Evaluation of the NIH Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program: Reports From UsersJune 1996Prepared for: National Institutes of Health Public Health Service U.S. Department of Health and Human Services This evaluation was supported by: Contract No. RR-6-2122 awarded to Abt Associates Inc. Cambridge, MA and James Bell Associates Arlington, VA HighlightsThe Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program of the National Institutes of Health's National Center for Research Resources has provided costly, state-of-the-art instruments for NIH-supported investigators since FY 1982. Between FY 1982 and 1995, 1,487 instruments were awarded through the SIG program for a total Program expenditure of $296.5 million to graduate schools, medical and other health professions schools, hospitals and research organizations. An independent, external evaluation targeted the 11-year period FY 1982-1992, during which 1,352 SIG instruments were awarded. SIG Principal Investigators and Major Users defined as NIH-supported investigators who accounted for a significant share of SIG instrument use time were surveyed through two related written questionnaires that addressed user characteristics, instrument usage and sharing arrangements, and the importance of SIG instruments to NIH research. The survey documented the status of SIG instruments ranging in age from 1 to 11 years old at a single point in time, calendar year 1993. A key finding of the survey was that in 1993 fully 70 percent of the 11-year old instruments were still in service supporting NIH research. Furthermore, 78 percent of the Major Users of the oldest SIG instruments evaluated the instruments as "adequate" for their specific area of research. These findings indicated a greater-than-expected longevity for SIG instruments. Additional findings include:
Table Of ContentsHighlightsExecutive SummaryChapter I: IntroductionA. Program Overview B. EvaluationChapter II: Instrument UseA. Overview of UseB. Major Users
E.Longitudinal Changes in Instrument Use
Chapter IV: Instrument Maintenance and AdministrationA. Instrument Maintenance B. Funding SourcesC. Instrument Advisory Committees Closing NoteFigures:
Appendices:
Executive SummaryThe Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) was established in 1982 by the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR).1The program goal is to allow extramural scientists to acquire and share advanced analyticalinstrumentation not generally available through other NIH funding mechanisms.2 From FY 1982 to 1995, funding for the Program totaled $296.5 million. In FY 1985 annual funding reached $31.8 million and remained at similar levels until FY 1992 when the SIGappropriation dropped to $8.7 million, a decline of 73 percent. A total of 4,041 applications had been received through FY 1995, and 1,487 grants were awarded. Of those, 77 percent were awarded to medical schools and academic institutions (43 percent and 34 percent, respectively). Evaluation DesignThe independent, external evaluation examined the efficacy of the SIG Program at the institutional level. Three fundamental questions were addressed:
To address those questions, SIG Principal Investigators and Major Users -- defined as NIH-supported investigators accounting for a significant share of SIG instrument use time -- were surveyed regarding the 1,352 instruments awarded during the first 11 years of the SIG Program, FY 1982-1992. Since the instruments under consideration ranged in age from 1 to 11 years, the evaluation focused on instrument activity at a single point in time -- calendar year 1993 -- to gain perspective on the useful lifetime for these state-of-the-art instruments.
Selected Findings
1The Division of Research Resources and the Division of Research Services merged in 1990 to form the NCRR. 2The Program was modeled after and replaced a predecessor program initiated by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) in 1979.
Approximately 5,300 Major Users utilized SIG instruments in service in 1993; they accounted for an average of 76 percent of total use time, or roughly 35,700 hours per week. The 10,750 minor users -- individuals whose share of instrument use represents a small percentage or who were not supported by NIH -- accounted for approximately 11,300 hours per week, a 24 percent share of total SIG instrument use time. For all SIG instruments, weekly usage averaged 46 hours. In addition, Principal Investigators reported that the amount of usage by all users for two-thirds of the SIG instruments had increased over time.
3An NIH-supported user is defined as an investigator who applies the SIG instrument in NIH-supported, peer-reviewed research. The user need not personally operate the SIG instrument.
Closing NoteThe provision of advanced, shared-use analytical instrumentation is as crucial to NIH research today as it was in 1982 when the SIG Program was initiated. The emergence of new and improved instrumentation will continue to broaden the horizon of future research opportunities.Replacement of obsolete instruments, as well as acquisition of instruments of totally new design and capabilities, is frequently necessary to maintain the level of research that will keep the United States at the forefront of scientific knowledge and technology.4 4NIH Program Evaluation Report, Academic Research Equipment and Research Needs in the Biological and Medical Sciences, (NIH Publication No. 85-2769), p. 1-1, April 1985. Chapter IIntroductionMuch of this Nation's health-related research is carried out using technologies and resources developed and supported by the National Center for Research Resources(NCRR)1, the largest center at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Rather than focusing on a single illness or disease, the NCRR supports multidisciplinary programs designed towork in conjunction with research activities funded through other Institutes at the NIH. With an emphasis on shared resources and economies of scale, NCRR-supported programs have achieved a significant leveraging of research dollars. One such program is the NCRR's Shared Instrumentation Grant (SIG) Program, which allows extramural scientists to acquire and share expensive, analytical instruments not generally available through other NIH funding mechanisms. The SIG Program was designed to address the special needs associated with the acquisition and upgrading of these shared-use instruments. The Program was modeled after and replaced a predecessor program initiated by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) in 1979. An independent, external evaluation of the NCRR's SIG Program is documented
in this report. The following overview of the SIG Program -- including
Program background, the objective and main features, and its funding history
through FY 1995 -- is presented as a foundation for considering the evaluation
design presented on page 7. A. Program Overview1. Background EventsIn the late 1970s and early 1980s, new instruments were developed that opened new horizons to biomedical researchers and provided greater levels of sensitivity, flexibility, and computational power. Examples of these new instruments included nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers, electron microscopes, and cell sorters. In combination with improved computational and graphics software, these technologies gave biomedical researchers valuable new tools in their efforts to find causes and cures for a wide range of diseases. As a result, the popularity of the instrumentation grew, extending beyond the relatively small group of investigators interested mainly in development of the technology itself, to include large numbers of biomedical scientists from a variety of disciplines. Due to increased demand for the instrumentation, as well as certain characteristics of the instruments themselves, several problems arose. For example, anecdotal information suggested that access to new instruments was largely restricted to instrumentation specialists; and diffusion of technological capabilities to the general research community was increasingly constrained. With price tags of $75,000 or more, these state-of-the-art instruments were too expensive to be obtained through individual NIH research project grants. Moreover, as technological advances accelerated, the period of time during which new instruments were considered state-of-the-art, or the best generally available, gradually compressed. 1The Division of Research Resources and the Division of Research Services merged in 1990 to form the NCRR. In addition, NIH-supported investigators were experiencing a steady erosion in the funding necessary for the purchase and upkeep of scientific equipment that qualified as state-of-the-art. After the unprecedented R&D; infrastructure buildup of the 1960s in response to the Soviet scientific challenge, government funds earmarked for R&D; facilities and equipment had declined markedly; and an entire generation of equipment purchased for those facilities was outmoded by the late 1970s. For example, equipment in use at top-ranked universities had a median age twice that of the instrumentation available to leading industrial research laboratories.2 In addition, research funding was losing ground to inflation, making it less likely that instrumentation resources would be replenished. The shortage of state-of-the-art instrumentation created backlogs and constraints on NIH research in many disciplines. By the early 1970s, the instrumentation situation was the focus of a series of reports; and in the mid 1980s, a rigorous comprehensive study was launched to investigate the earlier, largely anecdotal assessments of the problem. For the years 1982-1983, the National Science Foundation's (NSF) National Study of Academic Research Instruments reported that:
