The Association Between NRMN STAR Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy and Grant Submission

Background: Eliminating the NIH fund­ing gap among underrepresented minori­ties (URMs) remains a high priority for the National Institutes of Health. In 2014, the National Research Mentoring Network1 Steps Toward Academic Research (NRMN STAR) program recruited postdoctoral, early-stage and junior faculty to participate in a 12-month grant writing and professional development program. The expectation of the program was to increase the number of grant submissions and awards to URM re­searchers. Although receiving a grant award is the gold standard of NRMN STAR, instill­ing confidence for postdocs and early-stage faculty to submit an application is a critical first step. Based on our previous study, a sustained increase in trainee self-efficacy score over a 24-month period was observed after completing NRMN STAR.Methods: The current study sought to determine the association between self-efficacy score and grant submissions among two cohorts of trainees. Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy was measured using a 19-item questionnaire previously described by and used in our own work, which was originally adapted from an 88-item Clinical Research Appraisal Inventory.2 A binary variable was created to identify trainees who submit­ted an initial or revised proposal vs those who abandoned their proposal or were still writing. Trainees were assessed prior to and following program completion with subsequent assessments at 6 and 12 months beyond participation.Results: As of June 20, 2019, 12 of the 21 (57%) trainees had submitted a grant proposal (eg, NIH, other federal or non-federal grant). For every point increase in 12-month post assessments, Grantsmanship Self-Efficacy scores across all domains had a 44% higher prevalence of submitting a grant after controlling for race, sex, education level, academic rank, research experience, duration of postdoctoral training, institution type, and NRMN STAR cohort. Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate that NRMN STAR had a positive impact on trainees’ confidence in grant writing and professional development activities, which resulted in higher grant submis­sion rates.Ethn Dis. 2021;31(4):559-566; doi:10.18865/ed.31.4.559

Impact of a grant program to spur advances in sickle cell disease research

More than 20 years ago, clinical trials and federal grant support for sickle cell disease (SCD) research were not on par with support for other genetic diseases. Faced with the opportunity to spur research and advance treatments for SCD, and at the recommendation of advisors, the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation (DDCF) offered an SCD research funding opportunity starting in 2009 through its Innovations in Clinical Research Awards (ICRA) program. Twenty-eight new grants of $450 000 for direct costs over 3 years and 7 renewals were awarded, for a total investment of $17 million. Only about half the research teams garnered follow-on funding directly related to their ICRA projects, but the financial return on the research investment was substantial (∼4 times the original $17 million or 300%). All but 1 of the ICRA investigative teams published original research reports that acknowledged DDCF as a source of funding; the median number of publications per team was 3. Major innovations in the diagnosis and treatment of SCD included but were not limited to a demonstration that genetic modification of BCL11A enhancer is a potentially important treatment modality, establishment that plerixafor mobilization is safe and effective for those with SCD, development and validation of a new diagnostic called SCD BioChip, and evidence that hydroxyurea treatment is safe and efficacious in African children. These outcomes show that relatively small research grants can have a substantial return on investment and result in significant advances for a disease such as SCD.

Investigating comprehension measures of Reading Adventure Time! For improving reading skills

Reading Adventure Time! was designed to support braille reading skills. The education technology tool operates on an Apple iPad using a refreshable braille display and was developed under a United States Federal grant, the Stepping Up Technology program (H327S120007). Forty-nine student/teacher pairs used the app. Students read passages on their braille displays and responded to comprehension questions. Data included reading comprehension scores, accuracy, and reading miscues for each passage read using the app. Students read orally and silently, and passages consisted of both literary and expository literature. Results indicated that comprehension of literary and expository texts was highly positively correlated r(48) = .79, p < .000. Student-participants in the apprentice category answered more questions correctly when reading silently. For students who used rereading as a comprehension strategy, a positive correlation was found between the number of rereads and comprehension. Variables impacting reading comprehension included the level of vision, socioeconomic status, and a preference for print as a reading medium. Overall results indicated that, in general, students’ reading comprehension was a strength. Students’ comprehension at lower grade levels was slightly higher than that in upper grade levels, and comprehension scores were similar for both literary and expository passages at all ages. Students’ comprehension was slightly better when reading orally versus silently. Students used rereading as a strategy to assist with comprehension, although not extensively. The study provides evidence supporting Reading Adventure Time! as a high-tech digital tool supporting literacy skills development in conjunction with literacy instruction.

