE TO ORIENT
YOU TO THE REST OF THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE AGENDA.
NEXT WE'LL HAVE DR. SABRI, NEW
PROGRAM OFFICER, TO TALK ABOUT
HER OUTREACH EFFORTS.
DR. ROGER MILLER WILL TALK ABOUT
NO PROJECTS NEW NEUROMODULATION
TEAM, DR. RIVERA-RENTAS WILL
UPDATE US WITH TRAINING EFFORTS,
AND DR. BECKEL-MITCHENER WILL
FILL US IN ON ONGOING DIVERSITY
EFFORTS.
THANK YOU.
WE'LL HAVE TIME AT THE END FOR
MORE QUESTIONS AS WELL.
TAKE IT AWAY, MERAV.
>> ONE SECOND.
WHERE IS THE CAMERA?
>> WE CAN HEAR YOU.
>> OKAY, GREAT.
ALL THE BUTTONS DISAPPEARED.
THAT NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE, BUT
HERE WE GO.
>> WE CAN SEE YOUR SLIDES.
>> FANTASTIC.
THANK YOU, AMY AND JOHN AND DAN.
MOST OF MY SLIDES ACTUALLY
REPEAT WHAT YOU WERE TELLING US
ALL ABOUT, BUT IT'S ALWAYS GOOD
TO HEAR THINGS TWICE, OR THREE
TIMES.
SO HERE WE GO.
MY NAME IS MERAV SABRI, IN THE
TASTE AND SMELL AREA.
I'M ALSO THE NIDCD LIAISON TO
THE NIH BRAIN INITIATIVE.
TODAY I'M EXCITED TO TELL YOU
ABOUT OUR RECENT OUTREACH
ACTIVITIES TO PROMOTE SYNERGY
BETWEEN THE BRAIN INITIATIVE AND
NIDCD.
A VIRTUAL SEMINAR WITH DR. MARIA
GEFFIN OF U PENN AND DR. SANES
OF NYU, POTENTIAL APPLICANTS
THAT ARE INTERESTED IN LEARNING
ABOUT THE NIH BRAIN PROGRAM AND
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES.
APRIL 19 IT AIRED, ARCHIVED FOR
LATER VIEWING IN CASE YOU DIDN'T
CATCH IT.
YOU HAVE THE LINK IN THE CHAT
THAT DAN KINDLY PUT THERE.
AGENDA INCLUDED PRESENTATIONS
ABOUT GOALS AND PRIORITIES OF
THE BRAIN PROGRAM.
VARIOUS FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES.
SYNERGIES BETWEEN THE BRAIN
PROGRAM AND NIDCD, AND TALKS IN
THE NIDCD SPACE AREA.
WE HAD THE PLEASURE OF HEARING
FROM DOCTORS DAVID, GEFFEN ABOUT
LESSONS ALONG THE WAY.
SEMINAR HIGHLIGHTED FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES UNDER THE CIRCUIT
PROGRAM CROSS-CUTTING ACROSS
SEVERAL NIDCD MISSION AREAS.
THESE ARE THE DIFFERENT
ANNOUNCEMENTS UNDER THE CIRCUITS
PROGRAM.
YOU MIGHT ASK, WHY SO MANY?
THIS IS BY DESIGN BECAUSE WE
WANT TO ALLOW FOR FACULTY
QUESTIONS ON DIFFERENT SCALES
AND COMPLEXITIES.
WHICH ANNOUNCEMENT BEST FITS
YOUR PROJECT?
IT DEPENDS WHETHER THE PROJECT
IS STILL AT THE EXPLORATORY
STAGE.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE WOULD
RECOMMEND THE LEFT, NOT
REQUIRING PRELIMINARY DATA FOR
EXPLORATORY APPROACHES.
IN COMPARISON THE OPPORTUNITIES
ON THE RIGHT ARE RESEARCH
PROJECTS BUT REQUIRE STRONG
FEASIBILITY EVIDENCE.
IT DEPENDS ON THE SCALE OF THE
DESIGN.
IF THE PROJECT IS BY AN
INDIVIDUAL LAB, WE RECOMMEND OUR
R34 AND R01, FROM THE LARGE
SCALE TEAM YOU HAVE THE U01 AND
UO 19.
CAN YOU EXPLORE BY VISITING THE
NIDCD OR BRAIN INITIATIVE WEB
PAGES.
THE SEMINAR CONCLUDED WITH LIVE
Q&A SESSION, SOME QUESTIONS THAT
WERE ADDRESSED INCLUDE IF THE
BRAIN INITIATIVE IS DISEASE
AGNOSTIC, IS EARLY STAGE OR NEW
INVESTIGATOR STATUS TAKEN INTO
CONSIDERATION IN FUNDING
DECISIONS, WHAT ARE THE
GUIDELINES FOR INCLUSION OF
PRELIMINARY DATA, THE BRAIN
APPLICANTS REQUIRE PRELIMINARY
DATA TO A LESSER EXTENT COMPARED
TO A PARENT R01, TAKEHOME
MESSAGES ARE THAT FOCUS OF THE
BRAIN PROGRAM IS ON THE DISEASE
AGNOSTIC TRANSFORMATIVE SCIENCE
BUT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS HERE
AS JOHN MENTIONED.
