In an August 10, 2023 Perspectives post, Dr. Devon C. Crawford of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke presented the topic of Addressing Rigor in Scientific Studies.

Separately, we’ve heard from investigators who are concerned that key research findings may fail to break through with the public in an environment of misinformation and distrust. Demonstrating a research project’s rigor is more important than ever, whether for a scientific or lay audience.

As Dr. Crawford points out, science communication is rapidly evolving, and the growing use of preprints and the sheer number of published studies make it increasingly difficult to determine which findings are worthy of attention. It’s important to recognize that not all scientific studies are created equal.

As a result, communicators need to discern which studies are reputable in order to know what to convey to their target audience. Inaccurate or untrustworthy information can have dire consequences, so it is important to understand how to assess whether studies have robust findings and how to communicate this to audiences.

Science communicators also need to describe the major conclusions from a study, along with its implications for future research and public health practice, without overstating the results. Science is a continual process of updating knowledge that is conditional on how the results were obtained; it is not a series of discovered “facts.” All scientific conclusions are subject to interpretation, and all have some degree of uncertainty.

Responsible science communicators will report important details of a study: the number of subjects, species involved, techniques used, major outcomes, and caveats. However, even this level of reporting does not provide enough information to know how much to trust the results.

The rigor and transparency of a study are key for gleaning the robustness of its results. This includes the design, implementation, analysis, and interpretation of experiments. If a study’s validity isn’t known, the rest is moot.

How does one know if a study is rigorous? And how can this be communicated to broad audiences? A single person can’t keep up with all of the limitations of every scientific approach, and even savvy readers of original research articles need to beware of mistaking “spin” for reasonable conclusions within a given study. Fortunately, there are some generally agreed-upon principles of rigorous research that apply across fields and methods.

Learn more by reading Addressing Rigor in Scientific Studies by Dr. Crawford. You may also want to refer to the following resources:

• Enhancing Reproducibility Through Rigor and Transparency
• Guidance: Rigor and Reproducibility in Grant Applications
• NIAID Funding News article: Remember to Address Rigor and Reproducibility in Your Next Application

In a December 13, 2022 blog post, NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research Dr. Mike Lauer provided Data on Researchers’ Self-Reported Disability Status. We provide a brief overview here.

To ensure a strong and diverse workforce and better understand workforce composition and participation in NIH programs, NIH regularly assesses the sex/gender, race, and ethnicity of its supported researchers.

Investigators may self-report their disability status along with the aforementioned demographic characteristics on their eRA personal profile. This allows NIH to learn more about researchers with disabilities in the NIH-supported scientific workforce.

Dr. Lauer points out that NIH began posting information related to disability status on the NIH Data Book this past February. The data available at this time are limited to the number of principal investigators (PIs) with disabilities supported on certain grants in fiscal year (FY) 2021. More data on disability status are under consideration for release via the Data Book.

The Data

With regard to the number of PIs with disabilities designated on NIH applications and awards over time, the percentage of PIs self-reporting a disability decreased from 2.0 percent in FY 2008 to 1.3 percent in FY 2022.

These data dovetail with other previously published data that indicate that the proportion of NIH-supported researchers reporting disabilities is considerably lower than what is generally found in the U.S. population.

For reference, the CDC’s Disability and Health Overview notes that 26 percent of adults in the United States have some type of disability. NIH’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion identifies at Data Analytics that 85.7 percent of NIH staff report having no disability.

We encourage you to explore the data (and methodology) for yourself.

By the Numbers

Table 1. Number of PIs designated on research grant applications and awards self-reporting a disability: FY 2008–2022 reports on categories such as Number of PIs Not Reporting Disability, Number of PIs Missing Disability, and Number of PIs Reporting Disability.

Table 2. Number of PIs designated on research grant applications and awards broken down by disability category: FY 2008 to 2022 focuses on researchers self-reporting a disability, specifically breaking it down by the type of disability. The number of researchers reporting a hearing, mobility/orthopedic, visual, or multiple disabilities trended downward between 2008 and 2022, while the number reporting other disabilities trended upward.

Table 3. Number of unfunded and funded PIs: FY 2008 to 2022 provides data on the number of researchers who were funded (i.e., designated as PI on an NIH grant) or unfunded (i.e., designated as PI on unsuccessful applications) according to their disability reporting status. Similar to Table 2, in general, the number of researchers (be they funded or not) reporting a disability went down between 2008 and 2022, while the number of researchers with other disabilities increased.

Looking Ahead

Going forward, NIH will continue assessing and sharing data related to researchers with disabilities and looking forward to considering the recommendations from the NIH Advisory Commitee to the Director subgroup.

