Toward Independence: Resubmission Rate of Unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 Research Grant Applications Among Early Stage Investigators

Abstract

Purpose: The current, budget-driven low rate of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for biomedical research has raised concerns about new investigators' ability to become independent scientists and their willingness to persist in efforts to secure funding. The authors sought to determine resubmission rates for unfunded National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) early stage investigator (ESI) independent research grant (R01) applications and to identify resubmission predictors.

Method: The authors used a retrospective cohort study design and retrieved applications submitted in fiscal years 2010-2012 from NIH electronic research administrative sources. They defined ESI applicants as those who have received no prior R01 (or equivalent) funding and are within 10 years of completion of their terminal research degree or medical residency training. ESI applications at the NHLBI were eligible for special funding consideration if they scored above, but within 10 points of, the payline. The primary outcome was application resubmission after failing to secure funding with the first R01 submission.

Results: Over half of the unfunded applications were resubmitted. Some of these were discussed and "percentiled." Among percentiled applications, the only significant predictor of resubmission was the percentile score. Over half (59%) of the ESI R01 grants funded by NHLBI in fiscal years 2010-2012 had percentile scores above but within 10 points of the NHLBI payline, and benefited from the special funding considerations.

Conclusions: The only independent predictor of resubmission of NHLBI ESI R01 grant applications was percentile score; applicant demographics and institutional factors were not predictive of resubmission.

Figure 1

Variable importance and probability of resubmission for all National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) FY 2010–2012 early stage investigator unfunded A0 R01 application, by applicant-, application- and institution-based factors. Source: National Institutes of Health (NIH) Information for Management, Planning, and Coordination II (IMPAC II) database. Approach, Investigator, Significance, Innovation, and Environment are the five peer reviewed criterion on which NIH grant applications are scored. Requested budget is the total budget requested in an application. FY is the fiscal year in which the application was reviewed. F-grant indicates fellowship training grant award; K-award indicates career development grant awards; and T-grant means training grant award. ICR indicates “Initial Council Review” (the NIH institutes generally make grant-funding decisions after grants have been presented at one of their advisory council meetings). SEP indicates a “Special Emphasis Panel,” which is a review group set up to conduct a one-time review of grants; RPG indicates “Research project grant,” which is an award that supports scientific research projects. NIH institutional rank is the rank quintile in which an institutions falls, based on the total amount of funds received from NIH in the last 5 years.

Figure 2

Variable importance and probability of resubmission for discussed and percentiled National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) FY 2010–2012 early stage investigator unfunded A0 R01 application, by grant-, application- and institution-based factors. Source: National Institutes of Health (NIH) Information for Management, Planning, and Coordination II (IMPAC II) database. Approach, Investigator, Significance, Innovation, and Environment are the five peer reviewed criterion on which NIH grant applications are scored. Requested budget is the total budget requested in an application. FY is the fiscal year in which the application was reviewed. F-grant indicates fellowship training grant; K-award indicates career development grant award; and T-grant means training grant. ICR indicates “Initial Council Review” (the NIH institutes generally make grant funding decisions after grants have been presented at one of their advisory council meetings). SEP indicates a “Special Emphasis Panel,” which is a review group set up to conduct a one-time review of grants. RPG indicates “research project grant,” which is an award that supports scientific research projects. Payline is the cutoff point set by NHLBI for funding grant applications, after balancing projected grant numbers, total grant budgets, and funds available. Distance from payline, a derived variable, is the calculated distance of the difference between the overall impact score and the payline operative at the time funding decisions are made. NIH Institutional Rank is the rank quintile in which an institutions falls based on the total amount of funds received from NIH in the last 5 years.

Figure 3

RandomForest Adjusted probability of resubmission for percentiled grants according to distance from payline. The shaded space connotes the confidence interval of the points in the plotted line.