Science is doomed.. or is it?
| 8 December, 2010 | Morgan Giddings |
6
|
|
Okay, I must admit the title is a bit melodramatic. But I’ve been thinking a lot lately about this thing that is, shall we say, concerning.
It all starts back in 2009, when I received some ARRA money for a couple of projects I had going in my lab. That was great, because it has allowed us to make accelerated progress on providing a community resource for annotating the human genome via proteomic data.
However, I recently talked to the program officer for this grant. When I asked him about the prospects of renewed funding (since we are making great progress and want to keep it going), he gave me exactly the answer I expected:
Sorry, there is no mechanism for renewing ARRA funding, you’ll have to apply for a regular R01 along with the rest of the crowd.
This got me thinking deeply about the current funding climate, which is already bad – and what his response says about the funding climate in the near future – which is worse.
It’s not just the ARRA stimulus that’s going run out. At the same time we have a new “Tea-party” political environment that is focused on cutting, cutting, and cutting some more. I think we’ll be very lucky if science survives the level it is today.
The US (along with most westernized countries) has this one little problem: we’ve been in deficit spending mode for years, and it’s time for the reckoning. Regardless of your political persuasion, it is hard to deny that somehow the books need to be balanced.
I believe that science is still a great investment – but I’m not sure that the Tea Partiers see it that way. Some of them are sort that want creationism taught in schools. Perhaps they’d like a return to the good old days of typhoid, plague, and syphillis. Is that a bit harsh?
But we’ve got a mess on our hands, folks. It’s not only the shrinking US budget, but also shrinking state and foundation budgets. Those budgets have been the second and third leg in supporting science in the US.
This is a perfect storm for scientists and academic institutions. I call it “The Great Grant Crunch” because it’s likely to be most obvious to those of us seeking grants in the near future – pay lines may dip to ridiculously new lows. When paylines are below 10% across the board, it’s going to be a scramble.
Despite that many of my own grants have scored very well, and I’ve helped others to do the same (including someone with a perfect 1.0 score recently), I’m rather concerned about it all.
Aside from just writing better grant proposals, I’ll share a few strategies I’ve thought of that you might want to consider:
- Trimming back your lab budget over the next year, and “saving” more money for carryover (the NIH allows up to 25% to be carried over year on year). That can stretch out your grant budget for a year or more.
- Looking at under-used funding opportunities. For example, I have a collaborator who does dental/oral virus work, and it turns out that NIDCR, the institute that funds such work, has fewer people competing for grants. The key here is to have a project that such institutes and agencies care about. I think the best strategy is to partner up with someone in such a field, and work with them on new projects that are of interest.
- Translate your work into products that help people. This will depend on what kind of research you do – but creating new products and solutions is the ultimate benefit of doing research. It can bring a lot of money back to both the inventor and their institution.
To go more in depth on the Great Grant Crunch and how to survive it, Gina Hiatt, PhD (of The Academic Writing Club) will be interviewing me about my top grant-getting strategies on Thursday December 9th. To sign up for this free teleseminar, browse over here: https://marketyourscience.com/survivegrantcrunch.html
—————–
Morgan Giddings, PhD, is the author of Four Steps To Funding, and having built a lab with over a million/year in funding, is now moving on to a less intense faculty job so that she has time to coach and train others in their science careers.
|
|
previous post
Maybe it is more due to the fact researchers are more interested in CONTINUED funding RATHER than an END to funding due to a cure ? Case in point a recent article spoke to the fact a researcher found a mouses ear healed after a hole was put in it. The researcher **realized** this is “impossible” and **knew** HOW she had achieved this impossible result. She attended a conference and spoke to a highly respected researcher . She asked him “does a hole heal when placed in flesh” and the doctor / researcher replied “no it is impossible” . Her response to the ‘interaction’? She walked away. She didn’t say “no I know it can be done because I have done it”. She walked away BECAUSE she FEARED for the loss of the **discovery** to her own RESUME. Twenty years went by before she DID finally prove her discovery. Twenty years. How many people died because she FAILED TO SHARE her discovery for twenty years. Open access journals or non-open access journals. Pretty much the same thing. People have begun to NOTICE the drive of MOST researchers and THAT is fame and fortune and their JOB. One man told me a researcher told him he had made enough discoveries in the time he has been working to KEEP him working for the next thirty years. THAT is if he SLOWLY releases his ‘discoveries’ by withholding the information / discovery OVER the thirty years. THAT is the WHY the money is ‘drying up’. People are beginning to see what low morals are all about. Imho.
Uffda. OK, perhaps we need to step back for a second. The Republican party has always supported research, as some of you gasp, step back and think about it. President Bush (the father) was in a fight with a Democratic controlled Congress for more money in the budget for NIH. Fast forward, the son was faced with some real issues caused by others that focused our national energy into two prolonged wars. In between these two Presidents, President Clinton invested heavily in the NIH, but really after the Congress changed hands in 1994. So, what does any of the history mean? I am not sure, but my impression is that Republicans view research as critical for our nation and clearly it supports our strong pharmaceutical industry as the basic discoveries made will eventually enhance our ability to combat disease states.
I don’t know what is meant by “Tea-Party” as this element is made up of both registered Republicans and Democrats and whether they like science or not is perhaps up to debate. I do think President Obama really hurt the NIH with ARRA and science in general. It was a feel good policy to enhance not research, but construction jobs and money flow through the economy as universities built buildings in which to put new hires to compete for grant money. This had nothing to do with research, but sure some money went that way, but really look at the program.