FUNDING DECISIONS TAKE INTO
CONSIDERATION STATUS OF
APPLICANT, SOME FUNDING
OPPORTUNITIES REQUIRE
PRELIMINARY DATA AND SOME DO
NOT.
IT IS IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND
EACH ANNOUNCEMENT IS UNIQUE AND
INCLUDES DESCRIPTION OF SPECIFIC
REQUIREMENTS AND REVIEW
CRITERIA.
WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU READ THE
FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENT AND PAY
ATTENTION TO DETAILS.
LASTLY, EACH ANNOUNCEMENT
INCLUDES CONTACT INFORMATION.
IF YOU HAVE AN IDEA FOR A GRANT
WE WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU.
HERE WE'D LIKE TO TAKE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO THANK THE SEMINAR
ORGANIZERS AND PRESENTERS,
RECORDING IS AVAILABLE VIA THE
LINK ON THE WEB PAGE THAT I'LL
INTRODUCE NEXT.
THE NEW WEB PAGE WAS DEVELOPED
IN CLOSE COLLABORATION WITH A
TEAM AT THE NIDCD OFFICE OF
HEALTH COMMUNICATION AND PUBLIC
LIAISON.
YOU CAN ACCESS FROM NIDCD HOME
PAGE, CLICK ON THE DROPDOWN MENU
AND SELECT OR TYPE THE ADDRESS
INTO THE BROWSER.
IT INCLUDES INFORMATION ABOUT
FUNDED APPLICATIONS, SEVERAL
MISSION AREAS, ON THE RIGHT
EXAMPLE OF AWARDS IN THE HEARING
SPACE.
YOU CAN SEE THE INVESTIGATOR,
INSTITUTE, FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENT,
AND ALSO YOU CAN SEE PROJECT
NUMBER.
IF YOU CLICK IT WILL TAKE YOU TO
THE NIH RECORDER FOR DETAILS.
NEXT WE PROVIDE LINKS TO ACTIVE
FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENT.
THERE ARE CURRENTLY 28 ACTIVE
OPPORTUNITIES.
YOU CAN FIND A LINK TO OUR
INFORMATIONAL SEMINAR.
IN ADDITION THERE IS A
DESCRIPTION OF THE PLAN FOR
ENHANCING DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES,
A NEW REQUIREMENT IN MOST BRAIN
FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENTS.
DR. BECKER MITCHINER WILL
PRESENT ON THIS TOPIC.
WHO SHOULD YOU CONTACT?
THIS LISTS CONTACTS, YOU HEARD
FROM DR. POREMBA, YOU WILL HEAR
FROM DOCTORS MILLER AND
RIVERA-RENTAS.
THE PAGE INCLUDES LINKS TO BRAIN
INITIATIVE EVENTS AND RESOURCES.
FOR LATEST UPDATES FOLLOW US ON
TWITTER.
I'LL END BY HIGHLIGHTING A
COMING EVENT JOHN HAS MENTIONED,
8th ANNUAL MEETING JUNE 21-22,
WE WILL BE A HYBRID EVENT, JOIN
US VIRTUALLY OR IN PERSON.
NOW OPEN TO DR. ROGER MILLER TO
HIGHLIGHT BRAIN TEAM B.
>> MY PROGRAM AREA, I'D LIKE TO
SHOW SYNERGIES IN THE NEXT TWO
SLIDES, I'LL BE BRIEF, FIVE
MINUTES.
NEXT SIDE PLEASE.
THIS SLIDE SHOWS ENERGY BETWEEN
A U01 FROM BRAIN TO HENDERSON AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF STANFORD, AND
U01 TO THE SAME TEAM AT STANFORD
UNIVERSITY.
JOHN REFERRED TO SOME OF THE
GOALS OF THIS BRAIN-COMPUTER
INTERFACE IN EARLIER SLIDES.
THE DEVICE IS A SMALL IMPLANT, 4
MILLIMETERS SQUARE, SMALLER THAN
A BABY ASPIRIN, A BED OF NAILS,
EACH 1.5 MILLIMETERS LONG,
BARELY PENETRATES THE CORTICAL
SURFACE TO RECORD SPECIFIC
NEURAL ACTIVITY.
THE CABLE LEADS BACK TO A
CONNECTOR OUTSIDE THE SKULL,
PERCUTANEOUS, ELECTRONICS ARE
THERE, WORKS WELL FOR RESEARCH
STUDIES BECAUSE IT CAN BE
RECONFIGURED.
STUDIES ARE DONE UNDER EARLY
FEASIBILITY STUDY FROM FDA AND
THIS TYPE OF INVESTIGATIVE
DEVICE EXEMPTION ALLOWS LIMITED
CLINICAL USE OF A DEVICE IN
EARLIEST STAGES OF DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S LIMITED TO A SMALL NUMBER
OF SUBJECTS, IN THIS CASE 21
SUBJECTS ACROSS BRAIN GATE 2
STUDIES, THERE BE A NUMBER OF
THEM.