By: Kathryn Russo, Ph.D. & Adela Chlastakova, Ph.D.

The NIAID 18th Annual Fellows Workshop, held on December 11–12, 2024, celebrated the exceptional research conducted by NIAID's predoctoral, postdoctoral, research, and clinical fellows. The event featured over sixty dynamic presentations, showcasing cutting-edge scientific work. In addition to the research presentations, the workshop included professional development sessions designed to enhance key scientific and career skills for early-career researchers.

Day 1 Synopsis—Showcasing Research and Fostering Collaboration 

The NIAID 18th Annual Fellows Workshop was held on Bethesda’s Main Campus on December 11 and 12, 2024. The first day consisted of nearly 70 poster presentations from NIAID predoctoral, postdoctoral, research, and clinical fellows. Participating fellows had the opportunity not only to present their own work, but also to learn about ongoing research and serve as poster judges. Four individuals were recognized for their outstanding posters:

1. Sazzad Mahmood, Ph.D., Laboratory of Bacteriology
2. Jacob Pederson, Laboratory of Immune System Biology
3. Jil Haase, Ph.D., Laboratory of Virology
4. Clinton Bradfield, Ph.D., Laboratory of Immune System Biology

Throughout Day 1, fellows engaged in networking opportunities, identified potential collaborations, and familiarized themselves with ongoing NIAID research.

Day 2 Synopsis—Mastering Essential Skills for Scientific Success

The second day of the NIAID 18th Annual Fellows Workshop featured three professional development sessions focusing on grant writing, bibliometrics, and delivering a scientific talk. 

The day began with Dr. David Armstrong who shared the secrets to writing a winning grant. During his lecture, he emphasized the importance of pre-application planning and career gap analysis. He also discussed the peer review process, scoring, and key NIH resources. The talk was a condensed version of the 6-month NIAID Grant Writing Training and Mentoring Program, which I highly recommend to anyone planning to write a grant application.

Following a short break, Sara Hoover and Stacy Brody from the NIH Library gave a presentation on leveraging bibliometrics to demonstrate research productivity, impact, and collaboration. Their lecture focused on determining publication counts, citation metrics, h-index scores, and related statistics using databases such as Web of Science. To have a real-life example, we explored the bibliometric indicators of Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose scientific contributions are truly impressive and inspiring.

Rounding out the day, Melissa Marshall taught us how to present science effectively. According to her, the keys to success are knowing your audience, being focused, acting as an interpreter rather than merely a reporter, and preparing visual slides with clear take-away messages. By varying the pace of her speech and interacting with us by asking questions, maintaining eye contact, and cracking jokes, Melissa demonstrated what a captivating presentation should look like.

Overall, attending all three sessions was valuable, as they covered skills important for achieving success in science.

By Sivarchana Boada, Ph.D., Susannah Goodman, M.A., and Megan Bohn, Ph.D.

I am a second-year postdoctoral fellow in the National Biosafety and Biocontainment Training Program (NBBTP)/Intramural Research Training Award (IRTA) Fellowship at the NIH. This program prepares me to be a biosafety and biocontainment professional of the highest caliber to meet the needs of biomedical, emerging diseases and biodefense research communities. My training, which focuses on experiential and didactic learning, has afforded me several opportunities to expand my capabilities in biorisk management and communication. These include delivering trainings and conducting laboratory safety surveys, attending the American Biological Safety Association (ABSA) International’s Biosecurity Symposium, and winning the informational poster award at ABSA International’s 65th Annual Biosafety and Biosecurity Conference for my research on understanding the biosafety climate and safety perceptions of research and biosafety professionals.

As I enter the second year of my fellowship and prepare to complete my capstone project, I’ve begun to realize the importance of strong writing skills. Why should a biosafety professional (or scientist, for that matter) care about good writing, you might ask? Brevity is the key to good and effective communication, especially when communicating up with leadership or research laboratory personnel that have competing priorities vying for their limited attention. Regardless of what stage you are in your career, mastery of this skill will serve you well as you apply for research grants, develop standard operating procedures, and share your research findings in reputed journals.  If you (like me) are looking to hone your writing skills, the recent skill blitz series on successful academic and professional writing is a great starting point. This skill blitz series was comprised of three sessions that showcased simple strategies to improve writing habits, reduce clutter in writing, and use elements of persuasion to write more effectively.

The Key to Effective Writing Is To Cut the Clutter

We live in a time when everyone is bombarded with information all the time. The consequence of this is that our work, whether it is a grant, a manuscript, or a simple email, is competing for limited attention. If you want your writing to be effective—to win that scarce resource of attention—you must reduce the mental tax on your reader. You do this by using clear, concise language that confidently conveys a strong message.

