Skip Over Navigation Links

NIGMS Funding Trends

The following data are related to an NIGMS Feedback Loop post from February 11, 2014, on Funding Trends and Factors Affecting Success Rate.

Figure 1. Graph showing percentage of competing R01 applications funded by NIGMS as a function of percentile scores for Fiscal Years 2009-2013. For Fiscal Year 2013, the success rate for R01 applications was 21%, and the midpoint of the funding curve was at approximately the 17th percentile.
View larger image

Figure 1. Percentage of competing R01 applications funded by NIGMS as a function of percentile scores for Fiscal Years 2009-2013. For Fiscal Year 2013, the success rate for R01 applications was 21%, and the midpoint of the funding curve was at approximately the 17th percentile. The analysis includes competing types 1, 2 and 9 percentiled NIGMS R01 and R37 applications. If an A0 and A1 application for the same project were reviewed in the same fiscal year, both were counted. The horizontal axis is the application percentile score. Applications were grouped in overlapping bins that are centered on integral percentiles (0,1,2,....40) and are 5 percentile units wide (from -2.5 percentile units to +2.4 percentile units).

Figure 2. Graph showing number of competing R01 applications (solid bars) assigned to NIGMS and number funded (striped bars) in Fiscal Year 2013 as a function of percentile scores.
View larger image

Figure 2. Number of competing R01 applications (solid black bars) assigned to NIGMS and number funded (striped red bars) in Fiscal Year 2013 as a function of percentile scores. The analysis includes competing types 1, 2 and 9 percentiled NIGMS R01 and R37 applications. If an A0 and A1 application for the same project were reviewed in the same fiscal year, both were counted. The horizontal axis is the application percentile score. Applications were grouped in bins that are centered on integral percentiles (0,1,2,....40) are 1 percentile unit wide; the bins do not overlap.

Figure 3. Graph showing number of competing R01 applications assigned to NIGMS (line with diamonds, left axis) and number funded (line with squares, left axis) for Fiscal Years 2000-2013. The success rate is shown in the line with triangles (right axis).
View larger image

Figure 3. Number of competing R01 applications assigned to NIGMS (blue line with diamonds, left axis) and number funded (red line with squares, left axis) for Fiscal Years 2000-2013. The success rate is shown in the green line with triangles (right axis).

Figure 4. Graph showing number of noncompeting (line with diamonds, left axis) and competing (line with squares, right axis) RPGs funded by NIGMS for Fiscal Years 2000-2013. Note that the Y axes do not start at 0.
View larger image

Figure 4. Number of noncompeting (blue line with diamonds, left axis) and competing (red line with squares, right axis) RPGs funded by NIGMS for Fiscal Years 2000-2013. Note that the Y axes do not start at 0.

Figure 5. Graph showing total NIGMS budget (line with squares, left axis) and budget committed to competing and noncompeting RPGs (line with diamonds, left axis) for Fiscal Years 2000-2013. The line with triangles shows the ratio of the RPG budget to the total NIGMS budget (right axis). The jump in the NIGMS budget and corresponding drop in the RPG/NIGMS budget ratio occurred when large, primarily non-RPG programs were transferred to NIGMS from the former National Center for Research Resources.
View larger image

Figure 5. Total NIGMS budget (red line with squares, left axis) and budget committed to competing and noncompeting RPGs (blue line with diamonds, left axis) for Fiscal Years 2000-2013. The green line with triangles shows the ratio of the RPG budget to the total NIGMS budget (right axis). The jump in the NIGMS budget and corresponding drop in the RPG/NIGMS budget ratio occurred when large, primarily non-RPG programs were transferred to NIGMS along with their associated funds from the former National Center for Research Resources.



The following data, generated by Dr. James Deatherage, are related to an NIGMS Feedback Loop post from January 13, 2014, on Bolstering Our Commitment to Investigator-Initiated Research.

Figure 1. Changes over time in NIGMS investments in investigator-initiated research (research grant funds not associated with targeted FOAs) (right axis) and research funded through targeted FOAs (left axis)
View larger image

Figure 1. Changes over time in NIGMS investments in investigator-initiated research (research grant funds not associated with targeted FOAs) (right axis) and research funded through targeted FOAs (left axis). This analysis includes NIGMS research and center grants with activity codes P01, P20,P41, P50, R00, R01,R21, R24, R25, R29, R33, R34, R37, R55, R56, U01, U09, U13, U19, U24 and U54 funded through the Biomedical Technology, Bioinformatics, and Computational Biology, Cell Biology and Biophysics, Genetics and Developmental Biology and Pharmacology, Physiology, and Biology Chemistry divisions (or their predecessors). This analysis does not include other activity codes and specialized research and training funded through the Division of Training, Workforce Development, and Diversity (and its predecessors); conferences or research grants funded under special set-asides, including AREA (R15), AIDS, SBIR, ARRA (Recovery Act) and Roadmap/Common Fund; contracts; and research and training programs transferred to NIGMS from the former National Center for Research Resources. Staff coded the scientific topics of 644 FOAs ("funding opportunity announcements," PAs, PARs and RFAs) under which NIGMS grants, centers, training and other activities have been funded since 1990. Missing or incomplete FOA information was reconstructed by examining funded applications. Regular research and center grants included in this analysis were funded under 290 of the FOAs. FOAs in which the scientific topic and applicant eligibility were unrestricted were classified as "investigator-initiated," while FOAs specifying a particular field, topic or approach were classified as "targeted." Funding opportunities classified as "investigator-initiated" include the parent R01, parent P01, exploratory R21s, EUREKA, and small and large collaborative projects (Glue grants). Costs are total costs, which comprise direct and indirect costs. 

This page last reviewed on May 23, 2014