Developing a culture of safety in biomedical research training

The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) at the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) is committed to supporting the safety of the nation’s biomedical research and training environments. Institutional training grants affect many trainees and can have a broad influence across their parent institutions, making them good starting points for our initial efforts to promote the development and maintenance of robust cultures of safety at U.S. academic institutions. In this Perspective, we focus on laboratory safety, although many of the strategies we describe for improving laboratory safety are also applicable to other forms of safety including the prevention of harassment, intimidation, and discrimination. We frame the problem of laboratory safety using a number of recent examples of tragic accidents, highlight some of the lessons that have been learned from these and other events, discuss what NIGMS is doing to address problems related to laboratory safety, and outline steps that institutions can take to improve their safety cultures.

All new funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) for training programs supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) contain the expectation that the programs will promote “inclusive, safe and supportive scientific and training environments.” In this context, the word “safe” refers to several aspects of safety. First, we mean an environment free from harassment and intimidation, in which everyone participating is treated in a respectful and supportive manner, optimized for productive learning and research. We also mean that institutions should ensure that their campuses are as safe as possible so that individuals can focus on their studies and research. Finally, we mean safety in the laboratory and clinical spaces. In this Perspective, we focus on this last issue and describe some of the approaches NIGMS is taking to help the biomedical research community move toward an enhanced culture of safety in which core values and the behaviors of leadership, principal investigators (PIs), research staff, and trainees emphasize safety over competing goals.     

Future opportunities for life science programs in space

Most space-related life science programs are expensive and time-consuming, requiring international cooperation and resources with trans-disciplinary expertise. A comprehensive future program in "life sciences in space" needs, therefore, well-defined research goals and strategies as well as a sound ground-based program. The first half of this review will describe four key aspects such as the environment in space, previous accomplishments in space (primarily focusing on amphibian embryogenesis), available resources, and recent advances in bioinformatics and biotechnology, whose clear understanding is imperative for defining future directions. The second half of this review will focus on a broad range of interdisciplinary research opportunities currently supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Institute of Health (NIH), and National Science Foundation (NSF). By listing numerous research topics such as alterations in a diffusion-limited metabolic process, bone loss and skeletal muscle weakness of astronauts, behavioral and cognitive ability in space, life in extreme environment, etc., we will attempt to suggest future opportunities.     