Racial inequity in grant funding from the US National Institutes of Health

Biomedical science and federal funding for scientific research are not immune to the systemic racism that pervades American society. A groundbreaking analysis of NIH grant success revealed in 2011 that grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health in the US by African-American or Black Principal Investigators (PIs) are less likely to be funded than applications submitted by white PIs, and efforts to narrow this funding gap have not been successful. A follow-up study in 2019 showed that this has not changed. Here, we review those original reports, as well as the response of the NIH to these issues, which we argue has been inadequate. We also make recommendations on how the NIH can address racial disparities in grant funding and call on scientists to advocate for equity in federal grant funding.

Preparing and Enriching Linguistically and Culturally Responsive Educators Through Professional Development

This chapter examined a cohort of 12 in-service teachers' and three administrators' views in regards to areas of successes, challenges, and priorities in working with immigrant and refugee students and their families as a result of three professional development (PD) sessions that were offered as part of a federal grant-based research project. Qualitative data included field notes through participant observation of group discussions, informal conversations with the participants, PD activity materials, online reflective surveys after each PD session, a background and demographic checklist, and a final questionnaire of overall learning. The results showed the participants' growing sensitivity towards their students' and families' contexts, including academic and social supports, with a desire to promote and implement more linguistically and culturally responsive strategies within their practices and school districts.

Racial Inequity in Federal Grant Funding

Circulation of videos showing the death of George Floyd, at the hands of police officers, in May of 2020 prompted renewed national conversations about systemic racism. Biomedical research in the USA, including that supported by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is not immune to the systemic racism that pervades American society. A groundbreaking analysis of NIH grant success revealed in 2011 that applications submitted by Black or African-American Principal Investigators (PIs) were less likely to be funded, compared with those submitted by white PIs. NIH efforts to respond have included attempts to attribute the effect to mediating variables other than PI race; attempts to fix the “pipeline” by funding more African-American trainees; and attempts to eliminate subconscious, or implicit, bias in peer reviewers. An updated report published in 2019 showed that nothing has changed and that topics of interest to African-Americans are less likely to be funded, even with white PIs. Here, we review the response of the NIH to these issues, which we argue are inadequate, and we issue a call to action for all participants in the tax-payer funded NIH system of research funding. It is unacceptable that NIH grant funding disparities based on the race of the PI continue to persist in the current system. It is unacceptable that health conditions and topics of interest to Black citizens are systematically overlooked for research funding. The NIH must create an actionable plan that permanently eliminates racial disparities in grant award.

Results of a portfolio approach to intramural research funding at an academic medical center

In response to stagnant Federal grant funding levels and to catalyze early stage or high-risk research not currently supported by the NIH, many academic medical centers (AMCs) provide supplemental intramural funding to faculty investigators. However, it can be challenging to decide how to deploy these funds for maximum impact. We conducted a retrospective, descriptive analysis to explore trends in applications and awards associated with an institution-wide intramural funding center at a major U.S. AMC. From 2010 to 2017, the Brigham Research Institute at Brigham and Women’s Hospital awarded a total of 354 grants totaling over $9 million to affiliated researchers through six distinct and complementary grant programs. The number of applicants remained essentially stable, despite expansion of the funding program portfolio. Distribution of applicants and awardees by academic rank and gender generally reflected that of medical school faculty at large. This descriptive analysis demonstrates interest in a diverse range of intramural funding programs among AMC faculty, and a lack of overt rank or gender bias in the programs’ awardees. However, it highlights the institution’s need to better understand the amount of residual unmet demand for intramural funding; the degree to which underrepresented constituencies can and should be actively supported; and the “return on investment” of these grants.