ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2017
Future of fundamental discovery in US biomedical research.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed.
- A thirty-year trend of increasing clinical orientation at the National Institutes of Health.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
- The rise of teamwork and career prospects in academic science.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
- Is it time to reduce the length of postgraduate training for physician-scientists in internal medicine?JCI insight · 2024Article
- The impact of gender diversity on junior versus senior biomedical scientists' NIH research awards.Nature biotechnology · 2024Article
- Using focused ethnography to inform biomedical research infrastructure enhancement at primarily undergraduate institutions.Advances in physiology education · 2024Review
- Gender imbalances among top-cited scientists across scientific disciplines over time through the analysis of nearly 5.8 million authors.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- An evaluation of programs to support new investigators at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases: Striking a balance with funding for established investigators.Evaluation and program planning · 2023Article
- Article
- Federal Funding and Citation Metrics of US Biomedical Researchers, 1996 to 2022.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Article
- A roadmap of strategies to support cardiovascular researchers: from policy to practice.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2022Review
- The structural shift and collaboration capacity in GenBank Networks: A longitudinal study.Quantitative science studies · 2022Article
- Top ten strategies to enhance grant-writing success.Surgery · 2021Article
- Animal reservoirs of SARS-CoV-2: calculable COVID-19 risk for older adults from animal to human transmission.GeroScience · 2021Review
- NIH funding trends for neurosurgeon-scientists from 1993-2017: Biomedical workforce implications for neurooncology.Journal of neuro-oncology · 2021Article
- FastTrack, a strategy to shorten time to degree.FASEB bioAdvances · 2021Article
- The fall of the innovation empire and its possible rise through open science.Research policy · 2021Article
- Changes in the National Cancer Institute's R01 workforce: growth, aging, retention, and policy implications.The Journal of clinical investigation · 2021Review
- The costs and benefits of a modified biomedical science workforce.FASEB bioAdvances · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Young researchers are crucially important for basic science as they make unexpected, fundamental discoveries. Since 1982, we find a steady drop in the number of grant-eligible basic-science faculty [principal investigators (PIs)] younger than 46. This fall occurred over a 32-y period when inflation-corrected congressional funds for NIH almost tripled. During this time, the PI success ratio (fraction of basic-science PIs who are R01 grantees) dropped for younger PIs (below 46) and increased for older PIs (above 55). This age-related bias seems to have caused the steady drop in the number of young basic-science PIs and could reduce future US discoveries in fundamental biomedical science. The NIH recognized this bias in its 2008 early-stage investigator (ESI) policy to fund young PIs at higher rates. We show this policy is working and recommend that it be enhanced by using better data. Together with the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) Maximizing Investigators' Research Award (MIRA) program to reward senior PIs with research time in exchange for less funding, this may reverse a decades-long trend of more money going to older PIs. To prepare young scientists for increased demand, additional resources should be devoted to transitional postdoctoral fellowships already offered by NIH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.