Scientific approaches to science policy

The development of robust science policy depends on use of the best available data, rigorous analysis, and inclusion of a wide range of input. While director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS), I took advantage of available data and emerging tools to analyze training time distribution by new NIGMS grantees, the distribution of the number of publications as a function of total annual National Institutes of Health support per investigator, and the predictive value of peer-review scores on subsequent scientific productivity. Rigorous data analysis should be used to develop new reforms and initiatives that will help build a more sustainable American biomedical research enterprise.Good scientists almost invariably insist on obtaining the best data potentially available and fostering open and direct communication and criticism to address scientific problems. Remarkably, this same approach is only sometimes used in the context of the development of science policy. In my opinion, several factors underlie the reluctance to apply scientific methods rigorously to inform science policy questions. First, obtaining the relevant data can be challenging and time-consuming. Tools relatively unfamiliar to many scientists may be required, and the data collected may have inherent limitations that make their use challenging. Second, reliance on data may require the abandonment of preconceived notions and a willingness to face potentially unwanted political consequences, depending on where the data analysis leads.One of my first experiences witnessing the application of a rigorous approach to a policy question involved previous American Society for Cell Biology Public Service awardee Tom Pollard when he and I were both at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. Tom was leading an effort to reorganize the first-year medical school curriculum, trying to move toward an integrated plan and away from an entrenched departmentally based system (DeAngelis, 2000 ). He insisted that every lecture in the old curriculum be on the table for discussion, requiring frank discussions and defusing one of the most powerful arguments in academia: “But, we''ve always done it that way.” As the curriculum was being implemented, he recruited a set of a dozen or so students who were tasked with filling out questionnaires immediately after every lecture; this enabled evaluation and refinement of the curriculum and yielded a data set that changed the character of future discussions.After 13 years as a department director at Johns Hopkins (including a number of years as course director for the Molecules and Cells course in the first-year medical school curriculum), I had the opportunity to become director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). NIH supports large data systems, as these are essential for NIH staff to perform their work in receiving, reviewing, funding, and monitoring research grants. While these rich data sources were available, the resources for analysis were not as sophisticated as they could have been. This became apparent when we tried to understand how long successful young scientists spent at various early-career stages (in graduate school, doing postdoctoral fellowships, and in faculty positions before funding). This was a relatively simple question to formulate, but it took considerable effort to collect the data because the relevant data were in free-text form. An intrepid staff member took on the challenge, and went through three years’ worth of biosketches by hand to find 360 individuals who had received their first R01 awards from NIGMS and then compiled data on the years those individuals had graduated from college, completed graduate school, started their faculty positions, and received their R01 awards. Analysis of these data revealed that the median time from BS/BA to R01 award was ∼15 years, including a median of 3.6 years between starting a faculty position and receiving the grant. These results were presented to the NIGMS Advisory Council but were not shared more widely, because of the absence of a good medium at the time for reporting such results. I did provide them subsequently through a blog in the context of a discussion of similar issues (DrugMonkey, 2012 ). To address the communications need, we had developed the NIGMS Feedback Loop, first as an electronic newsletter (NIGMS, 2005 ) and subsequently as a blog (NIGMS, 2009 ). This vehicle has been of great utility for bidirectional communication, particularly under unusual circumstances. For example, during the period prior to the implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, that is, the “stimulus bill,” I shared our thoughts and solicited input from the community. I subsequently received and answered hundreds of emails that offered reactions and suggestions. Having these admittedly nonscientific survey data in hand was useful in subsequent NIH-wide policy-development discussions.At this point, staff members at several NIH institutes, including NIGMS, were developing tools for data analysis, including the ability to link results from different data systems. Many of the questions I was most eager to address involved the relationship between scientific productivity and other parameters, including the level of grant support and the results of peer review that led to funding in the first place. With an initial system that was capable of linking NIH-funded investigators to publications, I performed an analysis of the number of publications from 2007 to mid-2010 attributed to NIH funding as a function of the total amount of annual NIH direct-cost support for 2938 NIGMS-funded investigators from fiscal year 2006 (Berg, 2010 ). The results revealed that the number of publications did not increase monotonically but rather reached a plateau near an annual funding level near $700,000. This observation received considerable attention (Wadman, 2010 ) and provided support for a long-standing NIGMS policy of imposing an extra level of oversight for well-funded investigators. It is important to note that, not surprisingly, there was considerable variation in the number of publications at all funding levels and, in my opinion, this observation is as important as the plateau in moving policies away from automatic caps and toward case-by-case analysis by staff armed with the data.This analysis provoked considerable discussion on the Feedback Loop blog and elsewhere regarding whether the number of publications was an appropriate measure of productivity. With better tools, it was possible to extend such analyses to other measures, including the number of citations, the number of citations relative to other publications, and many other factors. This extended set of metrics was applied to an analysis of the ability of peer-review scores to predict subsequent productivity (Berg, 2012a , b ). Three conclusions were supported by this analysis. First, the various metrics were sufficiently correlated with one another that the choice of metric did not affect any major conclusions (although metrics such as number of citations performed slightly better than number of publications). Second, peer-review scores could predict subsequent productivity to some extent (compared with randomly assigned scores), but the level of prediction was modest. Importantly, this provided some of the first direct evidence that peer review is capable of identifying applications that are more likely to be productive. Finally, the results revealed no noticeable drop-off in productivity, even near the 20th percentile, supporting the view that a substantial amount of productive science is being left unfunded with pay lines below the 20th percentile, let alone the 10th percentile.In 2011, I moved to the University of Pittsburgh and also became president-elect of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB). In my new positions, I have been able to gain a more direct perspective on the current state of the academic biomedical research enterprise. It is exciting to be back in the trenches again. On the other hand, my observations support a conclusion I had drawn while I was at NIH: the biomedical research enterprise is not sustainable in its present form due not only to the level of federal support, but also to the duration of training periods, the number of individuals being trained to support the research effort, the lack of appropriate pathways for individuals interested in careers as bench scientists, challenges in the interactions between the academic and private sectors, and other factors. Working with the Public Affair Advisory Committee at ASBMB, we have produced a white paper (ASBMB, 2013 ) that we hope will help initiate conversations about imagining and then moving toward more sustainable models for biomedical research. We can expect to arrive at effective policy changes and initiatives only through data-driven and thorough self-examination and candid discussions between different stakeholders. We look forward to working with leaders and members from other scientific societies as we tackle this crucial set of issues.Open in a separate windowJeremy M. Berg     

