Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 114, Issue 25, 2017, Pages 6498-6503

  Levitt, Michael ^a   Levitt, Jonathan M ^b  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WOLVERHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Age related bias; Early stage investigators; Independence; Mentoring

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; FUNDING; FUTUROLOGY; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; MEDICAL SCHOOL; MENTORING; MIDDLE AGED; POLICY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENTIST; UNITED STATES; ECONOMICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; NATIONAL HEALTH ORGANIZATION; PERSONNEL; UNIVERSITY;

ADULT; BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; FACULTY; FINANCING, ORGANIZED; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (U.S.); RESEARCH PERSONNEL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 85021051909     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1609996114     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Kaiser J (2008) Biomedical research. The graying of NIH research. Science 322: 848-849.
2. Alexander H, Liu CQ (2009) The aging of full-Time U.S. medical school faculty: 1967-2007. AAMC Analysis in Brief 9:1-12.
3. Matthews KRW, Calhoun KM, Lo N, Ho V (2011) The aging of biomedical research in the United States. PLoS One 6:e29738.
4. White JC, Rush M, Schaffer WT (June 14, 2009) Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD).
5. Arbesman S, Wray K (2013) Demographics and the fate of the young scientist. Soc Stud Sci 43:282-286.
6. LaBeaud AD, McKeating H (2013) The largest drought in American history: Funding for science is drying up. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 7:e2351.
7. Harris A (October 3, 2014) Young, brilliant and underfunded. NY Times, Section A, p 27.
8. Kaiser J (2014) Biomedical research. A call for NIH youth movement. Science 346: 150-151.
9. Daniels RJ (2015) A generation at risk: Young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:313-318.
10. Jones BF (2010) Age and great invention. Rev Econ Stat 92:1-14.
11. Liu C, Alexander H (2011) The changing demographics of full-Time U.S. medical school faculty, 1966-2009. Analysis in Brief 11:1-2.
12. Jones BF, Weinberg BA (2011) Age dynamics in scientific creativity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 108:18910-18914.
13. Levine AS, et al. (2015) Research in academic medical centers: Two threats to sustainable support. Sci Transl Med 7:289fs22.
14. DrugMonkey (March 25, 2014) The K99/R00 is not some sort of unfair distortion of the academic job market. Available at drugmonkey.scientopia.org/2014/03/25/the-k99r00-isnot-some-sort-of-unfair-distortion-of-The-Academic-job-market/. Accessed May 14, 2017.
15. Pool LR, et al. (2016) Size and characteristics of the biomedical research workforce associated with U.S. National Institutes of Health extramural grants. FASEB J 30:1023-1036.
16. Rockey SJ (February 3, 2012) Our commitment to supporting the next generation. Rock Talk. Available at https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/03/our-commitment-Tosupporting-The-next-generation/. Accessed May 14, 2017.
17. Califf RM, et al. (2014) Physician-Scientist Workforce (PSW) Report. Available at https://report.nih.gov/workforce/psw/appendix-iv-A1-1.aspx. Accessed May 14, 2017.
18. Tilghman SM, et al. (1994) The Funding of Young Investigators in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences (National Research Council, Washington, DC).
19. Holden C (2008) The incredible aging investigator. Science 319:391.
20. Kaiser J (2008) National Institutes of Health. Zerhouni's parting message: Make room for young scientists. Science 322:834-835.
21. Gingras Y, Larivière V, Macaluso B, Robitaille JP (2008) The effects of aging on researchers' publication and citation patterns. PLoS One 3:e4048.
22. Schafer AI (2010) The vanishing physician-scientist? Transl Res 155:1-2.
23. Adams CW (1946) The age at which scientists do their best work. Isis 36:166-169.
24. Godin B (2006) On the origins of bibliometrics. Scientometrics 68:109-133.
25. Rockey SJ (February 13, 2012) Age distribution of NIH principal investigators and medical school faculty. Rock Talk. Available at https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2012/02/13/age-distributionof-nih-principal-investigators-And-medical-school-faculty/. Accessed May 14, 2017.
26. Shaffer WA (2012) Age Distribution-AAMC Medical School Faculty and NIH R01 Principal Investigators. Available at https://report.nih.gov/UploadDocs/age-distribution-Aamc-faculty-And-nih-r01-1980-To-2010.ppt). Accessed May 14, 2017.
27. National Institutes of Health (2016) NIH New and Early Stage Investigator Policies. Available at https://grants.nih.gov/policy/new-investigators/index.htm. Accessed May 14, 2017.
28. Moses H, 3rd, Martin JB (2011) Biomedical research and health advances. N Engl J Med 364:567-571.
29. Press WH (2013) Presidential address. What's so special about science (and how much should we spend on it?). Science 342:817-822.