In spite of findings indicating a pressing need for advanced analytical
instrumenta-tion, there remained concern at the federal level about unnecessary
duplication of equipment. Although federal grantees were under a mandate
to achieve efficient instrument sharing, the Presidentially-appointed
Grace Commission noted that sharing was still not being carried out efficiently,
despite regulations requiring administrators of grantee institutions to
certify that no unnecessary duplication of research equipment was taking
place. The Commission recommended that federal science agencies address
the problem by first teaching grantee institutions how to share expensive
equipment and instruments, and then encouraging them to do so. 2Association of American Universities. The Scientific Instrumentation Needs of Research Universities, a Report to the National Science Foundation, June 1980, p.21. 2. Objective and Features of the SIG Program3The SIG Program was launched in FY 1982 to enhance the accessibility and sharing of instrumentation not usually available to biomedical researchers through regular NIH grants. The Program allows investigators to acquire analytical instruments that fall below the regional facility scale in terms of sophistication and price, but above that of routine laboratory equipment. The stated objective of the SIG Program is: ... make available to institutions with a high concentration of NIH-supported biomedical investigators, research instruments which can only be justified on a shared-use basis and for which meritorious research projects are described.4,5 In addition to providing improved access to expensive, analytical instruments, the shared-use provision of the SIG Program benefits medical science in at least two other ways. First, it fosters collaboration among the traditionally fragmented specialties of the basic, applied, and clinical sciences by serving analytical instrumentation needs in all areas of biomedical research -- from fundamental molecular biology to clinical research and population studies, from cancer and cardiovascular disease studies to genetic and infectious disease studies. Some of the greatest advances in medicine have occurred at the juncture of disciplinary boundaries. Second, the shared-use feature of the SIG Program addresses the perceived
need for institutions to manage their scientific resources more efficiently,
and to integrate research activities into local, central core facilities
whenever possible. In times of reduced funding for biomedical research,
increased costs for advanced equipment, and shorter instrument lifetimes,
efficient sharing of resources is imperative.6 3NCRR Shared Instrumentation Grant Program Announcement, Fiscal Year 1996, PAR-96-017. This Announcement is in Appendix A and provides the most recent detail on the Program and application deadlines. 4NCRR SIG Program Announcement Fiscal Year 1996, A-1. 5The interchangeable use of the terms NIH and PHS in this report results from the fact that ADAMHA was a separate PHS agency until 1992 when the thre ADAMHA research institutes -- NIAAA, NIDA, and NIMH -- were incorporated into the NIH (see Appendix D for abbreviations). 6Program Highlights, 1992, NIH, NCRR (NIH Pub. 93-2309), p. 29. As recently as 1994, the National Report on Academic Research Instruments and Instrumentation in the Biological Sciences identified research equipment of the type provided through the SIG Program as top priority.
3. Grant Activity Through FY 1995FY 1995 marked 14 years of continuous operation of the SIG Program, during which time total funding for all years reached $296.5 million. (Figure 1) Funding grew from $3.7 million at the Program's inception in FY 1982, to $31.8 million in FY 1985; it remained near that annual level until FY 1992, when it decreased to $8.7 million from $32.5 million in the preceding year. The FY 1992 decrease was caused by mandated increases in other NIH program areas while the total FY 1992 NIH budget held to a relatively constant level. The FY 1992 decline in funding, together with the cumulative effect of more than a decade of inflation, reduced the Program's purchasing power by 81 percent. Although Program funding had risen to $9.5 million by FY 1995, it still remained at less than one-third of earlier annual funding levels.Through FY 1995, a total of 4,041 applications had been received and 1,487 awards granted. The numbers for applications and awards, by year, are shown in Figure 2. In general, trends in the numbers of applications and awards reflect annual changes in SIGProgram funding. Nonetheless, between FY 1992 and 1995 the application success rate was about half that of preceding years, because the number of applications declined only modestly in comparison to the sharp drop in funding. B. EvaluationSince the SIG Program is a unique mechanism that provides expensive, shared-use equipment to NIH researchers and plays a critical role in the equipment infrastructure for U.S. biomedical research, an independent evaluation was deemed necessary to determine whether the Program was meeting its goals. An open competition was held to select an external evaluator. A contract was subsequently awarded to the team of Abt Associates Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts, and James Bell Associates, Arlington, Virginia.9The evaluation represents the first assessment of the performance of a specific national, shared-use instrumentation program. The data collection consisted of a census of the 1,352 instruments awarded during the first 11 fiscal years of the SIG Program, with a particular focus on circumstances in calendar year 1993. Instruments, ranging in age from 1 to 11 years in 1993, were examined at that single point in time, which provided a longitudinal perspective that led to new insight into instrument life-cycles. The evaluation was designed to address specific aspects of SIG Program performance; the following describes the evaluation purpose, scope, characteristics of instruments included in the study, methods of data collection and analysis, and survey response rates. 1. PurposeThe evaluation was conducted to determine if the SIG Program has fulfilled its intent by addressing the NIH extramural research communities' need for advanced, shared-use analytical instrumentation. The findings will inform federal policy and program management decision makers responsible for the future funding and direction of the Program. In addition, by completing the partially-drawn picture provided by previous studies,10 these findings may support policy-level considerations of analytical instrumentation support for NIH-supported research in the years to come. 2. ScopeAs reflected in the questions for SIG PIs and MUs, which focused on circumstances of SIG instruments at a single point in time -- calendar year 1993, -- the evaluation addresses the SIG Program's intent by documenting how well the Program was working at the institutional level. The selection of evaluation topics was guided by the SIG Program Announcement (Appendix A), which states the formal objective and identifies distinctive Program features. These topics are subsumed in three fundamental questions:
Questions 1-3 are addressed separately in Chapters II,
III and IV, respectively. 9Abt Associates Inc. (AAI) was responsible for the written surveys including questionnaire design, administration, and data processing. James Bell Associates (JBA) was responsible for study design, data analysis and interpretation, and report writing. 10For example, see Academic Research Equipment, (NIH Pub. No. 85-2769).
