NIH Releases New Policy for Data Management and Sharing

Today, nearly twenty years after the publication of the Final NIH Statement on Sharing Research Data in 2003, we have released a Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing. This represents the agency’s continued commitment to share and make broadly available the results of publicly funded biomedical research. We hope it will be a critical step in moving towards a culture change, in which data management and sharing is seen as integral to the conduct of research. Responsible data management and sharing is good for science; it maximizes availability of data to the best and brightest minds, underlies reproducibility, honors the participation of human participants by ensuring their data is both protected and fully utilized, and provides an element of transparency to ensure public trust and accountability.

This policy has been years in the making and has benefited enormously from feedback and input from stakeholders throughout the process. We are grateful to all those who took the time to comment on Request for Information, the Draft policy, or to participate in workshops or Tribal consultations. That thoughtful feedback has helped shape the Final policy, which we believe strikes a balance between reasonable expectations for data sharing and flexibility to allow for a diversity of data types and circumstances. How we incorporated public comments and decision points that led to the Final policy are detailed in the Preamble to the DMS policy.

The Final policy applies to all research funded or conducted by NIH that results in the generation of scientific data. The Final Policy has two main requirements (1) the submission of a Data Management and Sharing Plan (Plan); and (2) compliance with the approved Plan. We are asking for Plans at the time of submission of the application, because we believe planning and budgeting for data management and sharing needs to occur hand in hand with planning the research itself. NIH recognizes that science evolves throughout the research process, which is why we have built in the ability to update DMS Plans, but at the end of the day, we are expecting investigators and institutions to be accountable to the Plans they have laid out for themselves.

I strongly suspect we will hear both from those who think we should have gone farther and required that all data resulting from NIH-funded research be shared, regardless of extenuating factors, and those who think we have gone too far in requiring all applicants to develop a Plan. Which perhaps means we’ve gotten it just right! For some investigators and disciplines, who have been at the forefront of data sharing, this will be very familiar; for others, this will be new territory. Anticipating that variation in readiness, and in recognition of the cultural change we are trying to seed, there is a two-year implementation period. This time will be spent developing the information, support, and tools that the biomedical enterprise will need to comply with this new policy. NIH has already provided additional supplementary information – on (1) elements of a data management and sharing plan; (2) allowable costs; and (3) selecting a data repository – in concert with the policy release.

As NIH Director Francis Collins notes in his Director’s Statement today, the novel coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the importance of making research data broadly accessible. But even as the world struggles with this acute global crisis, it is important to note that we are at an extraordinary time in biomedical science, where new technologies, data science, and understanding of fundamental biology are converging to accelerate the pace of discovery and medical advancement. The Final NIH Policy for Data Management and Sharing builds on those exciting opportunities, and we look forward to working with our stakeholders to fulfill its vision.

Posted by Dr. Carrie D. Wolinetz, October 29, 2020

How We Handle Allegations of Sexual Harassment

As we have discussed frequently over the past couple of years (see related statements), if there are concerns that sexual harassment is affecting an NIH-funded project, we want to know about it.

At the NIH Advisory Council to the Director (ACD) meeting on June 12 (see video for presentation, starting at 1hr 37sec), we mentioned that we would be posting our process for handling notifications of sexual harassment at the institutions we fund. Publishing these standard operating procedures aligns with our commitment to transparency. It is also one of the recommendations of the ACD Working Group on Changing the Culture to End Sexual Harassment. We have added a page on our Anti-Sexual Harassment: for NIH Awardee Organizations and Those Who Work There website that highlights the detailed steps NIH takes when we receive notification of a concern.

You will note that the flowcharts illustrate that NIH takes same rigorous approach to addressing allegations involving sexual harassment as we do other integrity issues.

We look forward to implementing additional ACD recommendations soon.

This blog was co-authored by Dr. Mike Lauer, the NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research (OER). Dr. Lauer writes about NIH research funding policies and data at his blog, Open Mike.

Posted by Dr. Carrie D. Wolinetz, June 24, 2020

Dr. Mike Lauer
NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research

New Steps to Help Ensure Safe Work Environments for NIH-Supported Research

If an institution requests approval to remove a principal investigator (PI) or other senior key person named in the grant award due to concerns about safety and/or the work environments (e.g. due to concerns about harassment, bullying, retaliation, or hostile working conditions), NIH expects to be notified. If an institution requests a change of recipient institution, and there are concerns about safety and/or work environment involving the PD/PI, NIH expects to be informed.

The reason is clear — NIH does not tolerate sexual harassment. Period. The two situations we cited above are two critical loopholes identified by the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director’s (ACD) Working Group on Changing the Culture to End Sexual Harassment as needing more attention.