30. Tessier-Lavigne M, Vagelos PR, Zerhouni E (March 6, 2013) Legendary drug industry executives warn U.S. science cuts endanger the future. Forbes. Available at https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/03/06/drug-industry-greats-say-The-u-s-mustreverse-The-cuts-To-our-investment-in-science/#4e8899d23d3e. Accessed May 14, 2017.
31. Williams RS, Lotia S, Holloway AK, Pico AR (2015) From scientific discovery to cures: Bright stars within a galaxy. Cell 163:21-23.
32. Stephan P, Ma J (2005) The increased frequency and duration of the postdoctorate career stage. Am Econ Rev 95:71-75.
33. Berg J (September 27, 2010) Measuring the scientific output and impact of NIGMS grants. Feedback Loop. Available at https://loop.nigms.nih.gov/2010/09/measuringthe-scientific-output-And-impact-of-nigms-grants/. Accessed May 14, 2017.
34. Lorsch JR (2015) Maximizing the return on taxpayers' investments in fundamental biomedical research. Mol Biol Cell 26:1578-1582.
35. Doyle JM, et al. (2015) Association of percentile ranking with citation impact and productivity in a large cohort of de novo NIMH-funded R01 grants. Mol Psychiatry 20:1030-1036.
36. Li D, Agha L (2015) Research funding. Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? Science 348:434-438.
37. Mervis J (2015) Scientific publishing. NIH's peer review stands up to scrutiny. Science 348:384.
38. Lauer MS, Danthi NS, Kaltman J, Wu C (2015) Predicting productivity returns on investment: Thirty years of peer review, grant funding, and publication of highly cited papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Circ Res 117:239-243.
39. Fang FC, Bowen A, Casadevall A (2016) NIH peer review percentile scores are poorly predictive of grant productivity. eLife 5:e13323.
40. National Research Council; Committee on Bridges to Independence: Identifying Opportunities for and Challenges to Fostering the Independence of Young Investigators in the Life Sciences (2005) Bridges to Independence: Fostering the Independence of New Investigators in Biomedical Research (National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
41. National Research Council (2011) Research Training in the Biomedical, Behavioral, and Clinical Research Sciences (National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
42. Bourne HR (2013) A fair deal for PhD students and postdocs. eLife 2:e01139.
43. Rockey SJ (2014) Mentorship matters for the biomedical workforce. Nat Med 20:575.
44. Powell K (2015) The future of the postdoc. Nature 520:144-147.
45. Tilghman SM, et al. (2012) Biomedical Research Workforce Working Group Report. Available at https://acd.od.nih.gov/biomedical-research-wgreport.pdf. Accessed May 14, 2017.
46. Korn D, et al. (2002) Science policy. The NIH budget in the "postdoubling" era. Science 296:1401-1402.
47. Pickett CL, Corb BW, Matthews CR, Sundquist WI, Berg JM (2015) Toward a sustainable biomedical research enterprise: Finding consensus and implementing recommendations. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:10832-10836.
48. Preusch PC (2015) Three new grant programs offered by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences. J Biomol Struct Dyn 33:1-2.
49. Kaiser J (2016) No-strings awards at NIH draw concern. Science 352:20.
50. Deng B (2015) NIH ponders "emeritus grants." Nature 518:146-147.
51. Kimble J, et al. (2015) Strategies from UW-Madison for rescuing biomedical research in the US. eLife 4:e09305.
52. Costello LC (2010) Perspective: Is NIH funding the "best science by the best scientists"? A critique of the NIH R01 research grant review policies. Acad Med 85:775-779.
53. Azoulay P, Graff Zivin JS, Manso G (2013) National Institutes of Health peer review: Challenges and avenues for reform. Innov Policy Econ 13:1-22.
54. Day TE (2015) The big consequences of small biases: A simulation of peer review. Res Policy 44:1266-1270.
55. Alberts BM (1985) Limits to growth: In biology, small science is good science. Cell 41: 337-338.
56. Lauer MS (2014) Personal reflections on big science, small science, or the right mix. Circ Res 114:1080-1082.
57. Cook I, Grange S, Eyre-Walker A (2015) Research groups: How big should they be? PeerJ 3:e812v1.
58. Zerhouni EA (2006) Research funding. NIH in the post-doubling era: Realities and strategies. Science 314:1088-1090.
59. Kaiser J (2009) Biomedical research. Rejecting "big science" tag, Collins sets five themes for NIH. Science 325:927.
60. Collins FS (2010) Research agenda. Opportunities for research and NIH. Science 327: 36-37.
61. Collins FS, et al. (2016) Basic science: Bedrock of progress. Science 351:1405.
62. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H (2014) Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 111:5773-5777.
63. Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H (2015) Opinion: Addressing systemic problems in the biomedical research enterprise. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 112:1912-1913.
64. Roser M (2016) Life Expectancy. Available at https://ourworldindata.org/lifeexpectancy/. Accessed May 14, 2017.
65. Ashenfelter O, Card D (2002) Did the elimination of mandatory retirement affect faculty retirement? Am Econ Rev 92:957-980.