3. Characteristics of Study InstrumentsAs noted, the study universe included the 1,352 analytical instruments purchased with SIG Program awards during FY 1982 through 1992. For most analyses, these instruments were aggregated into analysis subgroups defined by instrument age, instrument class, or grantee institution type. Instrument age was defined by the federal fiscal year of the SIG Program award for each instrument in the study universe. Instrument age in 1993 ranged from one year for FY 1992 awards to 11 years for FY 1982 awards as shown in Figure 2. For 2 to 8 year old instruments awarded from FY 1985 to 1991, the age cohorts by year were roughly similar in size, ranging from 139 to 171 instruments per year. For 1, 9, 10, and 11 year old instruments, the yearly age cohorts were smaller, ranging from 23 to 116 instruments peryear. Based on an instrument classification scheme developed for the NCRR Scientific Subproject System,11 the instruments examined in the evaluation were categorized into 11 broad classes as follows:
11The NCRR Scientific Subproject System is a database maintained by NCRR that includes information on NCRR shared instrumentation grants taken from the application and initial review summary statement. Since the SIG instruments were categorized into classes, the evaluation did not treat specific instrument types within a class; for instance, it did not distinguish analytically between 300 MHz, 400 MHz, and 500 MHz NMR spectrometers. NMR spectrometers were the most commonly awarded instruments, accounting
for 219 of the 1,352 awards, or 16 percent.(Figure
3) The top four instrument categories --NMRs, electron microscopes,
protein/DNA sequencers, and computer graphics and image systems -- represented
59 percent of the SIG instruments in the study universe.
12See Appendix C, Shared Instrumentation Grant Program Awards and Survey Response Rates by Instrument Class and Fiscal Year, (FY 1982-92). With advances in instrumentation in the 1980s and early 1990s, the distribution of SIG awards by instrument class changed over time.12 Some of the shifts that occurred were:
Through FY 1992, a total of 251 institutions had received SIG Program awards. For this report, SIG grantee institutions are characterized as (1) medical schools, (2) academic institutions, (3) research organizations, and (4) "other." The "other" category includes hospitals, schools of pharmacy, dentistry, public health, veterinary medicine, and optometry, and health departments. Each of these "other" organizations accounted for 5 percent or less of SIG awards in the study period. More than three-quarters of the grants were awards to medical schools (43 percent) and academic institutions (34 percent). (Figure 4) 4. Methodsa. Data CollectionA SIG award, unless administratively extended, is usually active for one-year. This is only the beginning of the total period of time for which SIG instruments are in service for NIH research purposes. Therefore, to obtain data unavailable from NIH in hard copy, electronic files or other existing sources, the evaluation relied on survey research. A survey was considered a feasible method for obtaining a sufficient number of observations on SIG instruments in the field. The 1993 Survey of Extramural Shared Instrumentation Activities was developed by Abt Associates Inc. and James Bell Associates and consisted of two questionnaires mailed between September 1994 and June 1995. Appendix B contains copies of the questionnaires. The Principal Investigator Questionnaire was sent to current PIs of the 1,352 SIG instruments awarded between FY 1982 and 1992. As part of their questionnaire, the SIG PIs identified investigators who were MUs in 1993. Based on those responses, a Major User Questionnaire was then mailed to all 4,018 investigators identified by SIG PIs as MUs of SIG instruments in 1993. Sixty-three percent of the SIG PIs also identified themselves as MUs. This subgroup -- PI-MUs -- responded to an identical set of questions asked of MUs in a separate section of their questionnaire. b. Data AnalysisA multistage analysis was conducted using descriptive statistics and univariate comparisons. First, response rates for subgroups defined by instrument class, grant year, and grantee institution type were examined and found to be generally consistent with the overall response rates for PIs and MUs. Second, frequency distributions of aggregate responses to individual survey items were assessed. Third, cross-tabulations were developed to identify differences across major categories, as defined by instrument age, instrument class, and grantee institution type. In addition, differences in MU subgroups were analyzed, i.e., MUs who were also SIG PIs versus other MUs. Analysis of variance and t-tests were used to determine if key variables such as weekly instrument use (in hours) differed significantly between instrument age, instrument class, institution type, MU type, and other categorical indicators. For small samples and ordinal-interval-level comparisons of the above categories, nonparametric methods such as ranked-differences and chi-squared tests were employed. Longitudinal differences were examined for significance; in some cases, data were collapsed into groups of older and newer instruments, i.e., FY 1982-87 versus FY 1988-92. Receiving the most attention in the analyses were the 87 percent of instruments reported by SIG PIs as being in service in 1993. This in service rate is the basis for national estimates of total users and hours of usage, estimates which include reported values plus those measures estimated for nonrespondent investigators using in service instruments.
5. Response RatesOf the 1,352 PI Questionnaires mailed out, 1,025 or 76 percent, were returned. Although the response rate varied somewhat by year of award and across instrument classes, there was no indication of nonresponse bias (Figures 5a and 5b): the distribution of age and class of instrument was similar for instruments for which the PI was a respondent or a nonrespondent (as shown in Appendix C). Of 4,018 MU Questionnaires mailed, 2,245 or 56 percent of identified users were returned. Taking into account nonresponse to the PI survey and MU survey, the response rate for MUs was 42 percent. There were comparable response rates among MUs of various classes and ages of instruments, and among instruments shared by larger and smaller numbers of MUs. Variance estimates were calculated for both the PI and MU surveys. These calculations included a correction for finite population size and, in the case of the MU survey, a correction for design effects associated with clustering. In general, confidence intervals for survey responses were approximately:
In addition, confidence intervals were calculated for national estimates of the number of instrument users and the number of weekly hours of SIG instrument use. These calculations for national estimates, which appear in Chapter II, are explained in footnotes. Chapter IIInstrument UseThe SIG Program provides funding for the acquisition of state-of-the-art analytical instruments to be shared principally by Public Health Service (PHS)-supported investigators involved in meritorious research. This intent is reinforced in the Program Announcement, which requires that: (a) a minimum of three MUs must have PHS peer-reviewed research support at the time of the award; and (b) PHS research projects will require at least 75 percent of the total usage of the instrument. This chapter presents findings on the use of SIG instruments at a single point in time, calendar year 1993. After a brief overview of use in 1993, findings are reported separately for major and minor users, including the number of users, share of instrument use time and, for MUs only, the NIH awarding unit funding their research grant involving SIG instrument use. The chapter also addresses turnover among MUs, key differences in use by instrument class, and the views of SIG PIs on historical changes in use and impediments to greater use. As noted above, these descriptive findings are based on frequency distributions and bivariate comparisons (cross-tabulations) by instrument age and instrument class.
A. Overview of UseTo obtain a general description of instrument use in the period under study, SIG PIs were asked: "On average, how many hours per week in calendar year 1993 (including week- days/evenings/weekends) was the SIG instrument actually used?" (The PIs were informed that use included the development of instrument use techniques and methods, and time spent training staff involved in conducting the research for which the SIG instrument was used. General student training was excluded.) The responses to this and other questions pertaining to instrument use
in 1993 indicated that an estimated 1,175 of the 1,352 SIG instruments
awarded from FY 1982 (87 percent) through 1992 were in service supporting
PHS research13. An unexpectedly high percentage of the 11 year
old instruments, 70 percent, were still in service (Figure
6). A total of 16,050 scientists utilized the SIG instruments
in 199314, and approximately 11,000,or 69 percent, were PHS-supported
investigators15 -- those expected to make the greatest use
of SIG instruments. PHS-supported investigators accounted for an average
of 83 percent of instrument use time, or about 39,000 hours for a typical
week, and about 2 million hours annually. Including usage by non-PHS users,
usage totaled almost 2.5 million hours per year in 1993. (Figure
7) For all instruments, the average number of hours per week that
each instrument was in use was 46. Older instruments (six to 11 years)
were in use an average of 45 hours per week, while newer instruments (one
to five years) were in use 50 hours per week, (weekly hours of use by
instrument class is discussed on p. 22).