IT ALLOWS INVESTIGATORS TO
EVALUATE DIFFERENT DEVICE
DESIGNS FOR SAFETY AND
FUNCTIONALITY.
WE PLACED A DEVICE INTO A HUMAN
SUBJECT FOR A YEAR OR MORE WE
HAVE MANY YEARS OF SAFETY DATA
ACROSS SUBJECTS PENETRATING
DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CORTEX.
QUESTIONS ARISE ABOUT SPIKE
AMPLITUDE CHANGES, PLACEMENT,
HOW THIS CAN BE USED FOR
BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE, AND
WE'RE ADDRESSING THOSE
QUESTIONS, GOOD SYNERGY.
EARLY FEASIBILITY STUDY IDE
ALLOWS YOU TO GET DATA TO GUIDE
DEVICE MODIFICATION, DEVICE CAN
CHANGE WITH ELECTRONICS OUTSIDE
THE BODY THAT ALLOWS FOR CHANGE
AND IN THE CURRENT
IMPLEMENTATION THERE'S TWO
ELECTRODE ARRAYS, SMALLER STILL,
PLACED IN DIFFERENT REGIONS TO
COVER BROADER REGION.
TOP AWARD TO HENDERSON AND
SHENOY ELECTRODES IN THE HAND
REGION, AS JOHN ILLUSTRATED IN
HIS TALK, NIDCD U01 LOWER,
ARRAYS PLACED IN DIFFERENT
AREAS, AND GOAL WOULD BE THAT
YOU WOULD A DIRECT TO SPEECH
BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE.
WE'VE COLLABORATED AND HAVE A
SHARED BOARD.
THIS SHOWS SYNERGY FOR DISEASE
AGNOSTIC APPROACHES, AT THE TOP
AND BOTTOM.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
HERE'S A DIFFERENT BCI, PREVIOUS
BCI REQUIRED FENESTRATION,
PERCUTANEOUS CONNECTOR AND
ELECTRODES AT SURFACE, THIS USES
STENT APPROACH, IN THE DIAGRAM
ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE YOU SEE A
GRAY TUBE, THAT'S THE CATHETER
INTRODUCING LIGHTLY COLORED
MESH, THAT'S THE STENT
ELECTRODE, INTO A BLOOD VESSEL,
ON THE SURFACE OF THE CORTEX,
THAT CAN BE ANYWHERE.
THERE'S 16 ELECTRODES THAT CAN
PICK UP NOT ELECTRODE NEURAL
ACTIVITY FROM PENETRATING INTO
THE BRAIN BUT AT REGIONS, A
DIFFERENT APPROACH BUT TRYING TO
GET NEURAL ACTIVITY MODULATED BY
USER TO CREATE A BRAIN-COMPUTER
INTERFACE.
THIS AWARD TO DOUG WEBER, TO
PICK UP INTERFACE RELATED TO
DISCRETE ACTIONS, SUCH AS MENU
SELECTION, CLICK, ZOOM.
THE GOAL IS THAT THIS DEVICE CAN
BE USED IN A EARLY FEASIBILITY
STUDY WHICH WOULD FOLLOW FROM
THE UG3 AWARD, THE POINT TO GET
ALL THE PRELIMINARY DATA IN
PLACE, SUBMIT IDE APPLICATION TO
FDA, ILLUSTRATING A PARADIGM OF
BRAIN AWARDS, DIFFERENT
MECHANISMS, UNIQUE, DIFFERENT IN
CHARACTER FROM WHAT YOU'RE USED
TO FROM INVESTIGATOR INITIATED
R01, UG3s ARE COOPERATIVE,
HELPS INVESTIGATOR GET TO THE
POINT WHERE THEY CAN SUBMIT THE
IDE, UG 2, UG3 WILL TAKE YOU TO
THE POINT THEY CAN DO THE
CLINICAL TRIAL STUDIES.
THESE ARE TWO APPROACHES BOTH
FOR BRAIN-COMPUTER INTERFACE TO
SUPPORT COMMUNICATION BUT SHOWS
GOOD SYNERGY BETWEEN THE BRAIN
AWARDS AND NIDCD'S MISSION
AREAS.
I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER TO
INTRODUCE ALBERTO.
OR I CAN DO THAT.
>> YES PLEASE DO.
>> NEXT PRESENTATION FROM DR.
RIVERA-RENTAS, TEAM TIE.
>> OKAY.
RESEARCH TRAINING OFFICER, ALSO
MEMBER OF THE BRAIN TEAM TIE,
TRAINING INCLUSION AND EQUITY.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO THE NAME SAYS WE SUPPORT
EVERYTHING THAT IS ABOUT
TRAINING, IN ADDITION TO
PROGRAMS ALSO DO WORKSHOPS, ET
CETERA, TO PEOPLE TO BE AWARE
AND TO ENGAGE PEOPLE WE HAVE
BEEN FUNDING.
