Science on Funding Woes

Excellent analysis from an article in Science on the recent funding woes (sadly behind a subscription wall). Money quote:

Meanwhile, research institutions everywhere were breaking ground on new facilities and expanding their faculty. In a 2002 survey, AAMC found that new construction at medical schools had exploded: From 1990 to 1997, schools invested $2.2 billion in new construction, compared to $3.9 billion from 1998 to 2002. But that paled in comparison to what was to come: an expected $7.4 billion in new construction from 2002 to 2007. AAMC has not yet confirmed whether these plans were carried out.

Schools hired new faculty members to fill the buildings, expecting to recoup their investments from the NIH grants investigators would haul in. "Universities and their leadership did what I would have done too," says Zerhouni. "The government is indicating support for these activities," and the expansion was "exactly what Congress intended."

This appears to have helped drive more applicants to NIH. In 1998, fewer than 20,000 scientists sought research grants from the agency; in 2006, that number was more than 33,000, and according to NIH forecasts, the number of applicants is expected to top 35,000 in 2007. The number of applications has grown at an even faster clip, as scientists, concerned about their chance of getting funded, are submitting proposals more frequently. Because growth at medical schools lagged somewhat behind the doubling, many institutions are still expanding. At Sloan-Kettering, for example, officials only recently began filling a new building with scientists. They expect to increase their faculty by almost 50%, says Varmus.

But as requests for NIH money edged upward, NIH's resources began to drop. After a 16% increase in 2003, the final year of the doubling, NIH received a 3% boost in 2004, an abrupt reversal of fortune. Although the general rate of inflation in 2006 was 3.1%, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce, the cost of goods and services in biomedical research and development rose 4.5%. The number of competing grants NIH funded peaked in 2003 and has been dropping since. The declining value of NIH's dollars and rising demand were "a perfect double whammy," says Zerhouni.

Yet the numbers fail to convey the gnawing unease and foreboding expressed by scientists across disciplines and at every stage of their careers. "The ripple effect here is amazing and paralyzing," says Steven Dowdy, a cancer biologist at the University of California, San Diego. At Brown University, molecular cell biologist Susan Gerbi, who helps oversee graduate training, canvassed 49 faculty members in eight departments recently, as she does every year, to see how many would take on a graduate student from next year's pack. "In the past, it was a majority," around 90% of those who responded, she says. "This year, only about 25% of the trainers said they would be interested ... because they did not have a guarantee of funding for next fall." (Empahsis mine.)

That last part is the most distressing one to me. Biomedical science is heavily reliant on student labor. Failure to take on new graduate students may not only be a canary in the mine; it may also cause a vicious cycle where researchers can't get enough labor to get the research done that is required for the grant.

The other part that is distressing is how much of the federal funding during the boom years went to new buildings. Perhaps this is the selective memory of hindsight, but things may have gone better if we developed institutions to distribute that money over longer periods and spent more of the money on research itself than infrastructural improvements. Now what we have is a lot of new buildings and a heavy demand for new faculty members, but fewer grants to support those faculty members.

Tags

More like this

Another factor influencing this undercurrent is the continued slashing of budgets for already-approved projects. For those lucky enough to have a current NIH grant or contract, new fiscal year budgets are being cut 3-24% while actual costs for committed labor is increasing 4-6% annually. That is, we can't even afford to pay our folks to whom we are already committed, much less take on new trainees. So, if my "employer" gives me a raise, I can't afford to pay myself and would rather shunt the money back into the lab where I can continue paying for a tech, postdoc, or student. And to think I'm a lucky one to still actually have an R01.

Tradional biologists (ie, non-biomedical) are also impacted when people in med schools not getting funding from NIH, spin thier proposals in a non-biomedical fashion and submit to NSF. The number of biology proposals to NSF has increased tremendously, yet budgets has stayed flat. Current funding rates for most panels are between 5-10%.

By Gerardo Camilo (not verified) on 23 Apr 2007 #permalink

another aspect of the vicious cycle is the squeeze on "support" departments and cores. fewer grants, fewer animals, fewer services and these "cost recovery" (don't get me started about where overhead goes) units of universities and research institutions start passing along new charges and fees to the investigators. they have no obligation to respect federal limits on budget escalation even under normal circumstances...