We are moving to close those gaps in our continued effort to address sexual harassment across NIH-funded research. Today, NIH has issued new guidance to grantees setting clear expectations that for awards (competing, non-competing and supplements) issued after today, NIH expects recipients requesting prior approval for changes in PI, key personnel, or recipient institution, to include mention as to whether these requests are related to concerns about the safety and/or work environment, including issues related to sexual harassment or bullying. (See NOT-OD-20-124).

 As of tomorrow, when requesting changes in either investigators (see NIH GPS Section 8.1.2.6) or movement of a grant to a new recipient institution (see NIH GPS Section 8.1.2.7) grantees are expected to mention if there are related concerns about the safety and/or work environments.

The new guidance marks critical progress in NIH’s efforts to foster a culture of safety and respect for all those working in science and sends a clear message that sexual harassment and other inappropriate behaviors are unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

We describe these steps in an editorial published today in Science. The new guidance builds upon previous steps NIH has taken to strengthen reporting sexual harassment and other professional misconduct taking place at grantee institutions in the context of NIH-funded research.

Our Anti-Sexual Harassment: for NIH Awardee Organizations and Those Who Work There website outlines NIH expectations, policies and requirements, and helps those concerned about sexual harassment at their institution find help. Among the resources on the site are a webform that allows for anonymous notification of concerns to NIH that sexual harassment is affecting an NIH-funded project.

While these first steps are critical, we recognize that we have a number of recommendations left to tackle to fulfill the ACD’s vision of a research culture free from sexual harassment. But our commitment remains strong, and we will get there. This is not just important for women in science. It is important for science. 

This blog was co-authored by Dr. Mike Lauer, the NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research (OER).  Dr. Lauer writes about NIH research funding policies and data at his blog, Open Mike.

Posted by Dr. Carrie D. Wolinetz, June 11, 2020

Dr. Mike Lauer
NIH Deputy Director for Extramural Research

Summary of “NIH Workshop on Optimizing Reproducibility in Nonhuman Primate Research Studies by Enhancing Rigor and Transparency” Now Available

First, I want to take a moment to wish you all well as we collectively weather the unprecedented novel coronavirus pandemic. I hope all readers of this blog, and their loved ones and friends are staying safe and well. As you might imagine, COVID-19 response is occupying a great deal of the bandwidth of NIH right now, as we ensure the safety of our workforce and accelerate scientific solutions to the current crisis. However, even from remote workspaces and amidst the flurry of pandemic response, work to support the ongoing mission of the agency is continuing…

Today, NIH is posting a summary of a workshop held in February which brought together key stakeholders to explore the intersection of optimizing research rigor and research involving non-human primates (NHP). You may recall I blogged about this last fall, and I noted the continuity with other NIH efforts assessing the landscape of NHP research, as well as the agency’s ongoing initiative to enhance research reproducibility through improvements in rigor and transparency. In the interim, a neuroethics working group of the Advisory Committee to the NIH Director (ACD) produced a report in October 2019 “Enabling and Enhancing Neuroscience Advances for Society” which included ethical considerations for NHP research, particularly relative to emerging biotechnologies. Collectively, these presented a terrific backdrop to bring together experts in various scientific disciplines, primatologists, veterinarians, and bioethicists, including representatives from National Primate Research Centers, academic institutions, government, industry and non-profit groups for two days of in-depth discussion.

A number of common themes emerged, including:

  • Ethical considerations should extend beyond legal and regulatory requirements.
  • It is of critical importance to understand the course of human disease and to understand the strengths and limitations of the animal model proposed for use.
  • Rigor and transparency necessitates data sharing yet there are challenges.
  • Rigor, welfare, husbandry, environment, and behavior are all interrelated.
  • Rigorous and reproducible science is part of a virtuous learning cycle.

However, this concise summary gives short shrift to the rich and thoughtful discussion of the unique opportunities and challenges shared by the NHP research community, and I encourage you to read the full report to get a better sense of the full breath of issues discussed. As one participant noted, even the lunchtime conversations represented exciting exchanges of ideas at the nexus of scientific and clinical opportunities, ethical considerations, ensuring rigor and transparency, and the nuances of animal welfare and husbandry. It highlighted how interdisciplinary engagement – from experts in primatology, statisticians, experimental design, clinicians, ethicists, data scientists, and basic biologists – can be incredibly useful to maximize the knowledge generated by working with these critically important animal models. In addition, it became very clear that lessons learned from NHP can more broadly benefit enhancing rigorous study design in all animal research and that data sharing is key for facilitating rigor and reproducibility.

While the discussion itself was important in fostering those connections, a natural question to ask is: what happens next? The proceedings of the workshop feed into the broader efforts of the ACD Working Group on Enhancing Reproducibility and Rigor in Animal Research (of which I am a member) in its deliberations. This group has been charged with assessing and making recommendations to enhance the reproducibility and rigor of animal research by improving experimental design, optimizing translational validity, enhancing training, and increasing the transparency of research studies involving animal models, and is expected to present an interim report to the ACD in June.