13The 95 percent confidence interval based on response rate was ± 1.6 percent, so that the true value of the estimated percentage of in service instruments is expected to lie (95 times out of 100) between 85.3 percent and 88.5 percent. 14Weighting by the total number of instruments (and the proportion of instruments still in use), yielded the estimate of total number of users. PI's responses indicated that each instrument had an average of 13.6 (±1.1) major and minior users. 15A PHS-supported user is defined as an investigator who applies the SIG instrument in PHS-supported, peer-reviewed research. The user need not personally operate the SIG instrument. B. Major UsersAn MU is defined as a PHS-supported investigator who accounts for a significant share of SIG instrument use time. 1. Number of Major UsersSIG PIs were asked: "Identify up to ten PHS-sponsored MU investigators, each of whom accounted for a significant share of SIG instrument use in 1993." The total number of MUs for all SIG instruments in service in 1993 was 5,300. The average varied slightly by instrument age; it was highest, 5.2 MUs per instrument, for one to three year old instruments and lowest, 4 MUs per instrument, for instruments 7 years or older. Thirty percent of MUs used more than one SIG instrument in 1993 and 7.5 percent used more than one class of instrument. In this latter case, one of the instrument classes was likely to be NMRs, computer graphics and image systems, quantitative microscopes, or electron microscopes. Sixty-three percent of SIG PIs were also MUs; together, PI-MUs comprised 14 percent of total MUs and were distributed uniformly among instrument ages and instrument classes. 2. NIH Extramural Research SupportTo document NIH-supported research involving SIG instrument use, SIG MUs were asked: "List the PHS-supported grant number(s) that supported the research for which you used the SIG instrument in 1993." MUs listed a total of 4,358 PHS grants, or an average of 1.7 grants per respondent. At 2.5 grants per individual, this average was substantially higher for SIG PI-MUs, the subgroup of MUs who were also the PI for the SIG instrument. Twenty percent of listed grants were cited by more than one MU, for an unduplicated count of 3,486 PHS grants, or 80 percent of the 4,358 total.Seventy-five percent of the PHS grants received by MUs were awarded by six NIH Institutes ranked in order: the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; National Cancer Institute; National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; and National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke . (Figure 8) One percent of grant support was funded by a non-NIH PHS organization and the remainder (24 percent) were funded by 15 other NIH Institutes and Centers (see Appendix D for abbreviations). Seventy-two percent of MUs' NIH grants were awarded for investigator-initiated research projects, predominantly RO1s, (traditional research projects); 15 percent of grants were split between "research program projects" and "centers;" and the remaining 13 percent supported a mix of other research activities, e.g., cooperative agreements and trainee and fellowship programs. SIG PIs were asked: "Record the estimated average share of use time in 1993 for each identified PHS-sponsored major user, including yourself if you are a major user." MUs accounted for 76 percent of total use time for all instruments in service, about 35,700 hours per week and 1.9 million hours per year (Figure 9). MUs' share of instrument use was slightly higher for newer instruments when compared to older instruments. MUs accounted for 78 percent of total use of newer instruments (one to five years old); for older instruments (six to 11 years old) MUs' percentage of total use was 73 percent. For a given instrument, shares of use were likely to be unevenly distributed among the individual MUs. For example, the first three MUs identified by the SIG PI accounted for the largest proportions of instrument use time: 32 percent, 17 percent, and 12 percent, respectively, or a combined 61 percent of total use time. Finally, for one of five instruments, MUs alone accounted for all (100 percent) of average weekly hours of use. 4. Turnover Among Major UsersMus were asked: "When did you first use the SIG instrument to conduct research?" MU turnover was identified by comparing responses to this question with responses about the date when the SIG instrument first became operational for use in PHS-supported research (see p. 33). About one-third of MUs first used the SIG instrument two or more years after it became operational. This suggests substantial turnover in the MU population. However, turnover was lower for PI-MUs than for MUs generally. A moderately smaller proportion of PI-MUs (21 percent) first used the instrument two or more years after it became operational. C. Minor UsersMinor users may be either PHS-supported investigators whose individual share of instrument use does not constitute a significant percentage of average use time, or investigators whose SIG instrument research is not supported by PHS.
1.NumberSIG PIs were asked: "How many additional PHS-sponsored users were there in 1993 (those not listed as major users)?" Since SIG instruments are also useful to other biological or physical scientists not supported by PHS, the SIG PIs were also asked: "What was the estimated number of non-PHS-sponsored users in 1993?" In 1993, there were 10,750 minor users, an average of 9 per SIG instrument. Newer instruments (ages one to five years) generally had a greater proportion of minor users conducting PHS research than did older instruments (six to 11 years old). 2. Share of UseSIG PIs were asked: "What estimated share of time used in 1993 did additional PHS-sponsored users account for?" They were also asked: "What estimated share of time used in 1993 did the non-PHS-sponsored users account for?" The response indicated that minor users accounted for about 11,300 hours per week of SIG instrument use, or 587,600 hours in 1993. The minor users' share of total SIG instrument use time in 1993 was 24 percent. It was somewhat larger for older instruments, because the non-PHS minor users' share was substantially greater for these instruments. As shown in Figure 9, non-PHS minor users accounted for a 21 percent share of use for 11 year old instruments compared to 7 percent for one year old instruments. D. Instrument Class DifferencesThe reports of PIs about SIG instrument use revealed several notable differences among instrument classes. These spanned several aspects of use, including the following:
E. Longitudinal Changes in Instrument UseSIG PIs were asked: "In your estimation, has the amount of use of the SIG instrument by all users changed since the SIG instrument became operational?" The number of SIG PIs who reported somewhat or greatly increased use was much larger for newer SIG instruments: 95 percent for one year old instruments compared to 41 percent for 9 year old instruments. (Figure 12) The 66 percent of PIs who reported increased use ranked the following reasons for the increase: publicity and increased demand, greater awareness by scientists of instrument capability, funding increases, improved availability and accessibility, and wider applications. For one instrument class, electron microscopes, a majority of SIG Pis (52percent) reported decreased use since the instrument became operational F. Impediments to Full UseAs instruments age and new technology is introduced into commercially available instruments, the likelihood of SIG instrument obsolescence increases. Since full or maximal use of scientific instrumentation is not always possible, SIG PIs were asked: "If the SIG instrument was not fully utilized sometime in 1993, was this because...?" Respondents were given both a menu of possible reasons and space on the questionnaire to record other reasons. These responses identified reasons for non-use of instruments on one
or more occasions in 1993, but not the severity or persistence of problems
over time. For many instruments, more than one reason for non-use was
provided. The predominant responses ranked were: instrument was broken
or not functioning properly; not enough investigators skilled in the application
of the instrument; use was too expensive for some investigators; operator
was needed but not available; instrument was obsolete; instrument was
not reliable, precise, or consistent; and instrument was placed in an
inconvenient location, thereby limiting access. In addition, "other reasons"
for curtailed use included the availability of competing technologies,
holidays-only availability, and the need for instrument recalibration.
