|
Vol. 36, No. 7 - July 2009
Office of Research Development and Administration
Editor: Joel Fritzler
CONTENTS
As of July 1, 2009, due to budget cutbacks, if a PI requests ORDA to mail their proposal, whether first class or FedEx, the PI needs to provide ORDA with an account number to charge the postage. ORDA still requires two working days of lead time.
—from Nature, May 28, 2009
An international annual survey has found that the United States is expected to increase its lead in biotechnology. U.K. law firm Marks & Clerk polled 365 executives in the drug, biotechnology, higher-education and venture-capital sectors. President Barack Obama's initiatives will boost the U.S. position as a centre for the industry, said 85%. This threatens the role of Europe, despite problems in U.S. biotech. Co-author Paul Chapman, a partner in the firm, says the U.S. is showing new support for regenerative medicine and potential acceptance of stem-cell research. "Europe and the U.K. cannot afford to watch from the sidelines," he says in the report.
—excerpted from Science, May 22, 2009
Culturing immortalized human cell lines for microRNA studies had been a routine procedure in Xi Jianzhong's lab at Peking University. Then last June, something went wrong. Time after time, black spots appeared in the flasks and the cells died within a week. Xi, a biomedical engineer, spent the rest of 2008 trying to figure out why his team's experiments were failing. He finally got a tip that a cell growth medium his lab was using—Dulbecco's Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM)—lmight be bogus. "DMEM is so basic that we never suspected it could have problems," says Xi. Sure enough, after obtaining a fresh batch from a well-known distributor, the cell lines grew without a hitch.
After Xi learned that many colleagues had also been victimized but kept quiet about their experiences, he contacted ScienceNet.cn, a web site for China's scientific community. In an online survey conducted with the biweekly magazine Science News, more than half of the nearly 500 respondents reported run-ins with fake reagents, according to results posted on ScienceNet.cn on 29 April.
Legitimate companies say there is little they can do about the bad apples. "It is a widespread concern throughout the life science and other industries in China," says Johnson Ho, president for Greater China at Life Technologies, based in Foster City, California. Invitrogen, a division of Life Technologies, discovered that some of its products had been counterfeited and created a list of authorized distributors.
Counterfeits are not limited to Invitrogen products. In recent years, others have reported fake enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kits and ovalbumin products. More than time or money may be at stake, says Huang. If Chinese researchers were to publish spurious results because of fake reagents, he says, "we could lose our credibility as scientists."
—excerpted from The Chronicle of Higher Education, May 22, 2009. For the full article, see http://chronicle.com/weekly/v55/i37/37a02801.htm.
When [President Barack] Obama said, "We will restore science to its rightful place," the scientific community gave itself a collective high-five. The stimulus package contains major investments in scientific research that we have not witnessed for decades. And yet, while I am hopeful about those changes, as a scientist I feel obligated to ask: Is the science community ready to capitalize on this coming renaissance?
With science receiving more money, it behooves scientists to reflect upon how we study and practice our fields. To maximize our effectiveness, we must dismantle the tradition within the science disciplines of dividing scholarship into two major pillars, basic and applied. If the scientific community can bridge the divide between those two approaches, then our scholarship, our community, and our world will be better for it.
What is the difference between basic and applied science? The term basic research is used to imply fundamental work, involving analytic theoretical investigations to reveal new physics, or experimental characterization to elucidate new phenomena, and a number of other approaches. The term is used in the "discipline" sciences, namely math, physics, chemistry, and biology. Applied research refers to work carried out in engineering departments. Generally speaking, basic research deepens and expands scientific understanding, while applied research focuses on utility.
Traditionally, scientists who practice those two kinds of research have looked down on each other. Basic researchers will not do applied work because they think it is "not deep enough," and applied researchers will not do fundamental work because they consider it "not real enough." Exacerbating the matter, departments tend to segregate the basic and applied disciplines. Too often the chemistry department works independently of the chemical-engineering department.