In the end, as I have noted in the past in an editorial in Lipids as well as has been noted in The Scientist by others, we need to scrape the entire program on the extramural side of NIH and have a better, sustainable program in place. Perhaps looking to trim 25-30% of the intramural budget would be a good idea as well, shifting that money to the extramural side. However, the minor tweaks to the system have been a gross failure and it is business as usual for the NIH haves and the NIH have-nots just close the doors.
In response to Mr. Hennessy, I would like him to consider that scientist in this country, both in the NIH and outside in our university system work hard to move science forward. But like baseball, this is a process of singles and doubles, with the occasional home run or grand slam. There are a lot of preconceived notions by many in science and salmon swimming upstream are not always welcomed. In a tight money environment, the process favors safe, not innovative science.
In response to a previous post: I was in research for nine years (though am now teaching), and have known a large number of researchers in both the wound healing field as well as in the broader arena of cell biology. I have known VERY few who were motivated solely by fame or fortune–in academia, “fortune” is EXTREMELY unlikely. Fame is elusive–but a person is far more likely to achieve it if he or she does find a cure for a specific disease or make a major discovery, not if that person withholds such information for the sake of maintaining funding. Indeed, funding is generally easier to get if the person requesting the funding has made a major scientific breakthrough and/or has a strong reputation–if a person were to withhold information, it would probably decrease his/her ability to become “famous” and also to acquire funding. In addition,if someone DID “sit on” an important finding and not publish it, it is FAR more likely for someone else to publish the same or similar finding, and then the initial researcher would be “scooped.” It does happen–more frequently than you think.
In the wound healing field, I do know of a rapidly-healing mouse model, but these wounds are not similar to difficult wounds in humans, and this discovery has not yet yielded any “cures” for human wounds. I’m not sure if this is the same mouse to which the previous poster is referring, but I do know many people in the wound healing field, and those that I know would LOVE to be able to find a way to cure chronic wounds in humans, and are constantly trying to find new treatments. However, many times studies conducted in different species (mice, for example) or in acute wounds do not translate well for the treatment of chronic or poorly-healing wounds in the clinic–this is the true reason that there are no “cures” for difficult wounds (in general–some treatments do have amazing results in certain types of wounds). The previous poster has an overly simplistic view of both funding and research in general. In addition, most of the scientists I know are dedicated and have high moral standards–no one should judge an entire group of people (in this case, scientific researchers) based upon limited interactions with a few members of that group.
If the Great Grant Crunch becomes reality both in the near and far term, what would be the state of scientific employment in our universities? We all see those same words in advertisements for many faculty positions, “candidates should have a record of externally funded research”, “responsibilities will include maintaining a strong externally funded research program”, “maintain an active, extramurally funded research program”, “potential to secure external funding…required” (Science Volume 330, No. 6007, p. 1132, 19 November 2010). In the new era, how can these requirements for obtaining a job be maintained? Will there be no new faculty positions except those to replace retiring faculty, and only those absolutely necessary to teach required courses, at paultry temporary or adjunct instructor salaries?
Will only those universities’ massive endowments plow that money into attracting and funding just a few elite researchers and their minions who will do most of the nation’s academic publishing, thereby making these institutions self-perpetuating centers through the contributions of wealthy alumni? Will every other institution wither on the vine? Will this be the new equilibrium of academic research?
“I believe that science is still a great investment – but I’m not sure that the Tea Partiers see it that way. Some of them are sort that want creationism taught in schools. Perhaps they’d like a return to the good old days of typhoid, plague, and syphillis. Is that a bit harsh?”
Of course not. They think they can “privatize” science research and education in a libertarian laissez faire sort of way and God will make sure we remain leaders of science and industry. They think we have the best health and education systems in the world, and anything that’s wrong with them can easily be corrected by deregulation and market forces. Their propaganda inspires all the worst selfish, shortsighted instincts in the electorate.
@Paul: Good question. I’ve actually had a slew of private emails from people, and even a phone call, after this article – and they all say the same thing: University Administrators are going to have to wake up to the new reality.
It reminds me a lot of the housing contractors near the end of the housing bubble. While a lot of financial prognosticators I know predicted the crash, building was still going on like crazy.
What if someone said, “hey, there’s going to be a crash soon, let’s stop building?”
Well, then that contractor would be risking “missing out” on the ongoing boom based on “speculation” (educated though it may be). Now where are those same housing contractors? Many went bankrupt, and those that survived became much more lean.
The situation right before the housing bust is comparable to where we’re at now in academia. Many people may realize “we have a problem” but if they were to act prematurely, before that problem manifests in real life, then they risk loosing out in case the prediction is wrong. Very few administrators are going to risk that, and stop investing using the old, outdated model – until it is clear that EVERYONE is stopping it.
What next at that point? Well, states have largely shirked responsibility for education at the college level, because they’ve realized that if they just hire faculty who can bring in grants, they don’t have to send as much money.
But, when there’s no longer enough grant money to keep the “boom time” going, the states will have to decide: let the universities collapse, or start investing in them for real. I’m sure some states will make the right decision, and some won’t.
However, a key point for job seekers and people with faculty jobs alike: everyone will be in the same boat, excepting a few rare stars. When it becomes the “norm” to be unable to obtain grant funding, then the pressures will have to ramp down on this front (though pressures might likely ramp up on teaching or other duties).