Good Writing Habits Can Be Used To Sharpen and Refine Ideas

William Zinsser, a classic teacher of non-fiction writing, famously said, “Writing is thinking on paper.” With that in mind, this series talked about how regular writing schedules can be used as a process of idea refinement—of “trapping” thoughts on paper and reworking those ideas until they make perfect logical sense. For instance, if you’re working on a paper, you should write actively while you are still conducting your experiments and not waiting for the perfect time, place, or inspiration to come along. The series cited and described a practical strategy for the order in which to break down and tackle the separate sections of a typical manuscript.

Clear Writing Indicates a Clear Mind

There are a few documents that scientists regularly write where the powers of persuasion come in quite handy. The cover letter for a job application and the specific aims page of a grant proposal come immediately to mind. This series examines sample documents to demonstrate how to write persuasively. The clearest between-the-lines selling-point you can send with your writing is to have a clear command of words, to demonstrate that you are in charge of your message, your narrative, and your goals. The human mind is designed to turn information into stories, and with this fact, the series strongly emphasizes a crucial point: If you don’t supply your narrative, the reader will do it for you, often not to your advantage.

The skill blitz series, through the three modules, taught me valuable skills on developing good writing habits and persuasive writing that I am eager to apply as I write my capstone project and seek employment opportunities during my fellowship. For more information about this series or to view associated materials, please email Dr. Megan Bohn at Megan.Bohn@nih.gov.

By Tamara Haque, Ph.D. and Emily Youngblood

Tamara Haque, Ph.D., is a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Food Allergy Research Unit of the Laboratory of Allergic Diseases. After receiving this year's Postbac Distinguished Mentor Award, she reflects on her mentoring philosophy and how postdoc mentors can help their postbac mentees make the most of their training experience.

Mentorship is an essential part of science, as it is often the trainees who do the heavy lifting that drives the field forward. My values as a mentor are largely influenced by my experience as a mentee, as admittedly, I have been a mentee far longer than I have been a mentor at this early stage of my career. The foremost value I have carried over from my training is that a mentor should help the mentee find joy and inquisitiveness in research and discovery. My observations have led me to believe that the best researchers are those who keep a sense of awe in their work and that of their colleagues. This awe creates unwavering dedication, curiosity, and integrity—key factors in research and discovery.

My mentoring philosophy adopts a mentee- centered style, creating an environment that allows a new researcher to gain confidence while obtaining the necessary investigative and technical skills for long-term success as a scientist. Based on my experience, I find that the best way to do this at the postbac level is to train in phases. The first phase includes one-on-one training, followed by the second phase, where the mentee is given an independent task, with help available as needed. It is important to assign low-stakes experiments and those with known outcomes to be able to adequately assess the mentee’s progress and provide meaningful feedback. The third phase involves more independence, encouraging the mentee to think about the bigger picture of their experiments. The fourth phase includes assigning more difficult tasks, which may involve troubleshooting and creative thinking.

I believe that we are all on a continuous learning journey with no ‘final phase.’ Rather, we continue to evolve and become better scientists throughout our careers. Balancing technical and professional mentorship is a challenge, but I find that keeping an ongoing conversation about professional development separate from the technical training is helpful. My advice to other postdocs mentoring postbac fellows is to put yourself in their shoes and think back to what would have helped you at that stage of your career and make that a reality for your mentee. How can you make this a fun but challenging and productive experience for them? We can all do our part in attracting and retaining talented trainees in the research field by providing a positive postbac experience for our mentees. Ultimately, watching our mentees succeed makes every effort well worth it.

Postbac Mentee: Emily Youngblood

I knew I was not ready to start graduate school right after finishing my undergraduate studies, but I truly had no idea how little I knew until I started working with Tamara Haque, Ph.D., a postdoctoral fellow in the Laboratory of Allergic Diseases. When I first arrived at NIH, I didn’t know how to do many basic lab techniques. Tamara patiently taught me aseptic practices, cell culture, how to work with mice, and a variety of assays. She explained projects and experiments in detail and answered my many questions. Tamara not only pushes me to be a better scientist but also reminds me of the importance of taking breaks (which usually involve a trip to the Ben and Jerry’s ice cream truck on the NIH main campus). Science is challenging and it involves a lot of failure, but ice cream is a sure way to lessen the sting. It is clear Tamara wants me to succeed, not just to prevent any mishaps with her experiments but also to ensure that I am prepared to take the next step in my career. Tamara has taught me valuable scientific techniques and habits that I can bring with me wherever I end up next after completing my postbac. I nominated Tamara for the Postbac Distinguished Mentor Award because she is a patient and respectful mentor who is genuinely invested in my growth and success as a researcher.