More and more, we are recognizing great opportunities to develop new and creative ideas at intersections between disciplines. Physicists participate in this exciting era of advances in biology, from understanding protein folding to developing new anti-cancer drugs. Mathematicians work with chemists for a focus on applications, like the design of new molecules. And biologists draw new connections to chemistry and physics at the atomic scale. Yet today's interdisciplinary approach is still not as evolved as we need it to be to solve today's problems.
To meet our global needs we will require (1) advances in our understanding of the basic properties and mechanisms that make materials do what they do, and (2) ways to make new materials and increase our manufacturing to a level that can make a difference on a worldwide scale. And here's the real opportunity: #1 cannot change the world alone—nor can #2. Only the combination of the two will allow us to accelerate the pace of innovation. In the past, basic researchers who have made the first kind of scientific discovery have thought, "Someone else can use this new insight to make something of it," while applied researchers who have made the second kind of discovery have thought, "Someone else can go back and figure out why compound ABC works best." But the new materials needed to save the world will be far too complex for that kind of piggyback exploration; only genuine collaboration throughout the scientific-discovery process will allow us to meet the challenges of today's most pressing global issues.
Government financing now provides the strongest incentive for basic and applied sciences to work together. The NSF and the DOE often require grants to be filled by teams that combine basic and applied approaches. Unfortunately, the scientific community's modus operandi are so entrenched that the research is still done in a segregated manner.
If the scientific community is going to change, the impetus must come from within. Basic and applied scientists must come together in their common excitement to solve a problem. That is, scientists must recommit to being problem-driven rather than grant-driven. Simply put, business as usual will not allow us to respond to the urgent crises that we are facing.
—excerpted from Science, June 5, 2009. For the full article, see www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/324/5932/1273.pdf.
Science supporters were rightly excited by the passage of the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act (ARRA, i.e., the stimulus package). Headlines rejoiced at the new value placed on science as a basis for economic growth and associated job creation. Indeed, federal investment was at least partly based on a belief that the result would be more competitive firms and more jobs. That belief was bolstered by advocacy groups: for example, a report by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) estimated that an additional $20 billion investment in research in the stimulus package would create approximately 402,000 American jobs for 1 year.
Within 2 years, the public will want to be informed about the impact of the stimulus on the economic recovery. Were the estimates accurate? And, in the longer term, what were the impacts of the reinvestment strategy on scientific knowledge, economic growth, and job creation? But we should also want to be informed about questions that go beyond the immediate accounting issues raised by ARRA. For example, what deeper understanding did we gain about the mechanisms whereby knowledge is created and how it contributes to both economic and social outcomes? Answers to these questions will need to be conveyed in a manner that is understandable.
Much of the public discussion about the "science stimulus," consistent with the apparent precision of the ITIF estimates, suggested that the outcomes of scientific investments were both certain and tied to economic growth. It is true that science policy in the U.S. and abroad is largely predicated on such beliefs.
However, much of the research in science policy is cautious about the impact of science investments. Cross-national evidence also suggests that investment in science is not a guarantee of short-term economic growth and job creation. The U.S. experience of the past decade, in which more than three quarters of post-1995 increase in productivity growth could be traced to science investments, was not duplicated in all other countries. In sum, we do not understand the mechanisms through which investments in R&D, and their immediate products (knowledge and technologies) interact with other aspects of societies and economies.
A good illustration of why it is critical to understand the complex nature of innovation when making science investments is provided by NIH's initial approach to funding biopharmaceutical research. NIH invested heavily in a research base, assuming that the resulting knowledge would draw entrepreneurs and venture capital and produce new drugs. However, as in many applications, technology has separate components, including a generic technology base, supporting infratechnologies, and proprietary market applications. Investment can occur at any of these points. Because this particular technology demanded substantial "proof-of-concept" (alternatively, "generic") technology research and such a technology platform was not initially provided, the results of the initial investments were disappointing. In the case of antisense (a subset of RNA technology), first-generation chemistry yielded only one small-market drug over a 15-year period. Subsequent investments have been much more fruitful. This anecdote illustrates that understanding how the venture capital component of our national innovation system is organized and works can be critical to ensuring that science investments achieve their full impact.