PRE-DOCTORAL LEVEL THANKS TO
EFFORTS FROM JOHN AND AGREEMENTS
WITH NIH BLUEPRINT WE
PARTICIPATE THROUGH "BRAIN" IN
THE DIVERSITY INITIATIVE,
DIVERSITY SPECIALIZED TO
POSTDOCTORAL ADVANCING
NEUROSCIENCE PROGRAM, F 99 K00
AWARD, TWO STAGE AWARD WHERE
DOCTORAL FELLOW GETS ONE OR TWO
YEARS OF PRE-DOCTORAL TRAINING,
FINISH THE DEGREE, MOVE INTO A
POSTDOCAL LEVEL, GO WITH THEIR
OWN MONEY FOR UP TO FOUR YEARS
OF FUNDING, IT'S A GREAT
PROGRAM.
MIMICKED BY OTHER INSTITUTES
AFTER THIS HAS STARTED AT THE
POSTDOCTORAL LEVEL WE HAVE THE
BRAIN INITIATIVE FELLOWS, 32
CONVENTIONAL POSTDOCAL
FELLOWSHIP, AND TRANSLATION
AWARDS, K 99 R00 TO PROMOTE
DIVERSITY, A TARGETED
INITIATIVE.
THESE ARE FOR BASED ON
DIVERSITY, SEVERAL CATEGORIES OF
RACE, ETHNICITY, DISABILITY,
DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS, ALSO
WOMEN OF THE POSTDOCTORAL AND
FACULTY LEVELS.
WE HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE IN 2020
HAVE A K99, AND IN 2021 DR.
HANSON IN THE CENSUS PORTFOLIO,
THIS YEAR DR. WOOD IN THE
HEARING AND BALANCE CENTRAL
AUDITORY RESEARCH PORTFOLIO SO
WE HAVE BEEN BENEFITING FROM
THESE PROGRAMS SIGNIFICANTLY.
LASTLY WE HAVE THE DIVERSITY
SUPPLEMENTS, THESE ARE
CONVENTIONAL DIVERSITY
SUPPLEMENTS FOR P.I.s THAT
ALREADY HAVE A BRAIN AWARD.
AND THEY APPLY THROUGH THE
CONVENTIONAL ANNOUNCEMENT.
THEY GET PRESENTED BY THE
PROGRAM OFFICERS AND WE HAVE
BEEN VERY SUPPORTIVE OF MANY OF
THEM SO WE MEET EVERY MONTH TO
INCREASE DISSEMINATION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU.
BACK TO YOU, AMY.
>> NOW DR. ANDREA
BECKEL-MITCHENER.
>> HI.
YES, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
>> YES.
>> GREAT.
WELL, I KNOW WE'RE RUNNING SHORT
ON TIME BUT LUCKILY MY
COLLEAGUES AND JOHN HAVE GIVEN
SUCH GREAT OVERVIEW I DON'T HAVE
TO SPENT A LOT OF TIME.
I JUST WANTED TO -- WE'RE HAPPY
TO BE HERE TO PRESENT A LITTLE
BIT MORE ON ONE OF THE NEW
THINGS, PLAN FOR ENHANCING
DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES.
I'M GOING TO SPEND THE MAJORITY
OF MY FEW MINUTES ON THAT.
I ALSO WANT TO MAKE THE POINT
BEFORE I START THAT BRAIN IS
REALLY ON THE FOREFRONT OF
INNOVATION, JOHN GAVE GREAT
EXAMPLES HOW INVESTIGATORS
FUNDED THROUGH THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE TACKLE THE MOST
CHALLENGING QUESTIONS IN
RESEARCH.
WE ALSO GOT A NICE OVERVIEW FROM
AMY ABOUT HOW WE'RE DOING THIS
DIFFERENTLY IN TERMS OF MANAGING
THE SCIENCE AND MANAGING THE
INITIATIVE WITH 120 OR 130 STAFF
ACROSS ALL TEN INSTITUTES THAT
SERVE AS MEMBERS OF THE PROJECT
TEAM IN SCIENCE, YOUR OWN GROUP
HERE, AMY, ROGER, ALBERTO, ARE
TERRIFIC PARTNERS IN THAT.
ONE OF THE OTHER MAJOR
CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE INTERESTED
IN ADDRESSING IS HOW DO WE
CHANGE THE CULTURE OF SCIENCE
AND CULTURE THAT NEUROSCIENCE IS
DONE, SO THAT'S WHERE MY TALK
REALLY IS SETTING THE STAGE FOR
THAT.
IT GOES BACK TO WHAT BRUCE
TALKED ABOUT EARLIER IN THE OPEN
SESSION THIS MORNING, SO WE'LL
BE TOUCHING ON SOME OF THOSE
THEMES.
SO, HAPPY TO BE HERE.
I THINK YOU CAN SEE MY SLIDES.
I WILL -- YEAH, THANK YOU.
I USED TO HAVE A QUOTE FROM A
SCIENTIST BUT THIS CAPTURES A
LOT OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO
WITH PLAN FOR ENHANCING DIVERSE
PERSPECTIVES.
MICHELLE OBAMA IN HER BOOK SAID
WHAT I KNOW FROM WORKING IN
PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTS IS
THAT SAMENESS BREEDS MORE
SAMENESS, UNTIL YOU MAKE A
THOUGHTFUL EFFORT TO COUNTERACT
IT, OUR STARTING POINT FOR WHAT
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW.
