Chart

Explanation

• Chart Description: Total NIH funding by year from 2013 to 2022.
  

• Why it’s interesting: This enriched chart combines area, line color and point size to encode spending magnitude in a single view. It not only shows the overall trend of NIH funding over time but also highlights the relative scale of each year’s investment, making it easy to spot peaks, troughs, and anomalies at a glance.

• Key insights:

  1. Mid-decade surge: NIH spending steadily climbed from 2013 through 2018, reaching a local maximum that reflects growing investment in large-scale research initiatives.

  2. Pandemic dip: A clear trough appears in FY2021—the lowest point—likely tied to COVID-19 disruptions and emergency funding reallocations.

  3. Strong rebound: FY2022 sees a sharp uptick past prior highs, indicating renewed or expanded funding programs as regular operations resumed.

  4. Magnitude emphasis: The varying fill intensity and point sizes draw the eye to high-spend years (darker, larger) versus low-spend years (lighter, smaller), reinforcing the narrative of investment volatility.

Chart

Explanation

• Chart Description: Mean funding amount per NIH project each year.
  
• Why it’s interesting: By plotting the average NIH project cost for each fiscal year, we gain a succinct view of how the scale of individual awards has evolved over time. Rather than looking at total outlays (which can grow simply because there are more projects), this metric reveals whether the NIH is funding progressively larger, more ambitious projects or shifting toward smaller, more targeted grants.
  
• Key insights:
  

1. Steady growth through mid-decade: From FY2013 ($48 M) to FY2018 ($52 M), the average grant size climbed consistently, suggesting an era of expanding project scopes or rising cost bases (e.g., more complex clinical trials, advanced instrumentation).

2. Temporary dip around FY2021: There’s a noticeable drop in average cost in FY2021 (to roughly $45 M), which may reflect pandemic-related delays, smaller emergency funding awards, or budgetary reallocations.

3. Rebound to a new high in FY2022: The sharp increase to about $54 M signals renewed investment in large-scale initiatives—perhaps the launch of major research programs or multi-site collaborations once normal operations resumed.

4. Gradient emphasis: The color gradient visually highlights peak years (2018 and 2022) in deeper hues, drawing attention to periods when NIH prioritized higher-cost projects.

Chart

Explanation

• Chart Description: A treemap showing the top 10 NIH research spending categories, where each rectangle’s area and color intensity (dark to light) both encode the total funding allocated to that category.

• Why it’s interesting: Unlike a simple bar chart, a treemap packs all categories into one view and uses both size and hue to highlight which areas dominate the budget. It’s a compact way to communicate proportions at a glance.

• Key insights:

  1. Cardiovascular research commands the largest share (largest, darkest tile), indicating sustained priority funding.

2. Vector-Borne Diseases and Arthritis follow closely, reflecting major investment in both infectious-disease response and chronic conditions.

3. Mid-range tiles like Spina Bifida and Physical Activity signal healthy but more modest support.

4. The smallest top-10 tile (e.g. Infant Mortality) still receives substantial funding, underscoring NIH’s broad portfolio but also the steep drop-off after the top few categories.

Chart

Explanation

• Chart Description:A choropleth map of the United States where each state is shaded according to its total NIH funding from simulated data. Darker blue indicates higher funding, while lighter blue indicates lower funding.

• Why it’s interesting: Geographic visualizations immediately reveal regional patterns that are hard to see in tables or bar charts. This map shows which states attract the most NIH support and highlights funding disparities across the country at a glance.

• Key insights:

1. California and New York lead in overall NIH dollars, reflecting the concentration of major research universities and medical centers.

2. Illinois appears as a strong middle‐tier recipient, likely driven by institutions such as the University of Chicago and others in the Chicago area.

3. Texas shows moderate funding but lighter shading than the top two, suggesting room for growth relative to its large population and research capacity.

4. Many central and mountain states (e.g., Wyoming, Montana) are very light or gray, indicating relatively low NIH investment—potential targets for future capacity‐building initiatives.

5. The stark contrast between coastal “hubs” and inland states underscores the role of established research infrastructure in securing NIH grants.

Chart

Explanation

• Chart Description A violin plot overlaid with a boxplot showing the distribution of project funding. The violin illustrates the density of values across funding ranges, while the boxplot highlights the 25th, 50th (median), and 75th percentiles. The y-axis is on a log₁₀ scale to accommodate the long tail of large grants.

• Why it’s interesting

  • The violin plot provides a smooth view of where funding is most concentrated, beyond what a histogram can show.
  • The boxplot adds clarity by marking key quantiles and reducing visual clutter from outliers.
  • The log scale compresses extreme values into the same view, making both small and large grants comparable on one axis.

• Key insights

  1. Strong right skew: Most NIH projects receive between $10 M and $50 M, with density peaking in this lower range.
  2. Long tail of large grants: A few projects exceed $100 M, visible in the upper tail of the violin.
  3. Median funding around $30 M: The median line inside the violin sits near $30 M, indicating typical project size.
  4. Wide interquartile range: The distance between the 25th and 75th percentiles is substantial, suggesting high variability and a need to stratify by category or institute for deeper insight.

Chart

Explanation

• Chart Description: Spending over time for top 3 NIH research areas.
  

• Why it’s interesting: By isolating the top three spending categories, this multi‐line plot reveals how NIH’s investment priorities differ across major research areas. It lets us compare not just total dollars but also the timing and volatility of funding for each category, highlighting how external events and shifting policy emphases affect different fields.

• Key insights:

  1. Arthritis (salmon line) shows a steady rise from FY2013 to FY2019, a sharp dip in FY2021 (pandemic impact), then a dramatic rebound in FY2022—suggesting both COVID‐related delays and renewed emphasis on musculoskeletal research.
  2. Cardiovascular (green line) dips to its lowest in FY2016 before climbing consistently through FY2021, peaking among the three in late decade, reflecting ongoing prioritization of heart and vascular disease initiatives.
  3. Vector-Borne Diseases (blue line) spikes early in FY2015—likely tied to the Zika emergency—then falls off, only to regain momentum by FY2019–FY2021, indicating episodic surges driven by public‐health outbreaks.
  4. Differing volatility underscores that category‐specific events (e.g., epidemics, clinical trial rollouts) create funding surges independent of the overall NIH budget trend.