Chapter IIINIH Investigators' Views Through the shared-use of state-of-the-art SIG instruments, it is expected
that NIH-supported investigators will be able to expand the horizons of
knowledge in their areas of biomedical research. As the intended direct
users of SIG instrumentation, the views of these NIH investigators --
in particular, the uniquely situated MUs -- provide valuable insight into
the institution-level implementation and operation of instruments acquired
with This chapter presents MUs' views16 on the contribution made
by SIG instruments to their NIH-supported research generally, and in specific
areas, such as the ability to conduct research that could not have been
done previously. It also summarizes the opinions of MUs on the arrangements
for shared-use and on instrument condition.
MUs were asked, considering the specific NIH-supported research projects
for which they used the SIG instrument in 1993: "Rate the importance of
the SIG instrument in this research." Seventy-three percent described
the instrument as "essential," 23 percent called the instrument "somewhat
important," and four percent said the instrument was "peripheral." The
percentage of MUs who rated SIG instruments "essential" did not vary significantly
by instrument age (Figure 13), which indicates
that SIG instruments play a continuous, vital role in supporting NIH research
over a long period of time -- more than a decade for the oldest SIG instruments.
Perhaps a closer look would reveal a difference in research applications
for newer versus older instruments, with state-of-the-art instruments
expected to devolve from cutting-edge research applications into "workhorse"
applications when the instruments are no longer technologically advanced.
Whatever the explanation, the MUs' reports suggest that SIG instruments
make a long-term contribution to NIH research. MUs' ratings of instrument
importance did vary somewhat by instrument class, from a low of 62 percent
for quantitative microscopes to a high of 80 percent for NMRs.
MUs were also asked: "List one or more pending PHS-sponsored research
applications that would involve use of the SIG instrument and rate the
importance of the SIG instrument to that proposed research." The findings
on pending PHS applications matched those for active PHS-supported research
grants; 78 percent of MUs rated the SIG instrument as "essential" to the
proposed research. For additional information concerning their views on the contribution
of SIG instruments to NIH research, MUs were asked: "Considering your
entire usage of the SIG instrument, how great an impact has it had on
your PHS research in each of the following areas: ability to conduct research
that could not be done previously, ability to publish research, ability
to gain research funds, ability to attract research collaborators, and
ability to recruit and retain investigators?"
Commenting on the fundamental issue addressed by the SIG Program, 52
percent of MUs reported a "very significant" impact on ability to conduct
research that could not have been done previously. Between 19 and 36 percent
reported "very significant" impact on publications, ability to gain research
funds, collaboration, and recruitment and retention (Figure
14). The consistency in impact ratings across instrument ages
was noteworthy. Small differences were found between instrument classes.
For example, 59 percent of MUs reported that NMRs had a "very significant"
impact on ability to conduct new research while only 44 percent rated
electron microscopes and miscellaneous instruments as "very significant"
in that regard.
PI-MUs were more likely than other MUs to report that the SIG instruments
had a "very significant" impact. The percentages for PI-MUs ranged from
9 to 19 points higher, depending on area of impact. Ratings by both PI-MUs
and other MUs were highest on ability to conduct research not previously
possible, and lowest on recruitment and retention of investigators.
Chapter II provided findings about numbers of
NIH-supported researchers and instrument use time devoted to their projects.
These findings confirmed that SIG instruments were used by multiple NIH-supported
investigators. On the more subtle topic of whether MUs thought they had
good access to the instrument, MUs were asked: "In general, how would
you rate your ability to gain access to the SIG instrument in 1993?"
Ninety-six percent of MUs reported that they were either "always able"
(55 percent) or "usually able" (41 percent) to gain access. Of the remainder,
three percent said they were "sometimes able," and less than one percent
said they were "usually unable" or "never able" to gain access. Reasons
cited by the small group of MUs with access difficulties included very
heavy instrument use, instrument down time, and breakage.
Though MUs' perceptions of access were consistent across instrument
ages, they varied by instrument class. Protein/DNA sequencers and radiology
instruments were considered the most accessible; 64 to 66 percent of respondents
were "always able" to access these instruments (Figure
15). As for least accessible instruments, only 37 to 44 percent
of MUs reported that they were "always able" to access quantitative microscopes,
x-ray diffractometers and NMRs. For some instrument classes, such as cytometers
and quantitative microscopes, PI-MUs were more likely to report being
"always able" to access the SIG instruments than were other Mus.
In past studies, distinctions were made between the working condition
of instruments and two dimensions of technological status. Working condition
describes whether instruments are sufficiently accurate and reliable enough
to support biomedical research. On the other hand, technological status
makes a distinction between state-of-the-art sophistication and adequacy
for research. Depending on advances in commercial instrumentation and
the specific course of research being pursued, an instrument might represent
the state-of-the-art in technological sophistication and/or it might be
adequate for research. When more technologically advanced instruments
become commercially available, existing instruments are no longer state-of-the-art.
However, these former state-of-the-art instruments are often quite adequate
for performing vital research activities.
MUs were asked: "Please rate the current technological status of the
SIG instrument, including any upgrades. The rating should be from the
perspective of your specific area of biomedical research." MUs were asked
two questions: "Is the SIGinstrument state-of-the-art in your area?" and
"Is it (the SIG instrument) adequate to meet your research needs?"
Eighty-three percent of the one year old instruments were said to be
"state-of-the-art," which was almost double the percentage for the 11
year old instruments (Figure 16). The percentage of MUs who said the SIG instrument
was "adequate" for their research was also higher for newer instruments;
98 percent of the one year old instruments were considered adequate for
research compared to 78 percent of the 11 year old SIG instruments. Overall,
Mus were more likely to evaluate SIG instruments as being adequate for
research than to label them"state-of-the-art."
Designating SIG instruments as "state-of-the-art" varied according to
instrument class. Radiology instruments and other spectrometers had the
highest proportion of "state-of-the-art" instruments, 74 percent and 77
percent, respectively. NMRs were least frequently considered state-of-the-art,
at only 47 percent. Across instrument classes, the proportion of MUs rating
SIG instruments as adequate for their research ranged from 79 percent
for mass spectrometers to 95 percent for electron microscopes (Figure
17). There were differences between PI-MUs and other MUs, with a smaller
number of PI-MUs (79 percent) stating the instrument was adequate for
their research, as compared to 88 percent of the other Mus
SIG PIs and MUs were asked: "Considering the frequency and severity
of breakdowns, as well as the required precision and consistency of instrument
measurements, how would you rate the SIG instrument's working condition
during 1993?"
The ratings of working condition were lower for older SIG instruments.
"Excellent" ratings were highest, 70 percent, for one-year-old instruments
with FY 1992 awards and lowest, 49 percent, for instruments 11 years old.
(Figure 18) Overall, 58 percent of respondents
rated the working condition of their SIG instruments as "excellent," with
no difference between PIs and MUs in this regard. Most of the remaining
respondents rated instrument condition as "above average" or "average,"
23 and 14 percent respectively, while five percent labeled instrument
working condition as "below average" or "poor." The ratings of "excellent"
also varied by instrument class, ranging between 68 percent for electron
microscopes and 52 percent for NMRs.
