Survey of Higher Education Strategies to Win Grants from the National Institutes of Health

The study presents data from more than 30 research universities, medical schools and other colleges pursuing NIH grants. The 122-page report helps its readers answer questions such as: how skilled do universities and other colleges view their researchers in making contacts at the NIH, on understanding its range of grant programs, or in foreseeing questions that might be posed in NIH peer reviews? What percentage of grants are R01 grants? What percentage of grant volume results from collaborations with other institutions? With the private sector? How many colleges have hired consultants to assist with NIH grant pursuit and what have been the results? How much staff time do institutions expend in monitoring the NIH? How many institutions have mentoring programs for junior faculty? How many workshops do colleges offer annually in NIH grant preparation and how well attended are these workshops? How do colleges evaluate their NIH grant procurement efforts? Data in the report is broken out separately by criteria such as college size and types, as well as by NIH grant volume. Data is presented separately for research universities, medical schools, and other institutions. Just a few of the report’s many findings are that: • R01 grants accounted for nearly 50% of the NIH grants to research universities and 40% of those to medical schools in the sample. • The mean number of administrative staff hours spent annually monitoring NIH policies 642.73. • Only 2.94% of survey participants thought that their researchers and other faculty were highly proficient in making pre-review contacts at the NIH. • More than 41% of those surveyed considered it either somewhat difficult, difficult or very difficult to get senior faculty or others with significant experience in obtaining NIH grants to read the proposals of junior faculty or staff and to mentor them.