Understanding the ecology of innovation is important for answering the questions outlined in the introduction. The recovery part of ARRA was intended to have a short-term stimulative effect on job creation, but describing the impact of the reinvestment part of the stimulus is likely to take much longer. Research suggests that the time lags from initial investment to discovery, as well as the lag from patent to implementation, can take many years. The science investment needs to generate an "aha" moment or an idea that has value; structuring that investment so that the ideas move beyond the initial research project is difficult. Translating that "aha" moment into an innovation also might require a well-functioning team or organization, a well-functioning patent system, a well-developed firm ecosystem, or appropriate university links to industry. The time lags can be substantial. Recent productivity growth in agriculture, for example, was based on research investments in the 1800s. Biotechnology commercialization was based on scientific findings dating from the 1950s. The Internet in the 1990s was based on scientific investments in the 1970s and 80s.
Although there is a global interest in answering the questions, a recent Science of Science Policy roadmap, as well as researchers at a recent Science of Science Policy workshop, concluded that the U.S. needs a major intellectual investment to permit further deep analysis of the impact of science investments. The roadmap noted that the U.S. scientific data infrastructure is oriented toward program administration rather than empirical analysis. It currently does not allow science investments to be coupled with the associated scientific and technological, social, and economic outcomes. A number of U.S. research awards have been made to develop a pilot data infrastructure that provides information about where and to what purpose science tax dollars are spent.
In addition, there is the potential to expand the current science data infrastructure, which has some of the elements necessary to fully inform the analysis of science investments. Grants.gov provides a unified portal to find and apply for federal government grants. Research.gov and science.gov provide information about research and development results associated with specific grants. Open.gov is being implemented to promote citizen participation in government decision-making by making government data available online. A mechanism that built on these and other initiatives could couple science investments with outcomes in a systematic fashion.
Of course, the answer to the questions about the return on investments in science will not be contained in one number. A related intellectual investment is to advance understanding of how to convey complex answers about the impact of science investments to the public. Emerging visualization techniques seem to be more effective than digital slide presentations at communicating the ways in which science investments bear fruit. However, although visual representations are intuitively appealing, it is not clear what they convey: The scientific foundations upon which they are based are not fully developed. U.S.–funded research is thus moving beyond the science of simple mapping to leverage the science of visual analytics which has hitherto been used to "make sense" and describe the impact of terrorist, rather than scientific, networks. Researchers in the field are combining "the art of human intuition and the science of mathematical deduction to perceive patterns and derive knowledge and insight from them".
For more information about these programs, contact Joel Fritzler, ORDA Information Specialist, at 453-4530 or jcfritz@siu.edu.
Proposals are being accepted for Active Living Research grants, administered by San Diego State University with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Four 12- to 18-month grants of up to $75,000 each will support research that identifies environmental factors and policies that influence physical activity and prevent obesity in children and young people. In addition, three 12-month publication grants will provide up to $12,000 each.
Eligibility: Investigators must represent populations historically disadvantaged and underrepresented in research, including racial/ethnic minority researchers, those from low-income communities, and first-generation college graduates. Applicants must have completed a doctorate or terminal degree within the past seven years, must demonstrate evidence of research skills relevant to the proposed study or publication, and must be affiliated with or sponsored by a university or an organization.
For additional information about this program, see www.rwjf.org/applications/solicited/cfp.jsp?ID=20804 or contact Deborah Lou (619-260-6336, dlou@projects.sdsu.edu).
DEADLINE: July 29
Applications are being accepted for the Health and Society Scholars Program, administered by the New York Academy of Medicine with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The program trains scholars in the multidisciplinary field of population health. Scholars will investigate a broad range of influences on health, including behavioral, biological, economic, environmental, and social factors, and the connections among them. Up to 18 scholars will be selected for the two-year program and will study at one of six U.S. universities. Each scholar will receive a total stipend of $181,000.