With SIG Program awards, recipient institutions accept certain instrument
maintenance and administration responsibilities that must be fulfilled
to assure long-term, continuous use of the instruments. For example, the
Program Announcement stipulates that grantee institutions must identify
a PI to provide administrative and scientific oversight of each instrument,
and encourages the institution to establish an internal advisory committee
to assist with oversight. In addition, the Program Announcement requires
assurances by the institution of its commitment to the future operation
and maintenance of the instrument, including specific plans for shared-use
and day-to-day maintenance and management. This chapter summarizes findings
about provision for instrument maintenance, sources of funds for instrument
operation, and characteristics of instrument advisory committees.
Physical start-up period and location, assignment of an operator, initiation
of upgrades, and maintenance expenses all indicate the institution's commitment
for maintenance and support for the long-term operation of SIG instruments.
The process of acquiring, installing, and testing advanced analytical
instrumentation can consume differing amounts of time and resources depending
on factors such as the manufacturer's supply of the specific instrument
model and the availability of suitable space and technical expertise needed
for installation and testing. SIG PIs were asked: "When was the SIG instrument
first used for PHS-sponsored research?"17
Forty-six percent of the instruments were first used for NIH research
the same year as the award, and 36 percent were first used the year after
the award. A small proportion (12 percent) were first used for PHS-research
two or more years after the SIG award, and 6 percent were first used for
PHS research prior to the SIG grant award. The latter instruments probably
were on lease when the award was made, since SIG awards do not cover previously
purchased items.
Although the SIG Program Announcement allows
location flexibility, institutions are encouraged to integrate research
activities into central facilities whenever possible. SIG Pis were asked:
"Where is the SIG instrument currently located: in an investigator's laboratory
or facility; in a departmental laboratory or facility; in an interdepartmental
laboratory or facility; in an interinstitutional laboratory or facility;
or other?"18 In this context, an interinstitutional facility
could be either (a) a facility serving multiple components of a large
institution, e.g., a medical school and school of public health or (b)
a facility shared by investigators from separate institutions.
Eighty-two percent of SIG instruments were located in central facilities,
either a departmental (43 percent), an interdepartmental (30 percent),
or an interinstitutional facility (9 percent). According to SIG PIs, their
own laboratories were the least common location, housing only 18 percent
of the instruments.
Instrument location differed between medical schools and academic institutions,
which together housed almost eight out of ten SIG instruments. In academic
institutions, SIG instruments were twice as likely to be located in departmental
labs, 53 percent, than in interdepartmental labs, 25 percent. In medical
schools, however, the percentages of instruments in departmental labs
and interdepartmental labs were quite similar at 37 and 33 percent, respectively.
Depending on instrument class and the technical capabilities of users
and their staffs, an assigned operator may or may not be required. SIG
PIs were asked: "Was an instrument operator assigned to the SIG instrument?"
Protein/DNA sequencers and cytometers were most likely to have an assigned
operator, 88 and 87 percent, respectively. Other spectrometers were least
likely to have assigned operators, 37 percent. (Figure
19)
Preventive and remedial maintenance ensures that SIG instruments are
ready and able to support research in both the short- and long-term. SIG
PIs were asked: "How much was spent to maintain the SIG instrument during
1993?"
The average per instrument maintenance expenses ranged from a high of
$15,300 per instrument for cytometers to a low of $4,800 per instrument
for other spectrometers (Figure 20).
The recent evolution of commercially available analytical instrumentation
typifies the breakneck pace of technological development. Some instruments,
such as certain computing and imaging system components, are rapidly displaced
by more advanced, next-generation models. Upgrades -- modifications to
enhance instrument capability and performance -- may extend the usefulness
of some instruments to research. SIG PIs were asked: "Since the SIG instrument
first became operational, has it been significantly upgraded? For each
significant modification, please list: the year it was completed; the
approximate cost, and a brief description of the change."
Forty percent of SIG instruments had undergone a significant upgrade
at least once since becoming operational; these were evenly split between
instruments that were upgraded once and those that had been enhanced two
to five times. For 69 percent of the upgraded instruments, the first significant
improvement in capability occurred within four years of the award, while
27 percent were first upgraded five to ten years after that date. Four
percent reported an upgrade the same year as the award.
The proportion of upgraded instruments was somewhat higher for older
instruments, six to 11 years old, at 41 to 54 percent, compared to newer
instruments, one to five years old, at 19 to 37 percent. Also, cytometers
and computer graphics and image systems were most likely to be upgraded,
60 and 58 percent, respectively, while the least upgraded instruments
were electron microscopes, 17 percent. (Figure
21a) The average cost per upgrade ranged from as low as $14,000
for protein/DNA sequencers to as high as $42,800 for radiology instruments
(Figure 21b).
SIG PIs were asked: "What percent of SIG instrument operator compensation
was met by each of the following sources of funds during 1993: user fees;
institution, departmental, or laboratory funds; funds allocated from other
PHS awards; other federal awards, and other (please specify)?" Using the
same list of response choices, SIG PIs also were asked: "What percent
of the maintenance costs were met by each of the following sources of
funds during 1993?"
Fifty-two percent of SIG instrument operators were compensated by a
single funding source, usually institution funds, but also by PHS funds,
user fees, or other federal awards. The remaining 48 percent of operators
were compensated by a combination of funding sources.
Reflecting the pattern for operator compensation, for most of the instruments
with 1993 maintenance expenses, there was sole reliance on either user
fees (24 percent), institution funds (23 percent), or PHS funds (14 percent)
to cover these costs. Maintenance for the majority of the remaining instruments
was funded most frequently by a combination of sources. For 1 percent
of instruments, maintenance expenses were paid entirely by "other" (non-PHS
funds).
The SIG Program Announcement encourages but does
not require an advisory committee for SIG instruments. PIs were asked:
"Is there an instrument advisory committee for administration and/or oversight
of the SIG instrument?" If so, they were also asked: "Which one of the
following best describes the SIG instrument advisory committee: an advisory
committee established solely for this SIG instrument; the Biomedical Research
Support Grant (BRSG) committee (required for NIH BRS Grants); or some
other standing committee (e.g., core facility management committee)?"
Seventy percent of SIG instruments in service in 1993 had an advisory
committee. With few exceptions, newer instruments (one to five years old)
were overseen by an advisory committee. Older instruments were less likely
to have an operative advisory committee. For example, 93 percent of one
year old instruments had an advisory committee, compared to 48 percent
of the nine year old instruments.
While 42 percent of the advisory committees were characterized as having
been established solely for the SIG instrument, 54 percent were other
standing committees, such as one overseeing core facilities. For 4 percent
of instruments with advisory committees, the BRSG committee was identified
as the overseeing body.
The percentage of instruments overseen by SIG-dedicated committees was
generally high for newer instruments, one to five years old; the proportion
of SIG-dedicated committees was between 45 and 55 percent. For instruments
six to ten years old, SIG dedicated committees ranged from 20 to 41 percent.19
SIG dedicated advisory committees were more prevalent at medical schools
(50 percent) than academic institutions (28 percent).
SIG PIs were asked three questions about advisory committee size and
composition: (1) "What was the size of the advisory committee in 1993?"