U.S. National Institutes of Health Core Consolidation–Investing in Greater Efficiency

The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) invests substantial resources in core research facilities (cores) that support research by providing advanced technologies and scientific and technical expertise as a shared resource. In 2010, the NIH issued an initiative to consolidate multiple core facilities into a single, more efficient core. Twenty-six institutions were awarded supplements to consolidate a number of similar core facilities. Although this approach may not work for all core settings, this effort resulted in consolidated cores that were more efficient and of greater benefit to investigators. The improvements in core operations resulted in both increased services and more core users through installation of advanced instrumentation, access to higher levels of management expertise; integration of information management and data systems; and consolidation of billing; purchasing, scheduling, and tracking services. Cost recovery to support core operations also benefitted from the consolidation effort, in some cases severalfold. In conclusion, this program of core consolidation resulted in improvements in the effective operation of core facilities, benefiting both investigators and their supporting institutions.     

Trans-NIH neuroscience initiatives on mouse phenotyping and mutagenesis

In the post-genomic era, the laboratory mouse will excel as a premier mammalian system to study normal and disordered biological processes, in part because of low cost, but largely because of the rich opportunities that exist for exploiting genetic tools and technologies in the mouse to systematically determine mammalian gene function. Many robust models of human disease may therefore be developed, and these in turn will provide critical clues to understanding gene function. The full potential of the mouse for understanding many of the neural and behavioral phenotypes of relevance to neuroscientists has yet to be realized. With the full anatomy of the mouse genome at hand, researchers for the first time will be able to move beyond traditional gene-by-gene approaches and take a global view of gene expression patterns crucial for neurobiological processes. In response to an action plan for mouse genomics developed on the basis of recommendations from the scientific community, seven institutes of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiated in 1999 a mouse genetics research program that specifically focused on neurobiology and complex behavior. The specific goals of these neuroscience initiatives are to develop high-throughput phenotyping assays and to initiate genome-wide mutagenesis projects to identify hundreds of mutant strains with heritable abnormalities of high relevance to neuroscientists. Assays and mutants generated in these efforts will be made widely available to the scientific community, and such resources will provide neuroscientists unprecedented opportunities to elucidate the molecular mechanisms of neural function and complex behavior. Such research tools ultimately will permit the manipulation and analysis of the mouse genome, as a means of gaining insight into the genetic bases of the mammalian nervous system and its complex disorders. Received: 10 April 2001 / Accepted: 23 April 2001     

The National Institutes of Health system for enhancing the science,safety, and ethics of recombinant DNA research

Oversight of recombinant DNA research by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is predicated on ethical and scientific responsibilities that are akin, in many ways, to those that pertain to the oversight of animal research. The NIH system of oversight, which originated more than 25 years ago, is managed by the NIH Office of Biotechnology Activities (OBA), which uses various tools to fulfill its oversight responsibilities. These tools include the NIH Guidelines for Research Involving Recombinant DNA Molecules (NIH Guidelines) and the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. The OBA also undertakes special initiatives to promote the analysis and dissemination of information key to our understanding of recombinant DNA, and in particular, human gene transfer research. These initiatives include a new query-capable database, an analytical board of scientific and medical experts, and conferences and symposia on timely scientific, safety, and policy issues. Veterinary scientists can play an important role in the oversight of recombinant DNA research and in enhancing our understanding of the many safety and scientific dimensions of the field. These roles include developing appropriate animal models, reporting key safety data, enhancing institutional biosafety review, and promoting compliance with the NIH Guidelines.     