Eligible applicants are U.S. citizens or permanent residents who have completed doctoral training and have significant research experience in their disciplines. Applicants must connect their research interests to population-health concerns. Applications must be completed online.
For additional information about this program, see www.rwjf.org/applications/solicited/cfp.jsp?ID=20741 or contact Gerard Lebeda (212-419-3566, hss@nyam.org).
DEADLINE: October 2
The National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) are partnering to support a new research program to be administered by NSF. The objective of the BREAD Program is to support innovative scientific research designed to address key constraints to smallholder agriculture in the developing world. A significant distinction between BREAD and other NSF programs is that proposals to BREAD must make a clear and well-defined connection between the outcomes of the proposed research and its direct relevance and potential application to agriculture in the developing world. The BREAD Program will take the activities of the Plant Genome Research Program to the next level by supporting a broader range of scientific research and by enabling funding to be allocated to international collaborators through subawards.
The program's focus is on novel, transformative research at the proof-of-concept stage rather than its application or development. Especially encouraged are original proposals that address major constraints on the productivity of crops important to smallholder farmers, or on the development of novel and efficient production practices. Although the program places an initial emphasis on crop improvement, it will also consider innovative research proposals from scientists in all fields of research and engineering as long as the proposed research is consistent with program objectives. Proposals are also expected to address project outcomes in the context of broader societal impacts, and as appropriate to the research proposed, engage international partners in scientific collaborations.
It is estimated that 20 to 35 awards will be made from an anticipated funding amount of $15 million. Awards with annual budgets up to $250,000 and durations of up to 3 years will be made. For additional information about this program, see www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09566/nsf09566.htm?govDel=USNSF_25 or contact Deborah Delmer (703-292-8420, bread-wg@nsf.gov).
DEADLINES: Letters of Intent (required)—Aug. 5; Full Proposals—Sept 09
The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) Cutting-Edge Basic Research Award (CEBRA) is designed to foster highly innovative or conceptually creative research related to drug abuse and addiction and how to prevent and treat them. It supports research that is high-risk and potentially high-impact that is underrepresented or not included in NIDA's current portfolio. The proposed research should: (1) test a highly novel and significant hypothesis for which there is scant precedent or preliminary data and which, if confirmed, would have a substantial impact on current thinking; and/or (2) develop or adapt innovative techniques or methods for addiction research, or that have promising applicability to drug abuse research.
It is anticipated that 14 awards will be made from a funding amount of $2.5 million a year. The total project period for an application submitted in response to this funding opportunity may not exceed two years. Direct costs are limited to $125,000 per year.
For additional information about this program, see http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-09-222.html or contact Susan Volman (301-435-1315, svolman@mail.nih.gov).
DEADLINES: Aug. 21; Dec. 21
The purpose of these Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation (PhRMA) grants is to offer financial support to individuals beginning their independent research careers at the faculty level. The areas of interest within this program consist of research that supports career development of scientists engaged in computational and experimental research to integrate cutting edge information technology with advanced biological, chemical, and pharmacological sciences in genetics (molecular, medical [human], pharmaco, or population); genomics (function, structural, toxico, pharmaco, or comparative); proteomics; proteomics; and biological pathways.
Preference will be given to those individuals whose research combines novel computational methods with experimental validation. Emphasis will be placed on the development of new informatics technologies that demonstrate the translation of genomic data into an elucidation and understanding of biological and disease processes. Research projects that extend or develop the proprietary value of specific drug products are not acceptable in this program. This exclusion does not preclude research in which specific drug products are used to test hypotheses that have a general applicability.
Funds are generally unrestricted, with flexibility of use—a characteristic of the program. In an effort to gain the maximum usefulness, some guidelines are in order. The funds may not be used for salary support of the grantee, but may be used to support technical assistance. No more than $500 a year may be used for travel to professional meetings by the grantee. Indirect costs are not provided to the institution, and grant funds may not be used for this purpose. For additional information about this program, see www.phrmafoundation.org/awards/informatics/starter.php or contact Eileen Cannon (202-572-7756).