Through Novel Approaches for Radiation Biodosimetry and Medical Countermeasure Development (R21, Clinical Trial Not Allowed), NIAID seeks to support new exploratory and developmental research projects that focus on novel ideas in radiation research, specifically medical countermeasures (MCMs), biodosimetry, and/or animal model development to diagnose, mitigate, or treat injuries sustained during a radiation mass casualty incident.  

Objectives 

For all proposed studies, the selection of radiation exposure type, dose level, and dose rates should be relevant to a radiological or nuclear incident and verified by appropriate dosimetry assessments. Radiation research areas could include the following: 

• Research and development of MCMs (e.g., small molecules, biologics, and cell products) for mitigation or treatment of potentially lethal acute radiation syndrome (ARS) or delayed effects of acute radiation exposure, including radiation injuries to the gastrointestinal tract, cutaneous, pulmonary, renal, cardiovascular, and/or central nervous system compartments of the body. 
• Development of rapid, reliable, inexpensive, and easy-to-use biodosimetry techniques/assays and devices (e.g., triage bioassay or biomarkers). 
• Development of animal models or extracorporeal radiation models (e.g., organ-on-a-chip, organoids) that are representative of adult, pediatric, and/or geriatric human populations, and take into account possible differences in drug responses between sexes in these models. 
• Development of artificial intelligence/machine learning methods for the identification of novel targets and/or lead molecules for radiation injuries, the interpretation of large complex data sets, and/or data mining of new or existing databases to identify biomarkers altered by radiation exposure. 

Note that we will consider applications that propose research in the following subjects nonresponsive and we will not review: 

• Studies proposing to test radioprotectants (prophylactic use or administered before radiation exposure to be efficacious). 
• Studies proposing the administration of a candidate MCM at times earlier than 24 hours after radiation exposure, or earlier than 48 hours after radiation exposure for MCMs targeting neutropenia or thrombocytopenia resulting from hematopoietic sub-syndrome of ARS. 
• Work proposing dose ranges or exposure parameters that are not relevant to a radiation accident or attack (e.g., studies using fractionated radiation exposures, unless justified by the opportunity to collect samples from radiotherapy patients). 
• Studies to investigate MCMs for injuries from thermal-only burns, radiation-induced cancers, reproductive, muscular, cataracts, or ocular damage. 
• Characterization and development of biomarkers of carcinogenesis. 
• Non-biologically based dosimetric methods and/or environmental testing/sampling devices (e.g., thermo-luminescent detectors, fortuitous dosimeters, and radiation portals). 
• Artificial intelligence/machine learning methods that do not directly address the identification of targets/lead molecules for radiation injuries, the interpretation of large complex data sets as applied to radiation exposure/injuries, and/or data mining of new or existing databases to identify biomarkers altered by radiation exposure. 
• Applications proposing HIV/AIDS studies. 
• Clinical trials (all phases). 

Proposed projects such as those supported through traditional R01/U01 long-term projects or those in a well-established area are not appropriate for this notice of funding opportunity (NOFO). Applications submitted to this NOFO should be exploratory and novel, breaking new ground or extending previous discoveries toward new directions or applications. Your R21 application does not require preliminary data, though you can include them. Your application may include justification through literature citations, data from other sources, or investigator-initiated data. 

Be sure to read details of all scorable review criteria. For example, in addition to the standard review criteria described in the NOFO, note additional scored review criteria specific to this NOFO will assess: 

• How adequate the expertise is of the key personnel in radiation biology, statistics, dosimetry, and/or health physics. 
• How adequate the proposed dosimetry methods and plans are to ensure delivery of accurate radiation doses in studies for biodosimetry tools, development of MSMs, identification of biomarkers, and/or development of animal models. 
• How relevant studies are with respect to the radiation doses, and how consistent the studies are with mass casualty events, related to artificial intelligence/machine learning methods or evaluation of large, complex data sets. 

Award and Budget Information 

We intend to fund 12 to 14 awards through this NOFO. Your total project period may not exceed 2 years, and you may request no more than $100,000 in direct costs in any single year, for a sum of $200,000 in direct costs across the 2-year project period. 

Applications are due November 1, 2024, by 5:00 p.m. local time of the applicant organization. 

Direct questions about this NOFO to our scientific/research contact Dr. Lanyn P. Taliaferro at lanyn.taliaferro@nih.gov or 240-669-5479. Dr. Hiten Chand can field questions about peer review at hiten.chand@nih.gov or 240-627-3245.