(2) "In 1993, how many members of the SIG instrument advisory committee
were: members of your laboratory; members of your department, but not
your laboratory; members of your institution, but not your department;
not members of your institution?" and (3) "How many members of the advisory
committee were investigators who used the SIG instrument during 1993?"
To gauge the level of committee activity, SIG PIs were also asked: "How
many times did the advisory committee meet to discuss the SIG instrument
in calendar year 1993?"
Seventy-five percent of the committees had between 3 and 5 members,
and 95 percent had at least one member who was also a SIG instrument user.
Excluding advisory committee members from other institutions and the PI's
laboratory, representing about 4 percent and 17 percent of total members,
respectively, the advisory committees were composed primarily of members
of the PI's department (but not his/her laboratory) and members of the
PI's institution (but not his/her department) (Figure
22).
Among advisory committees that held a meeting in 1993, 32 percent had
one meeting; 53 percent had two, three or four meetings; 14 percent met
five to 12 times; 1 percent met more than 12 times up to a maximum of
50.
SIG PIs were asked: "Since the SIG instrument became operational, has
the advisory committee established policies or procedures concerning the
following matters:
Eighty-eight percent of advisory committees had established written
SIG instrument policy in one or more areas.20 Policies were
most prevalent among committees for radiology instruments (100 percent),
quantitative microscopes (97 percent), and NMRs (93 percent). Mass spectrometers
had the lowest percentage of advisory committees with one or more policies
(69 percent).
The most commonly created policy, established by 70 percent of committees,
addressed instrument use scheduling. In addition, about one-half of the
committees established policies for publicizing the instrument, available
hours, user standards, and maintenance. Policies for selecting among investigators
seeking use were least common: only 28 percent of committees had such
a policy. Finally, other specific policies established by SIG advisory
committees (other than those listed on the questionnaire) concerned topics
such as user fees, training, and instrument upgrades.
.
The provision of advanced, shared-use analytical instrumentation is
as crucial to NIH research today as it was when the SIG Program began
in 1982. Research opportunities continue to expand with the emergence
of improved and entirely new instruments. For example, scanning confocal
microscopes, not commercially available until recently, introduced into
the field of cell biology a powerful new capability for dynamic, three-dimensional
microscopy of living cells. As observed in an earlier study:
National Center for Research Resources The National Center for Research Resources
(NCRR) is continuing its competitive Shared Instrumentation Grant
(SIG) Program initiated in Fiscal Year 1982. The (1992) National Report
on Academic Research Equipment and Equipment Needs for Biological Sciences,
cosponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation, identified research
equipment of the type provided through this program as top-priority. The
objective of the program is to make available to institutions with a high
concentration of NIH-supported biomedical investigators expensive research
instruments which can only be justified on a shared-use basis and for
which meritorious research projects are described. Awards under this Program
Announcement (PA) will use the Shared Instrumentation Grant mechanism
(S10).
Under the general research support authority of Section 301 (a)(3) of
the Public Health Service Act, Shared Instrumentation Grant awards are
made to public and non-profit institutions only. For purposes of these
guidelines, an "institution" is defined as the organizational component
identified on page 1, item 11 of the PHS 398 (rev. 5/95), for which descriptive
information is provided on page 9-10 in the PHS 398 kit. These institutions
include health professional schools, other academic institutions, hospitals,
health departments, and research organizations. Federal institutions,
foreign institutions, and for-profit institutions are not eligible to
apply. Racial/ethnic minority individuals, women, and persons with disabilities
are encouraged to apply as Principal Investigators.
An eligible institution may submit more than one application for different
instrumentation for the March 27, 1996, deadline. However, if several
applications are submitted for similar instrumentation from one or more
eligible institutions on the same campus of a university, documentation
from a high administrative official must be provided stating that this
is not an unintended duplication but part of a campus- wide institutional
plan.
Shared Instrumentation Grants (S10) provide support for expensive state-of-the-art
instruments utilized in both basic and clinical research. Applications
are limited to instruments that cost at least $100,000 per instrument
or system. The maximum award is $400,000. Because the nature and scope
of the instruments that may be requested will vary, it is anticipated
that the size of an award will vary also.
This program is designed to meet the special problems of acquisition
and updating of expensive shared-use instruments which are not generally
available through other NIH mechanisms, such as the regular research project,
program project, or center grant programs. Proposals for research on advancing
the design or for the development of new instrumentation will not be considered.
Types of instrumentation supported include, but are not limited to,
nuclear magnetic resonance systems, electron microscopes, mass spectrometers,
protein sequencer/amino acid analyzers and cell sorters. Support will
not be provided for general purpose equipment or purely instructional
equipment, personal computers, personal work stations, printers, and ethernet
interfaces. Proposals for "stand alone" computer systems will only be
considered if the instrument is solely dedicated to the research needs
of a broad community of NIH-supported investigators.
Awards will be made for the direct costs of the acquisition of new,
or the updating of existing, research instruments. The institution must
meet those costs (not covered in the normal purchase price) required to
place the instrumentation in operational order as well as the maintenance,
support personnel, and service costs associated with maximum utilization
of the instrument. There is no upper limit on the cost of the instrument,
but the maximum award is $400,000. Grants will be awarded for a period
of one year and are not renewable. Supplemental applications will not
be accepted. The program does not provide indirect costs or support for
construction or alterations and renovations. Cost sharing is not required.
If the amount of funds requested does not cover the total cost of the
instrument, the application should describe the proposed sources(s) of
funding for the balance of the cost of the instrument. Documentation of
the availability of the remainder of the funding, signed by an appropriate
institutional official, must be presented to NCRR prior to the issuance
of an award. Requests for a multiple instrument purchase totalling over
$400,000 must specify and justify which instrument(s) should be supported
within the $400,000 ceiling.
Applicants proposing the direct purchase of an instrument that the institution
has secured or is planning to secure via a leasing agreement are strongly
encouraged to consult with their institutional sponsored projects office
regarding applicable PHS policy prior to executing the leasing agreement.
If the leasing agreement was executed more than one year prior to submission
of the SIG application, the applicant must provide strong justification
for the requested Federal funds. Further, the instrument must be considered
state-of-the-art at the time of submission of the SIG application. Since
the intent of the program is to promote sharing, a major user group of
three or more investigators must be identified. A minimum of three major
users must be Principal Investigators on NIH peer reviewed research grants
at the time of the application and award. For purposes of this program
research grants are defined as those grants awarded with the following
activity codes: P01, R01, U01, R29, R35, and R37. The application must
show a clear need for the instrumentation by projects supported by multiple
NIH research awards and demonstrate that these projects will require at
least 75 percent of the total usage of the instrument. Major users can
be individual researchers, or a group of investigators within the same
department or from several departments at the applicant institution. NIH
extramural awardees from other nearby institutions may also be included.
If the major user group does not require total usage of the instrument,
access to the instrument should be made available to other users upon
the advice of the internal advisory committee. These users need not be
NIH awardees, but priority should be given to NIH-supported scientists
engaged in biomedical/behavioral research.
