NIH Research Training Needs Overhaul, Experts Say
The system used by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to set the nation's research agenda is in desperate need of a “jump start,” a panel of esteemed biomedical researchers has declared.
That system channels most research grants to senior researchers and thus discourages innovative work and ideas by young postdoctoral investigators. One of the troubling results, the group said, is that risk taking is frowned upon.
The future of America's biomedical establishment does not have to be bleak, however, if NIH takes steps now to reform the criteria it uses to approve grants for new investigators.
A report issued in March by the National Council of Research, an agency of the National Academy of Sciences, recommends a multipronged strategy for reversing a trend that has been years in the making. The council added that some of the recommendations have been suggested in past reports but that NIH has not acted on them.
The current system puts “too much emphasis on the number of papers published [and] too little on whether really important problems [are] even being tackled,” the report emphasized. What is sorely needed is the development of career paths that provide young researchers with greater opportunities for independence. “Simply put, there are not enough tenure-track academic positions for the available pool of biomedical researchers.”
The report noted that while “NIH has significant responsibility for the current state of affairs,” it also has the ability “to help reverse the increasing age of [research] independence.” It cannot take corrective action in isolation, and other stakeholders such as academia, professional societies, and funding agencies will also need to act on the recommendations, according to the panel.
“The status quo will certainly not do: it is well past time for our scientific leadership to be bold in ensuring the future of our nation's remarkably successful biomedical research system,” the report stated.
Here are some of the National Research Council's key recommendations:
NIH should enforce a five-year limit on use of grants and other funding mechanisms to support postdoctoral researchers. Those researchers should transition to independent staff scientists after five years. | |||||
Postdoctoral researchers should be more independent, with reduced dependence on principal investigators' research grants. | |||||
NIH should modify its applications for postdoctoral research positions to include a description of how successful applicants' training will prepare them for independent careers. | |||||
Postdoctoral researchers should receive improved career advising, mentoring, and skills training, including in such areas as project management and grant writing. | |||||
NIH should establish a program to promote innovative research by scientists transitioning into their first independent positions. This would include availability of research grants large enough to allow promising scientists to initiate independent research projects and take some risks in those projects. | |||||
NIH should establish new grants of less than $100,000 a year for small research studies open to scientists who don't have principal-investigator status on another significant research grant. | |||||
NIH should develop enhanced data-collection systems on postdoctoral and other nontenure-track researchers to help the agency track the effectiveness of its programs and make better-informed programmatic decisions. | |||||
Each year that passes without such reforms affects the future of“ tens of thousands of scientists already pursuing biomedical careers and untold numbers of those who might have pursued such a career,” the report concluded. ▪
