Maximizing the return on taxpayers' investments in fundamental biomedical research

Abstract

The National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) at the U.S. National Institutes of Health has an annual budget of more than $2.3 billion. The institute uses these funds to support fundamental biomedical research and training at universities, medical schools, and other institutions across the country. My job as director of NIGMS is to work to maximize the scientific returns on the taxpayers' investments. I describe how we are optimizing our investment strategies and funding mechanisms, and how, in the process, we hope to create a more efficient and sustainable biomedical research enterprise.

FIGURE 1:

The fraction of the NIGMS portfolio committed to investigator-initiated research has declined over the past two decades. The blue bars (left axis) show the funds NIGMS committed to funding opportunity announcements (FOAs) targeted at specific areas of research in each fiscal year shown. The red line with triangles shows the change in the percentage of the NIGMS portfolio dedicated to investigator-initiated research. The analysis does not include fellowship, career development, and training awards; programs transferred to NIGMS from the former National Center for Research Resources; and some other programs. Jim Deatherage (NIGMS) performed the data analysis.

FIGURE 2:

A 2010 analysis of researchers funded by NIGMS showed that, on average, productivity did not scale proportionally with funding beyond a relatively moderate direct-cost threshold. (Top panel) Average number of publications associated with NIH grants of NIGMS-funded investigators as a function of their total NIH direct costs (red line with circles) and the average impact factor of the journals in which each set of investigators published (blue line with squares). (Bottom panel) The unbinned data used to generate the averages shown in the top panel. Jeremy Berg, Paul Sheehy, and Matt Eblen (NIGMS) performed the data analysis.