Use and importance of the NIH noncompeting continuation application

Each year National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant recipients must submit a noncompeting continuation application before receiving continued federal funding. This paper describes the use and value of the application. Investigators benefit by a yearly self-assessment of the research progress and future plans. The noncompeting continuation application is part of the important communication and interaction that should exist between the investigator and NIH staff. NIH staff members use the application to determine important scientific advances that have resulted from supported grants. Many planning activities and required reports are based on information contained in these applications. NIH staff performs scientific and budgetary review to ensure that research progress is satisfactory and that all budgetary and certification issues are in order. Detailed guidance is provided to help the grantee prepare the application. A separate significance section is suggested as a means to document key findings and their importance.     

Large Deviations for Random Trees and the Branching of RNA Secondary Structures

We give a Large Deviation Principle (LDP) with explicit rate function for the distribution of vertex degrees in plane trees, a combinatorial model of RNA secondary structures. We calculate the typical degree distributions based on nearest neighbor free energies, and compare our results with the branching configurations found in two sets of large RNA secondary structures. We find substantial agreement overall, with some interesting deviations which merit further study. Y. Bakhtin partially supported by NSF CAREER DMS-0742424. C.E. Heitsch partially supported by a BWF CASI and NIH NIGMS R01 GM083621.     

National Institutes of Health phase I, Small Business Innovation Research applications: fiscal year 1983 results

A review of the 356 disapproved Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) proposals submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for fiscal year 1983 funding was undertaken to identify the most common shortcomings of those disapproved applications. The shortcomings were divided into four general classes by using the scheme developed by other authors when describing the reasons for the disapproval of regular NIH research applications. Comparison of the reasons for disapproval of SBIR applications with regular applications suggests comparable difficulties in the areas of the problem and the approach. There is some indication, however, that the SBIR proposals may have been weaker in the category of the principal investigator (PI). In general, it is the responsibility of the PI to demonstrate that the work is timely and can be performed with available technology and expertise, and that the guidelines for the NIH SBIR program have been satisfied.     

The development of the intramural research program at the National Institutes of Health after World War II

This paper explores the rise of the National Institutes of Health after World War II from the perspective of intramural scientists working at the NIH's main campus in Bethesda. Several postwar social circumstances-the local research tradition, the wartime experience of civilian scientists, the doctor draft, and anti-nepotism rules in academia-affected the recruitment of research-oriented scientists into the NIH. These historically contingent factors were no less important than the larger political, legislative context for the development of the NIH intramural program as a prominent research institution.     

Biomedical research funding: when the game gets tough, winners start to play

Extramural funding provides major support for biomedical research in academia, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants often constitute direct evaluation criteria for promotions and tenure. Therefore, NIH budget trends influence long-term scientific strategies and career decisions, as well as the progress of science itself. Our analysis of the last 37 years of NIH awards, however, reveals that the success rate of grant applications submitted for funding is negatively related to the total yearly amount of (inflation-adjusted) NIH extramural expenditure. Instead, as might be expected, the ratio between available funding and the number of submission directly predicts the probability of winning support in any given year. We purport that the considerable success rate variability can be parsimoniously explained by a proportional but delayed reaction of the number of applications to budget fluctuations. As a counterintuitive consequence, grant proposals conceived during lean periods might stand the best chance of success.     