WE KNOW THAT SUPPORTING THE BEST
SCIENCE AND THROUGH THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE IS THAT WE WANT TO
SUPPORT AND PROMOTE THE BROADEST
PERSPECTIVES IN RESEARCH.
AND WE DO THAT ACROSS A VARIETY
OF PARAMETERS.
WE BELIEVE IN TRANSDISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH, MULTI-DISCIPLINARY
RESEARCH OF AWARDS,
COLLABORATIONS AMONG
NEUROSCIENTISTS AS WELL AS
INVESTIGATORS FROM A NUMBER OF
DIFFERENT FIELDS.
CAREER STAGE IS AN IMPORTANT
PART OF BRINGING IN DIVERSE
PERSPECTIVES, SENIOR SCIENTISTS,
LOTS OF TRAINEES, MORE JUNIOR
SCIENTISTS.
WE THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.
OBVIOUSLY RECRUITING AND
SUPPORTING FUNDING INDIVIDUALS
FROM DIVERSE BACKGROUNDS SUCH AS
THOSE TRADITIONALLY
UNDERREPRESENTED IN SCIENCE
INCLUDING THOSE FROM
DISADVANTAGED BACKGROUNDS AND
WOMEN.
THE INSTITUTION TYPE, A QUESTION
RAISED EARLIER, WE THINK IS VERY
IMPORTANT.
WE'RE LOOKING TO ENGAGE
DIFFERENT INSTITUTIONS AND
ORGANIZATIONS IN THE RESEARCH
THAT WE FUND, EVERYTHING FROM
THE RESEARCH INTENSIVE
INSTITUTIONS THAT EVERYBODY IS
FAMILIAR WITH TO UNDERGRADUATE
FOCUSED INSTITUTIONS, MINORITY
SERVING AND COMMUNITY BASED,
PROMOTING PARTNERSHIPS WITH
GEOGRAPHIC AND REGION NATURAL
HETEROGENEITY.
SO, AS JOHN MENTIONED WE'RE VERY
DATA DRIVEN AND ONE THING WE DO
EVERY YEAR IS COLLECT THE DATA
FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S AWARDS.
AND REALLY LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE
AREAS THAT I JUST MENTIONED.
SO I'M GOING TO GIVE A FEW
EXAMPLES, I WON'T SPEND A LOT OF
TIME, BUT FOR EXAMPLE WE LOOK AT
HOW MANY WOMEN WE'RE FUNDING
ACROSS THE PORTFOLIO KNOWING
THAT THEY ARE UNDERREPRESENTED
IN SCIENCE AND IN NEUROSCIENCE.
AND YOU CAN SEE OUR NUMBERS ARE
QUITE LOW.
INTERESTINGLY THOUGH WE DO NOT
SEE APPARENTLY A DISPARITY IN
THE AWARDS THAT ARE MADE.
SO THE DARKER BARS THERE WE'VE
DONE THIS ACROSS WOMEN, CONTACT
P.I.s, MULTI-P.I. APPLICATION,
FUNDING RATES SHOWN IN THE FINAL
PANEL.
ONE THING YOU'LL NOTICE, THE
PURPLISH DIAMOND HERE IS THE NIH
2019 DATA AT THE TIME FOR WOMEN
CONTACT P.I.s, THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE NOT DOING AS WELL
COMPARED TO REFERENCE POPULATION
AT THE NIH IN GENERAL.
AGAIN, WE'RE NOT SEEING
DISPARITY ACROSS AWARD RATES SO
WE'RE A LITTLE BITTEN -- A
LITTLE BIT ENCOURAGED BUT
NUMBERS ARE SMALL.
RACE AND ETHNICITY AWARD
AWARDEES, SLIGHTLY BETTER THAN
NIH AVERAGE BUT THESE DATA ARE
VERY NOISY.
WE HAVE A LOT OF UNKNOWNS IN
THIS CATEGORY SO WHILE WE CAN
MEASURE IT WE'RE NOT AT ALL
CONFIDENT.
WE KNOW OUR NUMBERS ARE VERY
LOW, THAT IS AN ISSUE.
MULTI-DISCIPLINARY, THERE'S TEAM
SCIENCE, WE LOOKED AT
COMPOSITION OF TEAMS.
MOST MULTI-P.I. TEAMS ARE MALE
AND NON-URM.
NOT SURPRISINGLY.
WE KNOW WE HAVE WORK TO DO.
A QUICK SUMMARY, WE DO
REASONABLY WELL WHEN LOOKING AT
DISCIPLINE OF THIS RESEARCHERS
THAT WE FUND, WE HAVE VERY LOW
NUMBERS OF UNDERREPRESENTED
GROUPS AND WOMEN RELATIVE TO NIH
AS A WHOLE, DATA ARE NOISY BUT
WE DON'T SEE ANY APPARENT
DISPARITY IN FUNDING RATE.
INSTITUTIONS, TAKE MY WORD FOR
IT, THE LINK WILL SHOW YOU ALL
THE DATA, MOST APPLICATIONS ARE
FROM AND MOST AWARDS GO TO
INSTITUTIONS THAT ARE LOCATED ON
THE COAST.