DEADLINE: Sept. 1
This National Science Foundation program supports fundamental research and education in energy production, conversion, and storage and is focused on energy sources that are environmentally friendly and renewable. Most world energy needs are currently met through the combustion of fossil fuels. With projected increases in global energy needs, more sustainable methods for energy production will need to be developed, and production of greenhouse gases will need to be reduced. Sources of sustainable energy include sunlight, wind/wave, biomass, and geothermal.
Hydrocarbons, alcohols, and hydrogen are potential energy carriers that can be derived from renewable sources. This program supports research that generates enabling science and technologies for more efficient hydrogen generation and storage. Potential sources of hydrogen include conversion from biomass and from electrolysis, photolysis, or thermolysis of water. Biomass is available from agricultural crop residues, forest products, aquatic plants, and municipal wastes. In addition to hydrogen, biomass can be a source of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons and alcohols.
In the long term, fuel cells have the potential to convert fuels such as hydrogen and alcohols to electricity at high efficiencies and should play an increasing role in energy conversion. Critical components of fuel cells requiring additional research include catalysts and electrolytes. Development of these components also requires fundamental research on the reaction and transport mechanisms at the catalyst and membrane electrolyte interface. Advances in these areas are needed to address key challenges in efficiency, durability, power density, and environmental impacts. The engineering aspects of fuel-cell design and operation also require further study in areas such as water and thermal management.
Wind power is a growing source of electrical energy. Increased efficiency requires a fundamental knowledge of the interaction of wind with the blade structure. Understanding the fluid flow and optimizing blade design are important aspects in developing more efficient wind generators. Photovoltaic devices have the potential to supply a significant fraction of electrical energy to the power grid. Although silicon-based materials have been most widely used, other semiconducting, quantum, and organic materials also have potential. New materials and novel fabrication techniques for solar energy conversion are supported by the program.
For additional information about this program, see www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=501026 or contact Trung Nguyen (703-292-8320, tnguyen@nsf.gov).
DEADLINE: Sept. 17
This Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), issued by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), encourages applications for the development of (1) innovative cancer education programs; and (2) cancer research dissemination projects that can be completed within 5 years. Specifically, the types of Cancer Education Grant Programs (CEGPs) that may be supported include: (1) innovative educational programs intended to motivate biomedical and other health science students to pursue cancer related careers; (2) short courses to update cancer research scientists in new scientific methods, technologies, and findings; (3) training of cancer care clinicians and community health care providers in evidence-based cancer prevention and control approaches; and (4) development of effective innovative education (dissemination) approaches to translate knowledge gained from science (discovery) into public health, and community applications (delivery).
For additional information about this program, see http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/pa-files/PAR-08-120.html or contact Lester Gorelic (301-496-8580, gorelicl@mail.nih.gov).
DEADLINE: Sept. 25
The Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI), with headquarters in Panama, is a bureau of the Smithsonian Institution, and one of the world's leading centers for basic research on the ecology, behavior, and evolution of tropical organisms. STRI's international staff of more than 30 scientists conducts investigations throughout the New and Old World tropics.
Scientists from around the world come to STRI to join the search for knowledge in fields that include animal behavior, plant ecology, canopy biology, paleoecology, archaeology, evolution, genetics, marine ecology, anthropology, and conservation science. The institute provides support for short-term fellowships in areas of STRI research under the supervision of institute staff members. The usual duration of short-term fellowships is three months.
The majority of these fellowships are awarded to graduate students, but awards are occasionally made to undergraduates and postdoctoral candidates.
For additional information about this program, see www.stri.org/english/education_fellowships/fellowships/index.php or contact the STRI (507-212-8031, fellows@si.edu).
DEADLINES: Aug. 15; Nov. 15
Reprinted by permission of the artist, Mark Litzler
Note: Grant listings going back to FY2003 are available via this website's Reports and Publications section.
| 