# Presentation: 915891

## 	Innovative and Transformative Research

*	**Grant Formats and Review Mechanisms** *
*	****Innovative and Transformative Research***

*Keith R. Yamamoto*
*UCSF*
*yamamoto@medsch.ucsf.edu*
*NIH Peer Review Advisory Committee*
*August 28, 2006*

## The only possible source for adequate support of our medical schools and medical research is the taxing power of the Federal Government.  ...such a program must assure complete freedom for the institutions and the individual scientists in developing and conducting their research work.

- Surgeon General Thomas Parran
- 		December 1945

## The only possible source for adequate support of our medical schools and medical research is the taxing power of the Federal Government.  ...such a program must assure complete freedom for the institutions and the individual scientists in developing and conducting their research work.

- Surgeon General Thomas Parran
- 		December 1945

- Discovery and innovation are to some extent taking place in spite of, rather than because of, the current policies and practices of major biomedical funding agencies.
- 				       Tom Cech
- 				         2005

## How NIH review mechanisms may impede 

*How NIH review mechanisms may impede *
*discovery and innovation*
*Study sections, panels of experts, carry out the review*
**  **groups achieve consensus by adopting compromise positions
**  **acknowledged experts have a stake in defending the prevailing paradigm
-    *“**They have the power to choke their challengers by cutting off their *
*     **supply of funding.”**	**     -- Gerald Pollack, Univ. Washington*

*NIH grants focus on research projects, not investigators*
**  **places emphasis on experimental detail and preliminary data
**  **reviewers must predict likelihood of specific experiments to work
-   reduces consideration of past performance or level of promise of
-      investigator

*Numerical score is computed as average of all panelist scores*
-   primary and secondary reviewers have dominant influence on scoring
-   scores cluster close to perceived payline; invites “blackball” scoring
-   highly sensitive to concern or criticism, making system failure-averse

## The current NIH review and funding mechanisms thus appear to be normalized (pegged to prevailing paradigms) and encrypted (consensus work is proposed and funded, and innovative/transformative work is performed)

_***The Challenge:***_  Devise an NIH review and funding mechanism that fosters and nurtures the best research—research that achieves rapid and significant progress,
*and* that creates quantum leaps in knowledge and understanding.  [Note the *scaling problem:*  80,000 applications per year, 18,000 reviewers]

## Two desirable types of research

***Innovative***		new
- 				original
- 				inventive
- 				pioneering
- 				advances/shifts paradigm
- 				evolutionary

***Transformative*****	**revolutionary
- 				creates new field
- 				synthesizes new paradigm **	**

**Proposal:  **
**Two-track system; investigator selects track**

## NIH Innovative Research Awards

- Very large program
- Project-focused, 7 page proposal, new format
- Explicit focus on innovation; de-emphasize preliminary results
- Increased focus on investigator
- Proposals are ranked, not scored (Ken Dill, Deep Innovation Grants for NIH)

- _Proposal_
- Statement of question/issue to be approached (w/ Background):  1 page
- Specific aims:  1 page
- Impact of achieving aims:  0.5 page
- Approaches (w/ progress and preliminary results):  4 pages
- Innovation of concept or approach: 0.5 page **	**

- _Biosketch_
- Publications, *up to: * 5 most relevant; 5 most significant; 5 most recent
- Qualifications of investigator for this proposal:  0.5 page **	**

- _Reviews_
- 5-6 per proposal; address criteria; 1 page maximum **	**

## NIH Transformative Research Awards

-  Very small program; outgrowth of Pioneer Program (NDPA)
-  Investigator-focused, 3-5 page essay
-  Explicit focus on revolutionary concepts and approaches
-  Evidence that investigator is explorer, discoverer
-  Candidates are ranked, *independently, *by highly selected
- 	generalists (paradigm standard-bearers are excluded; Gerald Pollack,
- 	Challenges to Existing Scientific Orthodoxies)
-  Finalists are interviewed to select awardees
-  Highly prestigious; well-supported at appropriate level
-  Ten year awards; few reporting requirements

- _NDPA applications: self-limiting to reasonable numbers_
- 2004:  1400 applications, 9 awards
- 2005:  840 applications, 13 awards, 6 to asst or assoc profs
- 2006:  470 applications, 7-10 awards expected
-  **	**

## Assessing outcomes: Transformative Research Awards

-  Control groups:
- 	1.  Interviewees not awarded
- 	2.  Applicants highly rated but not interviewed
-  Track 10 years after award
-  Criteria:
- 	not limited to conventional standards
- 	not limited to essay topic
- 	“revolutionary” impact of contributions

## We can and should develop mechanisms that actively nurture innovative and transformative research. 

- Discovery and innovation are to some extent taking place in spite of, rather than because of, the current policies and practices of major biomedical funding agencies. 			      Tom Cech
- 				        HHMI

- One does not propose transformative research to NSF or NIH.  Such proposals are usually dead on arrival.
- 				       Erich Jarvis
- 				         Northwestern Univ.

- We can and should develop mechanisms that actively nurture innovative and transformative research.