Money from the federal National Institutes of Health is the lifeblood of health science research at universities like Kansas University.

Getting that money, though, as a young researcher can be daunting, requiring hours and hours of time. And even then, success comes to perhaps as few as 10 percent of the applicants.

That has university researchers concerned, and the NIH is responding with what is being called the most comprehensive self-examination in the organization’s history.

“At KU, we’ve been really fortunate in recruiting a lot of bright, new investigators over the past few years,” said Peter Smith, professor of molecular and integrated physiology and director of the intellectual and developmental disabilities research center at Kansas University Medical Center. “We’re very invested in making sure they’re successful. They’re our future.”

Growing difficulties

Smith said researchers everywhere have been paying careful attention to the NIH review. He said that the number of applications, which has grown dramatically over the past 10 years, has made it difficult to discuss the merits of individual proposals.

“That makes it difficult, particularly for new investigators, to make it through the process,” Smith said.

At KU, Smith said, there are a number of existing programs that benefit younger faculty – mentoring, seed money, etc. – but with KU having recruited many new researchers, the university would benefit from NIH altering its processes to give extra credit to young faculty.

Emily Scott, an assistant professor of medicinal chemistry, has been at KU for three years. Though she received her first NIH grants shortly after her arrival, she can tell stories of colleagues who are not so fortunate.

“I know one person who recently received a large federal grant – not from NIH,” Scott said. “She’d already decided to leave science and said she’s already out of the business.”

Scott said that applying and re-applying for grants can consume an inordinate amount of time – time they could spend on science. When the NIH sent out a request for comments on the process over the summer, Scott took the initiative and sent her critique of the way grants are given.

Scott, who received her doctoral degree from Rice University, said funds earmarked exclusively for young researchers – perhaps with a training component built in – can be useful in getting new researchers off the ground and on the road to competing on a level field.

“Something needs to change,” Scott said. “I have a number of peer colleagues who have exciting, intriguing projects that will move forward human health, but they’re not getting funded and sometimes not even getting good reviews back.”

Possible solutions

It’s not that NIH doesn’t do anything for those first starting out – but perhaps not enough.

“It does seem like some kind of emphasis on funding junior investigators is needed. I fear that we might have a gap in the pipeline,” Scott said. “There are a number of investigators now that, if they don’t receive NIH funding in the near future, will be leaving science.”

John Stanford, an assistant professor of molecular and integrative physiology at KUMC, has been on the receiving end of one of the existing opportunities.

He received a career development award targeted at those who’ve never received a traditional NIH grant. He also has received funds from KUMC to get his lab off the ground. But that doesn’t mean he’s disinterested in the problem.

“Everyone is concerned about this, as am I,” Stanford said. “These grants I have are for a determined amount of time. Not only are you trying to get your research funded, you’re also trying to look ahead to get your funding extended past the endpoint of the grant.”

When his grants are exhausted, Stanford said, he’ll still be at a disadvantage to some of the most established researchers. They have decades of data and results in hand while he may have one project to hold up as an example of what he can do.

Stanford said in his mind, another major problem with the NIH process is how long it can take to receive funding. The process can take as much as a year from when the grant application is submitted and funding is started.

“And yet, I’m not sure how they’re going to address that, given that the number of applicants keep increasing and the success level decreases,” Stanford said. “I’m not sure how they’re going to address that.”