AND MOST OF OUR AWARDS GO TO
HIGHLY RESOURCED RESEARCH
INTENSIVE INSTITUTIONS,
PRIMARILY IN THREE STATES.
CALIFORNIA, NEW YORK,
MASSACHUSETTS.
AGAIN, NOT SURPRISING BUT ALSO
TOLD US WE HAD WORK TO DO.
I WON'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON
THIS BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY
UNDERSTANDS THE BENEFITS OF A
DIVERSE SCIENTIFIC WORKFORCE.
ALBERTO DID A WONDERFUL JOB ON
SOME DIVERSITY MECHANISMS SO I
WON'T GO INTO ANY DETAIL ON
THAT.
WE HAVE HAD SOME TARGETED
FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE
HOPE WILL HELP US IN SOME OF THE
AREAS THAT WE NEED ASSISTANCE
WITH AND EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THIS
RESOURCE GRANT, U24 FUNDING
OPPORTUNITY, WHERE WE TARGETED
FUNDING FACILITIES AT
MINORITY-SERVING INSTITUTIONS
AND IDeA STATE ELIGIBLE
INSTITUTIONS TRYING TO BE
INTENTIONAL AND THOUGHTFUL.
AND A NEW PROGRAM PROMOTING
INCLUSIVE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENTS
BY REQUIRING A PLAN FOR
ENHANCING DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES
IN FUNDING ANNOUNCEMENT.
SO, AGAIN, NOVEL APPROACH,
INNOVATIVE ACROSS NIH IN
GENERAL.
WHAT IS THIS?
WE'RE REQUIRING THAT ALL
APPLICATIONS FOR BRAIN
INITIATIVE FOAs INCLUDE PLAN
FOR ENHANCING DIVERSE
PERSPECTIVES, SHORT HAND IS PEDP
WHICH I WILL SAY FROM HERE ON
OUT INCLUDING STRATEGIES
INCLUDED IN RESEARCH STRATEGY,
MAIN BODY OF THE GRANT, AND ALSO
REQUIRES A ONE-PAGE SUMMARY TO
BE INCLUDED IN THOSE
APPLICATIONS.
IMPORTANTLY AND NEW TO THE
PROCESS IS THIS PLAN WILL BE
PART OF THE SCORED APPLICATION,
HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WHEN FUNDING
DECISIONS ARE BEING MADE.
WHY IS IT BEING IMPLEMENTED?
I JUST MENTIONED ALL OF THIS.
WE THINK DIVERSE TEAMS
OUTPERFORM HOMOGENOUS TEAMS.
WE'RE COMMITTED TO FOSTERING
INCLUSIVE RESEARCH CULTURE.
AND IT REPRESENTS AN EXPLICIT
ALIGNMENT OF THOSE VALUES AS
WELL AS THE PROCESS WHERE WE CAN
FUND -- - PUT THIS IN FUNDING
ANNOUNCEMENT, HAVE PEER REVIEW
TAKE A LOOK, CONSIDERED WITH
FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS AND
FUNDING DECISIONS, ALL OF WHICH
WE HOPE WILL EXPAND INCLUSIVITY
IN THE RESEARCH AREA.
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY DIVERSE PER
PERSPECTIVES, PEOPLE WHO DO THE
RESEARCH, WHO PARTICIPATE IN
RESEARCH AS PART OF A STUDY
POPULATION, I.E. HUMAN SUBJECTS,
AND FINALLY THE PLACES WHERE THE
RESEARCH IS DONE.
POTENTIAL STRATEGIES THAT AN
INVESTIGATOR MIGHT INCLUDE IN
GRANT APPLICATION ARE LISTED IN
THESE BULLET POINTS BUT THESE
ARE NOT EXHAUSTIVE IN ANY WAY,
SHAPE OR FORM.
AGAIN, INCLUSION OF WOMEN,
INDIVIDUALS FROM
UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS, KEY
PERSONNEL, PERHAPS TRAINING OR
MENTORING OPPORTUNITIES AN
INVESTIGATOR MIGHT PROMOTE,
DESCRIPTION OF PLANNED
PARTNERSHIPS THAT ENHANCE
GEOGRAPHIC HETEROGENEITY, ANY
CAREER ENHANCING OPPORTUNITIES
FOR EARLY OR MID-CAREER OR
TRAINEES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN
THE PROJECT.
ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO ADVANCE
TRANSDISCIPLINARY NATURE OF THE
RESEARCH.
ACTIVITIES THAT, AGAIN, HELP
WITH RECRUITMENT OF DIVERSE
RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS.
AND OUTREACH ACTIVITIES THAT MAY
ENGAGE SPECIFIC STAKEHOLDERS
THAT WOULDN'T OTHERWISE BE
INVOLVED, EDUCATORS, PATIENT
GROUPS, PATIENTS, POLICYMAKERS.
WHAT ARE KEY ELEMENTS?
WRITE APPLICATION, THERE WILL BE
SUMMARIZED STRATEGIES TO ADVANCE
SCIENTIFIC MERIT THROUGH
EXPANDED INCLUSIVITY.
