national institutes of health
NIH has taken an expanded approach in defining scientists from disadvantaged backgrounds, in an effort to encourage and enable more biomedical scientists. NIH determined that the criteria they were using in defining disadvantaged was too narrow; for example, what was considered low-income ($25,750 for a family of four) is actually considered severe poverty and represents an overly strict threshold, the reviewers found.
The N.I.H. and the F.B.I. have begun a vast effort to root out scientists who they say are stealing biomedical research for other countries from institutions across the United States. Almost all of the incidents they uncovered and that are under investigation involve scientists of Chinese descent, including naturalized American citizens, allegedly stealing for China.
Black applicants to a prestigious research grant program at the National Institutes of Health are awarded funding at a significantly lower rate than their white peers. The NIH has been intensively investigating this funding gap since a 2011 report revealed the extent of the problem, looking for underlying mechanisms to use as opportunities for corrective intervention.
In 2011, a study led by economist Donna Ginther of the University of Kansas in Lawrence found that black applicants were significantly less likely than white applicants to be funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Since then, NIH officials have examined a host of factors that might cause the disparity, from the historical advantages that white men enjoy to overt discrimination by grant reviewers. But the picture remains cloudy.
The U.S. Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has awarded a total of nearly $4 million in grants to 19 small businesses to support innovative technology development. Awardees in 12 states will receive Phase I or Phase II funding through NIST’s Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program.
Over the five-year period between FY 2014 and FY 2018, the 268,355 awards distributed by NIH had a dollar value of more than $126.0 billion --with the vast majority (98.8 percent in FY 2018) going to grantees in metropolitan areas. In general, this analysis focuses on the 123 metropolitan areas with at least 20 NIH awards in FY 2018.
As the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, NIH awards are of particular importance to the technology-based economic development community. Including new data for FY 2017 and FY 2018, this edition of Useful Stats serves as an update to an August 2017 article highlighting NIH awards by state over the past decade.
University of Arkansas researchers have found limited evidence of racial or gender bias in the National Institutes of Health’s grant process. These researchers have investigated the institution’s process of awarding grant funding in a new study. According to a UA press release, the National Institutes of Health is the “world’s largest public funder of biomedical research [and]…one of the most important ways science is funded.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is partnering with other federal agencies in support of NSF INCLUDES National Network, a program dedicated to making a lasting impact on diversifying the STEM workforce of the future. Partners include the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Fears that foreign governments are tapping U.S.-funded research for valuable information have reached the nation’s largest research funder, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland. Last week it sent a letter to more than 10,000 research institutions, urging them to ensure that NIH grantees are properly reporting their foreign ties.