A SMART Plan for New Investigators

It is encouraging to note that NIH has chosen to focus on funding “new” investigators ([ 1 ][1]). However, I foresee some dangers in the specific means adopted (“Grants ‘below payline’ rise to help new investigators,” J. Kaiser, News of the Week, 25 September, p. [1607][2]). Increasing the grants funded below the quality cutoff to nearly one-fifth of all funded grants will not serve the goal of helping new investigators. If such applicants are not held to the stringent process of producing a grant that meets R01 quality requirements, what will happen to them when they are no longer new investigators and are then subject to the same rigors as the rest of the field? How will they have learned the science and craft of grant preparation? The (indirect) quota practice compromises scientific quality in favor of age, gender, and other subsidiary criteria. This practice is reminiscent of the R23 and its replacement, the R29 First Independent Research Support and Transition (FIRST) award ([ 2 ][3]). However, these two early-investigator programs were discontinued by NIH because of unacceptable differences between these awards and R01s, including evidence that awardees of the R29 were less likely to secure subsequent R01 funding than were early-career investigators starting with an R01. The R29 mechanism was also under-resourced ([ 3 ][4]). Grant writing is an academic skill that we mostly learn from the grant peer-review system. If compromised, the NIH system will slip in overall quality. Senior faculty often contract junior faculty to conduct at least part of their research. Instead of providing special funding directly to new faculty, we should make sure that they receive sufficient mentoring as they work on the projects of more experienced investigators. I propose a new type of grant: the Senior Mentor-initiated Academic Research Training (SMART) award. To obtain this funding, senior faculty must apply to recruit junior faculty or new investigators and groom them for future independent work. If the university or the equivalent research institute provides a fostering environment and scientific resources, NIH should match the SMART funding. In this way the grant could be used to better new scientists, with the help of senior faculty, instead of representing just another revenue-generating scheme for institutions. 1. [↵][5] 1. J. Kaiser , Science 322, 834 (2008). [OpenUrl][6][Abstract/FREE Full Text][7] 2. [↵][8] NIH Guide Notice, Vol. 26, No. 38 (21 November 1997); . 3. [↵][9] NIH 2007–2008 Peer Review Self-Study Final Draft (29 February 2008); . [1]: #ref-1 [2]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.325_1607 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft.stitle%253DScience%26rft.issn%253D0036-8075%26rft.aulast%253DKaiser%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%26rft.volume%253D322%26rft.issue%253D5903%26rft.spage%253D834%26rft.epage%253D835%26rft.atitle%253DNATIONAL%2BINSTITUTES%2BOF%2BHEALTH%253A%2BZerhouni%2527s%2BParting%2BMessage%253A%2BMake%2BRoom%2Bfor%2BYoung%2BScientists%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.322.5903.834%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F18988813%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [7]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEyOiIzMjIvNTkwMy84MzQiO3M6NDoiYXRvbSI7czoyNDoiL3NjaS8zMjYvNTk1NS85MzUuMy5hdG9tIjt9czo4OiJmcmFnbWVudCI7czowOiIiO30= [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2 in text" [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3 in text"