WE ASKED THAT INVESTIGATOR
INCLUDE TIMELINE, MILESTONES,
BENCHMARKS FOR THE PEDP AS WELL
AS APPROACHES TO DISCUSSING
PROGRESS TOWARDS THOSE GOALS.
PEDP SHOULD REFLECT CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION HOW THESE
PERSPECTIVES WILL BENEFIT THE
PROJECT.
CONSIDERATIONS ARE INCLUDED IN
EACH OF THE SCORED REVIEW
CRITERIA, SO WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR,
SIG ADVANCE, INNOVATION,
INVESTIGATORS, APPROACH,
ENVIRONMENT.
THERE'S A PEDP-SPECIFIC QUESTION
UNDER EACH FOR ALL BRAIN FUNDING
ANNOUNCEMENTS.
AGAIN, MENTIONED WE'LL
CONTRIBUTE TO CRITERION SCORES
AS WELL AS OVERALL IMPACT SCORE
OF THE APPLICATION.
APPLICATIONS THAT DON'T HAVE A
PEDP ARE CONSIDERED INCOMPLETE
AND THEY HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN.
WE'VE HAD ONE EXAMPLE.
THANKFULLY NOT MANY BUT THERE
WAS ONE.
PEDP, HOW IT REVIEWED AS WELL
AS PART OF THE FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECISIONS
THAT GO TO LEADERSHIP.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT EACH PEDP
WILL VARY, DEPENDING ON THE
CONTENT AND STRUCTURE OF AIMS,
EXPERTISE REQUIRED, ENVIRONMENT,
PERFORMANCE, ET CETERA.
ALSO IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE WE
ARE THE FUNDING
ANNOUNCEMENT THAT INVESTIGATORS
CAN ASK FOR ALLOWABLE EXPENSES
ASSOCIATE ASSOCIATED WITH THE
PEDP AND ITS IMPLEMENTATION.
I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL, AS WE'VE
IMPLEMENTED, WE HAVE TRIED TO
CLEARLY DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THE
PEDP AND DO OUTREACH AND EDUCATE
STAKEHOLDERS AGAIN BY
DISSEMINATING INFORMATION
BROADLY, WE WANT THIS CONSISTENT
MESSAGE SO EVERYBODY IS ON THE
SAME PAGE, FACILITATING
CONSIDERATION OF THE PEDP
ELEMENT THROUGH PRE-AWARD AND
POST AWARD PROCESSES FOR
INTERNAL PROCESSES.
AND SO WHAT HAVE WE DONE?
LOTS OF GUIDANCE MATERIALS
AVAILABLE, WE HAVE IN PLANS A
WEBINAR, INCLUDED IT IN OTHER
INFORMATION THAT HAS GONE TO
REVIEWERS, FOR EXAMPLE.
WE'VE PUT OUT SOME PUBLICATIONS,
HAVE THIS COMMUNICATIONS
FRAMEWORK OUR COMMUNICATIONS
GROUP HAS WORKED ON.
AND WE HAVE UPDATED INTERNALLY
SOPs FOR BRAIN STAFF SO
THERE'S CONSISTENCY, UNIFORMITY
AS THEY CONSIDER THIS AND THEY
HAVE JUST RESPONDED IN AMAZING
WAYS.
EXAMPLES OF OUTREACH MATERIAL
WE'VE DEVELOPED.
YOU'LL GET A COPY OF THE SLIDES,
YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE A NOTICE OUT
IN THE GUIDE, JOHN PUT IT IN A
DIRECTOR'S MESSAGE.
WE HAD A PAPER OUT IN NEURON
LAST YEAR WHERE THE PEDP WAS
INCLUDED IN MUCH OF THE
INFORMATION YOU'RE SEEING HERE
IN THAT PAPER, LOTS OF TALKING
POINTS AND AN E-MAIL ACCOUNT SET
UP WHERE WE ANSWER QUESTIONS
FROM ANY INTERESTED PARTIES OR
APPLICANTS.
HERE IS A LIST OF THE FUNDING
ANNOUNCEMENTS ACTIVE OR HAVE
CLOSED FOR THE BRAIN INITIATIVE.
YOU'LL SEE A NUMBER OF
ANNOUNCEMENTS NOW.
WHAT WE'RE PROUD OF, PICKED UP
ACROSS NIH IN NON-BRAIN.
ON THE RIGHT PROGRAMS AND
INDIVIDUAL INSTITUTES THAT FELT
THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT ADDITION
FOR THEIR FUNDING OPPORTUNITIES
AS WELL.
YOU'LL SEE THE DOTTED SQUARE,
MAY MULTI-COUNCIL WORK GROUP
MEETING, WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF
MAKING FUNDING DECISIONS, AND
IT'S BEEN GRATIFYING TO SEE
CONTENT IN PEDPs, HOW
APPLICANTS CONCEIVED OF IT AND
HOW STAFF HAVE HELPED US
EVALUATE THOSE AND MAKE FUNDING
RECOMMENDATIONS ACCORDINGLY.
