ASBMB calls for changes to NIH fellowship review

The Center for Scientific Review asked how it can improve the NRSA fellowship process
Mallory Smith
Jan. 27, 2022

The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology submitted five policy recommendations last week to the National Institutes of Health Center for Scientific Review advocating for changes to the National Research Service Award Fellowship application and review process to improve equity and reduce bias:

  1. Allow applicants to explain the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on their careers.
  2. Allow victims of harassment to explain disruptions to their careers.
  3. Incorporate implicit bias training for reviewers.
  4. Reduce emphasis on undergraduate coursework.
  5. Reduce the emphasis on the principal investigator’s training track record.

Rick Page of Miami University, who leads the ASBMB Public Affairs Advisory Committee, said the recommendations were written with this in mind: “A community of researchers with greater diversity of voices, backgrounds and experiences produces research that is more innovative and more impactful.”

He emphasized: “Increased equity in fellowship applications review will improve diversity of awardees and reap positive impacts on the careers of a wider range of trainees and long-term positive impacts for the scientific research enterprise.”

The NIH CSR assesses an applicant’s potential to contribute significantly to biomedical research based on five main criteria:

  • Applicant
  • Sponsor(s), collaborators and consultants
  • Research training plan
  • Training potential
  • Institutional environment and commitment to training

While past success can be indicative of future success, this approach disadvantages applicants with massive potential who have faced significant challenges outside their control and/or were not exposed to the same opportunities. A CSR Advisory Council working group recently voiced concerns that the current evaluation criteria make it difficult to assess an applicant’s potential, disadvantage smaller schools with less resources than larger institutions, and cause junior faculty to feel unlikely to succeed in sponsoring an applicant.

On Jan. 6, Bruce Reed, deputy director of the CSR, authored a blog post requesting feedback from the scientific community on how to improve the fellowship review process.

“In answering, think about the characteristics of strong applicants, sponsors, and training programs and the challenge of identifying the applications that have the greatest potential to develop independent, productive research scientists,” he wrote.

ASBMB PAAC member Jeff Brodsky of the University of Pittsburgh, said he suspects “most faculty mentors would agree that the top trainees are those who fearlessly attack difficult problems and, through a combination of curiosity, creative insights and struggle, end up succeeding.”

However, Brodsky said, it’s tough to gauge that in an application.

“I always appreciate the letter or mentor’s statement that discusses how a tough barrier was encountered and overcome as a result of these traits,” he said. “Instead, too many written analyses of a candidate focus only on the accomplishments and offer the impression that results came with ease.”

Other societies, such as the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, have shared similar concerns and have touted the benefits of shifting away from a dyadic mentorship structure in support of mentorship networks.

In its recommendations for CSR, FASEB wrote: “(T)he National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine report ‘The Science of Effective Mentorship in STEMM’ highlights the benefits of nondyadic mentoring structures. The current emphasis on the sponsor does not create an expectation that trainees sustain a meaningful mentor network.”

Read the ASBMB’s full comments here.

Enjoy reading ASBMB Today?

Become a member to receive the print edition monthly and the digital edition weekly.

Learn more
Mallory Smith

Mallory Smith earned her Ph.D. in biochemistry and molecular biology from the University of Kansas Medical Center and held a postdoc at the National Institutes of Health before joining ASBMB as a science policy manager. She is passionate about improving the STEM workforce pipeline, supporting early-career researchers, and advocating for basic science at the institutional, local and national level. Smith is chair of the National Postdoctoral Association Advocacy Committee.

Sign up for the ASBMB advocacy newsletter

Get the latest from ASBMB Today

Enter your email address, and we’ll send you a weekly email with recent articles, interviews and more.

Latest in Policy

Policy highlights or most popular articles

Meet the 2024 ASBMB Advocacy Training Program delegates

Meet the 2024 ASBMB Advocacy Training Program delegates

June 13, 2024

The program's sixth cohort will learn how to advocate for science funding and support this summer and will visit Capitol Hill in 2025.

NPA task force releases report on postdoc policies

NPA task force releases report on postdoc policies

June 12, 2024

The National Postdoctoral Association recommends institutions act in eight priority areas to improve the trainee experience.

ASBMB members advocate for basic science

ASBMB members advocate for basic science

May 30, 2024

In 65 meetings on Capitol Hill, scientists urged legislators to support budget increases for NIH, NSF and DOE.

A call to action: Urge Congress to support scientific research

A call to action: Urge Congress to support scientific research

May 21, 2024

ASBMB members can write to policymakers to advocate for robust science funding in fiscal year 2025.

ASBMB members head to Capitol Hill

ASBMB members head to Capitol Hill

May 20, 2024

They will encourage lawmakers to support essential R&D appropriations to keep the U.S. competitive and retain highly skilled talent.

Genetics studies have a diversity problem that researchers struggle to fix

Genetics studies have a diversity problem that researchers struggle to fix

April 28, 2024

Researchers in South Carolina are trying to build a DNA database to better understand how genetics affects health risks. But they’re struggling to recruit enough Black participants.