To encourage optimal sharing among individual investigators, research
groups, and departments, and to foster a collaborative multidisciplinary
environment, instruments should be integrated into central core facilities,
whenever possible. Each applicant institution must propose a Principal
Investigator who can assume administrative/scientific oversight responsibility
for the instrumentation requested. An internal advisory committee to assist
in this responsibility should also be utilized. The Principal Investigator
and the advisory group are responsible for the development of guidelines
for shared use of the instrument, for preparation of all reports required
by the NIH, for relocation of the instrument within the grantee institution
if the major user group is significantly altered, and for continued support
for the maximum utilization and maintenance of the instrument in the post-award
period.
A plan should be proposed for the day-to-day management of the instrument
including designation of a qualified individual to supervise the operation
of the instrument and to provide technical expertise to the users. Specific
plans for sharing arrangements and for monitoring the use of the instrument
should be described.
If a grant award is made, a final progress report will be required that
describes the use of the instrument, listing all users and indicating
the value of the instrumentation to the research of the major users and
to the institution as a whole. This report is due within 90 days following
the end of the project period.
The research grant application form 398 (rev. 5/95) is to be used in
applying for these grants. These forms are available at most institutional
offices of sponsored research and may be obtained from the Office of Grants
Information, Division of Research Grants, National Institutes of Health,
6701 Rockledge Drive, MSC 7910, Bethesda, MD 20892-7910, telephone (301)
435-0714, e-mail: girg@drgpo.drg.nih.gov.
Provide information relative to the points identified under criteria
for review including:
Applications must be received by March 27, 1996. Applications received
after this date will not be accepted for review in this competition and
will be returned to the applicant. The completed, signed original and
four exact photocopies of the signed application and any appendix material*
must be sent to:
*Since the appendix will not be duplicated, if glossy photographs or
color images are included, a separate set of originals must accompany
each application.
One copy of the application and appendix material must be addressed
to:
Applications that are complete and responsive to the program announcement
will be evaluated for scientific and technical merit by an appropriate
peer review group convened in accordance with NIH peer review procedures.
As part of the initial merit review, all applications will receive a written
critique and may undergo a process in which only those applications deemed
to have the highest scientific merit, generally the top half of applications
under review, will be discussed, assigned a priority score, and receive
a second level review by the National Advisory Research Resources Council,
NCRR. Applications are reviewed by specially convened initial review groups
of the Division of Research Grants (DRG) for scientific and technical
merit and for program considerations by the National Advisory Research
Resources Council (NARRC) of the NCRR. Approximately half of the applications
will be reviewed at the September 1996 NARRC meeting and the remainder
at the NARRC meeting in February 1997. Funding decisions on all applications
received for the March 27, 1996, deadline will not be made until the program
receives an appropriation for FY 1997. The Council date will not affect
funding decisions.
Applications that request a single instrument with a total purchase
cost of more than $500,000, and that would normally be eligible for submission
to both NIH and NSF, may be submitted to NIH for joint funding with NSF
by including necessary NSF documentation. The Agencies will review such
proposals in a special review group that will be convened by NIH as a
special NIH study section with NSF participation. Under this arrangement,
the agencies may offer joint funding in excess of the current award limit
of $400,000. Contact the NSF Division of Biological Instrumentation and
Resources for additional information on the NSF documentation (cover sheet
and cost sharing agreement).
Review Criteria
In making funding decisions, the NCRR will give consideration to ensure
program balance among various types of instruments supported and/or geographic
distribution of awards.
Inquiries are encouraged. The opportunity to clarify any issues or questions
from potential applicants is welcome. Direct inquiries regarding programmatic
or scientific issues to:
Direct inquiries regarding fiscal matters to:
The PHS strongly encourages all grant and contract recipients to provide
a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products.
In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits
smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of a facility)
in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care
or early childhood development services are provided to children. This
is consistent with the PHS mission to protect and advance the physical
and mental health of the American people.
Appendix B is available for viewing through the free Internet Utility,
Adobe Acrobat.
If you do not have the Adobe Acrobat reader, click here to download . (4)
(12)
(13)
(9)
(15)
(11)
(17)
(6)
(11)
(11)
(3)
(112)
(5)
(14)
(22)
(28)
(16)
(14)
(19)
(10)
(13)
(8)
(3)
(152)
(0)
(0)
(1)
(5)
(3)
(3)
(4)
(13)
(13)
(9)
(1)
(52)
(0)
(2)
(3)
(6)
(0)
(3)
(5)
(4)
(4)
(6)
(1)
(34)
(1)
(5)
(12)
(14)
(16)
(21)
(13)
(11)
(12)
(11)
(7)
(123)
(1)
(9)
(9)
(12)
(21)
(17)
(18)
(19)
(17)
(17)
(3)
(143)
(2)
(12)
(7)
(14)
(12)
(10)
(13)
(5)
(14)
(12)
(3)
(104)
(2)
(2)
(4)
(9)
(7)
(4)
(4)
(11)
(4)
(9)
(1)
(57)
(0)
(4)
(7)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(3)
(5)
(3)
(5)
(1)
(40)
(3)
(7)
(13)
(30)
(17)
(23)
(22)
(17)
(17)
(16)
(4)
(169)
(1)
(2)
(4)
(7)
(4)
(2)
(8)
(3)
(4)
(4)
(0)
(39)
(19)
(69)
(95)
(137)
(115)
(113)
(126)
(104)
(112)
(108)
(27)
(1,025)
Sources: IMPAC (NIH Information for Management, Planning, Analysis,
and Coordination), and 1993 AAI/JBA Principal Investigator Survey of Extramural
Shared Instrumentation Activities.
a Responses include 127 grants where a response was
received but the survey response was not sufficient to use in the analysis:
the instrument was not in service.
(7)
(0)
(13)
(15)
(24)
(38)
(43)
(20)
(35)
(42)
(14)
(251)
(10)
(26)
(42)
(48)
(47)
(20)
(36)
(30)
(30)
(24)
(4)
(317)
(0)
(0)
(0)
(8)
(0)
(2)
(10)
(43)
(29)
(24)
(2)
(118)
(0)
(14)
(7)
(9)
(0)
(8)
(10)
(10)
(4)
(14)
(2)
(78)
(0)
(8)
(4)
(4)
(11)
(35)
(24)
(20)
(23)
(34)
(26)
(189)
(0)
(11)
(15)
(41)
(39)
(40)
(32)
(59)
(52)
(53)
(5)
(347)
(5)
(34)
(14)
(21)
(24)
(33)
34)
(22)
(30)
(57)
(9)
(283)
(0)
(1)
(1)
(4)
(13)
(5)
(5)
(25)
(12)
(8)
(0)
(74)
(0)
(6)
(8)
(6)
(5)
(13)
(3)
(12)
(10)
(7)
(3)
(73)
(8)
(19)
(39)
(48)
(56)
(50)
(45)
(53)
(60)
(50)
(16)
(444)
(15)
(1)
(6)
(6)
(4)
(2)
(19)
(7)
(5)
(6)
(0)
(71)
(45)
(120)
(149)
(210)
(223)
(246)
(261)
(301)
(290)
(319)
(81)
(2,245)
Source: 1993 AAI/JBA Major User Questionnaire, Survey of Extramural
Shared Instrumentation Activities..
|