Human Genetics and Politics as Mutually Beneficial Resources: The Case of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics During the Third Reich

This essay analyzes one of Germany’s former premier research institutions for biomedical research, the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity and Eugenics (KWIA) as a test case for the way in which politics and human heredity served as resources for each other during the Third Reich. Examining the KWIA from this perspective brings us a step closer to answering the questions at the heart of most recent scholarship concerning the biomedical community under the swastika: (1) How do we explain why the vast majority of German human geneticists and eugenicists were willing to work for the National Socialist state and, at the very least, legitimized its exterminationist racial policy; and (2) what accounts for at least some of Germany’s most renowned medically trained professionals’ involvement in forms of morally compromised science that wholly transcend the bounds of normal scientific practice? Although a complete answer to this question must await an examination of other German biological research centers, the present study suggests that during the Nazi period the symbiotic relationship between human genetics and politics served to radicalize both. The dynamic between the science of human heredity and Nazi politics changed the research practice of some of the biomedical sciences housed at the KWIA. It also simultaneously made it easier for the Nazi state to carry out its barbaric racial program leading, finally, to the extermination of millions of so-called racial undesirables.     

美国国立卫生研究院概况

美国国立卫生研究院(the National Institutes of Health,NIH)是美国主要的医学与行为学(medical and behavioral research)研究机构,拥有27个研究所及研究中心和1个院长办公室(office of the director,OD),任务是探索生命本质和行为学方面的基础知识,并充分运用这些知识延长人类寿命,以及预防、诊断和治疗各种疾病和残障。NIH不仅拥有自己的实验室从事医学研究,还通过各种资助方式和研究基金全力支持各大学、医学院校、医院等的非政府科学家及其他国内外研究机构的研究工作,并协助进行研究人员培训,促进医学信息交流。世界一流的科学家在NIH的支持下,自由探索科学问题,取得了辉煌的成就,极大地改善了人类的健康和生存状况。本文旨在介绍NIH的概况、基金管理模式、经费预算等,希望对我国的医学研究事业有所借鉴。     

Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI).

The Research Centers in Minority Institutions (RCMI) Program was initiated in the United States of America in 1985 as a congressionally mandated program. The mission of the RCMI Program is to expand the national capacity for the conduct of biomedical and behavioral research by developing the research infrastructure at institutions granting doctoral degrees in health or health-related sciences, that have 50% or greater enrollment of minorities (African Americans, Hispanics, Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders, Native Americans and Alaska Natives) that are underrepresented in the biomedical sciences. The program administration is based in the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Since its inception, the program has provided critical resources (core research laboratories, equipment, personnel, supplies, etc.) at each of the RCMI-funded institutions. This article is intended to provide an overview of the RCMI Program, outline the research areas and list contact persons for additional information on research and core resources at each of the current RCMI sites.     

Structural genomics meets computational biology

A meeting recently organized by the NIH NIGMS Protein StructureInitiative (PSI, http://www.nigms.nih.gov/Initiatives/PSI) hasmade crystal clear the urgency and importance of the developmentof computational methods for the analysis of protein families,definition of protein domains and regions for expression, andannotation of protein function. No really new problems, butproblems made now even more important for the development ofthe Structural Genomics projects. PSI is now in the first year of     

Straight talk with... Mahendra Rao by Dolgin Elie

In October 2005, Mahendra Rao shocked the scientific community when he quit his job as head of the US National Institute on Aging's stem cell section and announced plans to go into industry. Rao felt that a ban at the time on federal funding for most human embryonic stem cell research hampered researchers in his division and prohibited him from doing the job he was hired to do. So he joined the research-tool giant Invitrogen (which later became Life Technologies) as vice president of regenerative medicine at the company's Maryland facility. Six years on, times have changed in the field of stem cell biology: rules governing taxpayer-backed research involving embryonic stem (ES) cells have been relaxed in the US, and induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells have come into the fray. Prompted by those changes, Rao opted to return to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) in August to head the new Intramural Center for Regenerative Medicine. The $52 million center was launched in early 2010 by the agency to develop new therapies using stem cell approaches. With a heightened focus at the NIH on translational medicine, Elie Dolgin spoke to Rao to find out how he plans to turn stem cell discoveries into cell-based therapies.     

Research training between 14 and 18 in Hungary

The first five years of a new program to organize high-level scientific research training for gifted high school students in Hungary are described. Besides giving unique research opportunities for talented students in their most receptive age, the program already helped the establishment of almost 100 scientific research clubs in Hungarian high schools, provided a focal point for science training of high school teachers and helped regional cooperation in Central-Eastern Europe.