EVERY TIME LINE, THESE WERE THE
FIRST ONES THAT CAME IN,
PRESENTED AT OUR MAY COUNCIL
MEETING.
WE HAVE A NUMBER OF THEM THAT
ARE CONTINUING THROUGH AUGUST,
AND IN JANUARY AND BEYOND AS
NOTED THEY ARE NOW IN ALL OF OUR
FUNDING OPPORTUNITY
ANNOUNCEMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION
OF OUR TRAINING ANNOUNCEMENTS
WHERE WE DON'T THINK IT FITS
WELL FOR TRAINING.
THERE ARE DIVERSITY MECHANISMS
IN MANY OF THEM.
SO WE THINK EVALUATION IS AN
IMPORTANT COMPONENT OF THIS.
WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE
WHETHER WE ARE MOVING THE NEEDLE
IN ANY WAY.
WE HAVE A VERY LARGE EVALUATION
PLAN.
I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL BUT I
THINK YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE
SHORT-TERM, MEDIUM-TERM,
LONG-TERM GOALS THAT WE HAVE
OUTLINED.
WE HAVE VERY DEFINED METRICS AND
SO WE'RE MEASURING WHETHER WE
ARE GETTING -- HAVING AN IMPACT
IN THE SHORT TERM AND LONG TERM.
WE DON'T FLOW IF WE'RE GOING TO
BE ABLE TO MEASURE THE CULTURE
CHANGE, MAYBE FOR BRAIN
INITIATIVE BECAUSE WE'RE SUCH A
TIGHT GROUP AND WE CAN CONTROL
LOADS OF THINGS IN OUR FUNDING
ANNOUNCEMENTS BUT THERE'S SO
MUCH GOING ON IT'S NOT CLEAR WE
WOULD BE ABLE TO ATTRIBUTE ANY
CULTURE CHANGE TO THE PEDP
SPECIFICALLY.
WE'RE HOPING TO SEE OUR OWN
DATA, OWN DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THIS
PROGRAM.
SO IN CONCLUSION DIVERSITY AND
INCLUSIVITY ARE INTEGRAL TO
ENHANCING SCIENCE AND
INNOVATION, WE FEEL THAT
STRONGLY IN THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE, REQUIRES CONCERTED
EFFORT, INTENTIONAL EFFORT TO
CREATE RESEARCH ENVIRONMENTS,
AND HOPEFULLY NOW YOU UNDERSTAND
WE'RE COMMITTED AS AN INITIATIVE
AND WITH THE SUPPORT OF THE
STAFF AND LEADERSHIP AS WELL AS
APPLICANT AND GRANTEE COMMUNITY
WE'VE HAD SOME REALLY POSITIVE
FEEDBACK.
I WANT TO THANK PEOPLE, DR.
RICHARDSON AND CRAWFORD IN
PARTICULAR FOR THIS OF THE
SLIDES GENERATED FOR ME HERE,
RYAN IS AN INTEGRAL PART OF
THIS, DEVIN COLLECTED DATA, SO
MANY PEOPLE TO LIFT ACROSS NIH
AND LEADERSHIP.
VERY HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY
QUESTIONS OR TAKE COMMENTS OR
FEEDBACK.
>> THANK YOU FOR A REALLY
INFORMATIVE SESSION.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS?
WE HAVE TIME FOR JUST A LITTLE
BIT OF DISCUSSION IF ANYONE HAS
A QUESTION, HAPPY TO DISCUSS.
ALL RIGHT.
WELL, IF YOU DO HAVE QUESTIONS,
I THINK YOU KNOW WHERE TO REACH
US AND WE WOULD BE MORE THAN
HAPPY TO DISCUSS ANY OF THOSE.
AS YOU CAN TELL, THE NIDCD IS
HIGHLY INVESTED IN THE BRAIN
INITIATIVE, WE REALLY APPRECIATE
THE PARTNERSHIP OF JOHN AND
ANDREA, AND EVERYONE ELSE
INVOLVED.
AND WE ARE VERY ANXIOUS TO
LEVERAGE THIS OPPORTUNITY, EVEN
MORE THAN WE DO ALREADY, SO THIS
WAS A GREAT DISCUSSION AND VERY,
VERY INFORMATIVE.
I THINK THAT WE'RE RUNNING A
LITTLE BIT LATER.
OH, YES, THANK YOU TO THE
INTERPRETERS.
THE INTERPRETERS REALLY MADE
THIS MEETING ACCESSIBLE FOR MANY
AND WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE YOUR
EFFORTS.
AND THANKS TO EVERYONE, BECKY
AND GINGER AND OUR WHOLE STAFF
THAT MADE THIS A REALLY
EXCEPTIONAL MEETING I THINK.
THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY.
THANK YOU TO OUR COUNCIL
MEMBERS.
AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORK
VERY, VERY MUCH AND LOOK FORWARD
TO SEEING YOU HOPEFULLY IN
PERSON IN SEPTEMBER.
PLEASE REACH OUT FOR ANY
INFORMATION, ANYTHING THAT WE
CAN ANSWER FOR YOU.
SO THANKS TO EVERYONE.
ALL RIGHT.
TAKE CARE.