The biggest provider of basic research money in the US says no to most who apply, and too often these days, it’s dealing with scientists who aren’t taking that well.
In a broadside to the entire research community, the head of grant awards at the National Institutes of Health said that abusive behaviour toward NIH staff has reached the point where it will now be formally tallied and sanctioned as part of a concerted pushback.
“Unfortunately, they are not rare occurrences,” Michael Lauer, the NIH’s deputy director for extramural research, said of the federal agency’s staff confronting instances of repeated angry messages and phone calls, and other hostile interactions.
The NIH awards more than 50,000 research grants each year, worth more than $30 billion (£27 billion). But grant success is critical to the careers of academic scientists, and the NIH has money to approve only about 20 percent of all of its grant applications.
Odds are somewhat better at the National Science Foundation, with an approval rate nearing 30 percent.
Either way, Dr Lauer wrote in a blog post, frustrations do not justify abuse.
“Emotions may run high when someone puts together an application, receives unfavorable review feedback, or waits for a response from extramural staff,” he said. “We understand differences of opinion exist throughout the scientific process, but that does not mean our staff should be the targets of improper, harassing, and threatening behaviours.”
In his posting, Dr Lauer detailed three actual incidents as examples, without providing the names of the scientists or their institutions. In one, he said, a researcher denied a grant protested the review process as unfair and misleading, and turned belligerent during a Zoom meeting with an NIH programme officer, speaking “loudly non-stop, being condescending, hostile, and unpleasant at various times during the conversation”.
In another, Dr Lauer wrote, a rejected researcher emailed an NIH senior review officer at least 50 times, “accusing them of lacking integrity and scientific competence as well as threatening to report the SRO to NIH leadership and beyond.” The third, he said, concerned a principal investigator upset by the pace of the grant review process, “turning to yelling, interrupting, gaslighting, and other behaviours during the monthly conference calls”.
The NIH’s usual response to such situations, Dr Lauer said, involves contacting the vice-president for research or other top officials at the person’s university. Repercussions can include removal from NIH involvement or contacting the NIH police, he said.
The NIH has taken numerous steps to tackle abusive behaviour among academic scientists. But, a spokesman for Dr Lauer’s office said, the agency has not been collecting data on the frequency of such problems facing its own staff. “But as we have recently rolled out guidance to staff about handling interactions with the extramural community that are less than civil,” the spokesman said, ”we will begin to track reports more closely.”