By Leanne Low, Ph.D., Visiting Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Laboratory of Malaria and Vector Research

Julia Port, Ph.D.

Credit: NIAID

The “Rising Research” series aims to elevate the research conducted by NIAID intramural research fellows by featuring their work and stepping behind the bench to get to know the early-stage scientists who drive this work. The second article in the series summarizes the recent Nature Communications research paper by NIAID postdoc, Julia Port, Ph.D.

Julia Port, Ph.D., is a visiting postdoctoral fellow in the Laboratory of Virology at Rocky Mountain Laboratories. Her preliminary work was presented at the NIAID 14th Annual Fellows Virtual Workshop, earning her the award for best oral talk. This work has now culminated into her recent publication in Nature Communications, which contributes to our understanding of how different routes of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 results in different manifestations of the disease.  

“One of the things I really value about NIH is that it allows risk taking and really facilitates you to become independent, to think creatively, and to just move forward,” commented Julia, “I have greatly enjoyed the collaborative environment here at RML and the technical and methodological opportunities provided here.” — Julia Port, Ph.D.

With the rise of the COVID-19 pandemic, the scientific community has scrambled to discern as much as they can about its causative agent, SARS-CoV-2. For Julia Port, Ph.D., joining NIAID as a visiting postdoctoral fellow from Germany in February 2020 was not as she imagined, as she became one of many researchers to switch gears from their field of study to focus on mission-critical work. 

A tropical hemorrhagic fever virus virologist, Julia was set on doing a postdoc that would allow her to focus on comparing bat and human immune responses to severe, highly infectious viruses. “I met Vincent Munster at the European Virology Congress in 2019, and we found that we had really overlapping interests in that regard,” says Julia. A month after arriving at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories (RML) in Hamilton, Montana, Julia found herself diving into coronavirus-related work. “I came with high-containment lab experience, so at least I was able to quickly pivot and be of help in other projects, as well as run my own experiments,” stated Julia.  

The outcome of her efforts comes in the form of a recent Nature Communications paper, wherein Julia and her colleagues outline their findings on how exposure to the virus via different routes affects manifestation of disease and its severity. 

To shed light on this matter, Julia used the well-established Syrian hamster model to study three routes of exposure: intranasal, which entails direct administration of the virus into the nasal cavity and is typically used in scientific studies; fomite, from contaminated surfaces of objects/materials; and aerosol, through small liquid or solid particles suspended in air. “Aerosol exposure, because it deposits the virus probably more efficiently in the lower respiratory tract, leads to more early and severe disease,” said Julia. In contrast, fomite exposure led to mild disease. Julia speculated that “this is because the initial immune response starts in the upper respiratory tract, leading to a functionally controlled clearance of the virus before you really have lung pathology.” Release of the virus from host to the environment, or “viral shedding,” was also observed to differ between aerosol and fomite routes, with the former leading to early shedding and, consequently, increased disease severity.  

Julia also described the future for transmission studies that use a novel system the team developed. They found that while transmission by fomite was possible, it was far less efficient than aerosol transmission. “The strength of airborne transmission is really highlighted when there is a directional airflow. You can break that transmission…by redirecting the airflow,” said Julia. These preliminary transmission studies pave the way for aerosol transmission experiments that can characterize transmission over distances. “We designed a better system to characterize and modulate the droplets that travel between animals…this is a novel system that hasn’t been demonstrated before.” 

Next, Julia hopes to investigate novel variants, particularly the Delta variant, to determine how and why transmission is occurring more easily. 

While Julia acknowledges the difficulty of the past year of having to adjust to life during a pandemic, she expressed that the supportive and motivating nature of her work environment was pleasant. “One of the things I really value about NIH is that it allows risk taking and really facilitates you to become independent, to think creatively, and to just move forward,” commented Julia, “I have greatly enjoyed the collaborative environment here at RML and the technical and methodological opportunities provided here.”

She’d like to tell trainees who may be onboarding during the pandemic, “We’re not just doing science for the sake of science, we’re doing it for the sake of public health. I think that’s very important to keep in mind, especially if you work on COVID-19…but that doesn’t mean you can’t enjoy the science you’re doing. I found a way to combine something I’m interested in with what the lab is also interested in, and which is currently really relevant, and that is incredibly motivating and has made me more productive and energized.”  

See J Port et al. SARS-CoV-2 disease severity and transmission efficiency is increased for airborne compared to fomite exposure in Syrian hamsters. Nature Communications (2021), DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-25156-8.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34404778/.

Press Release: NIH hamster study evaluates airborne and fomite transmission of SARS-CoV-2