Improving American Science: Part 3: A solution--Proposal for "Minimal Basic Research Funding Level"

Improving American Science:

FUNDING BASED ON NEED:

Minimal Basic Research Funding (MBRF)

A SERIES

NOTE: This 3-part series is part of a larger work-in-progress, in which many proposals regarding improving American science are set forth

Part 1: The current situation

Part 2: The problem

Part 3: A solution

Proposal for "Minimal Basic Research Funding Level" By Marion Freistadt

Series abstract

In this series, I discuss some problems with the funding of biomedical research in America today and propose some solutions. After discussing the current situation in Part I of this series, I describe the problem in the second part of the series. The problem being addressed here may be summarized as low return on investment. Large amounts of money are spent on research, yet much money and human effort is wasted. Supplies and equipment are purchased on arbitrary budget cycles, rather than as needed. Moral is low among many qualified scientists and some leave research (49% in one survey [http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Science-Occupational-Scientific-Careers/dp/0871546949]). After discussing the difficulties, I propose a novel solution, which I call Minimal Basic Research Funding. I propose that researchers establish a “self-help” fund from their own money. I present estimates suggesting that, with small annual donations, in 5 years, 100 awards may be distributed. The psychological benefit of this safety net may save the careers of many scientists. This proposal may be characterized as research funding based on research need, rather than the peer review.

Summary of Part 1

In Part 1 http://thinkoutsidetheicosahedron.blogspot.com/ (Dec. 27, 2009 post), I described the current situation with regard to career paths for American, academic biomedical basic researchers (AABBR). After about 10 years of graduate and post-graduate training, the researcher seeks to acquire grants, generally from NIH (http://www.nih.gov/ National Institutes of Health, the federal government) while holding an academic position. I described the grant application process. A primary difficulty is passing the “peer-review” process. Universities have a vested interested in researchers’ acquisition of grant funding because in addition to the face value of grants, high overheads are charged.

Summary of Part 2

In Part 2, I discuss 4 problems with the current situation: 1. Why should progress in science be linked to money grubbing? 2. Wasted time and money, 3. Wasted materials, 4. Discouragement of scientists. First, I argue that pursuit of science and pursue of funding are two distinct functions and should not be inextricably linked. Next, I delineate ways in which applying for grant funding waste time and money. For example, a new study estimates that the cost of preparing a rejected grant as $40,000 (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909104450). Wasted material is a consequence of finite budget time periods. Discouragement is the human cost. Many researchers experience undue stress, professional dissatisfaction. This may lead to clinical depression and/or possibly suicide. I reference several blogs that document these difficulties.

Summary of Part 3

In Part 3, I propose the establishment of Minimal Basic Research Funding. Here I establish the concept, and propose several ways that this could come about. If a researcher meets an established standard of productivity, yet lacks success in fund raising, a minimal level of funding which I call “Minimal Basic Research Funding (MBRF)” should be available to that person to continue researching. My proposal differs from others in that I suggest that researchers themselves contribute small amounts toward this end, similar to an insurance plan. In this document, I address several details of the proposal such as the establishment of criteria for productivity. I next address quantitative details. I propose the establishment of a 501c3 organization for this purpose. Using just researcher-based donations, I propose that in 5 years, if 3000 people donate $300 per year, sufficient funds would be available for 100 awards. Other sources would enhance the fund.

Part 3: A solution: Minimal Basic Research Funding

The basic idea and how to achieve it.

I propose that if a researcher meets an established standard of productivity, yet lacks success in fund raising, a minimal level of funding which I call “Minimal Basic Research Funding (MBRF)” should be available to that person to continue researching. This funding would NOT be based on merit or peer-review.

My first purpose here is simply to state the principle: this funding should be available. Getting agreement about this principle is a first step. At the moment, since this idea is in its inception, there is no single, definitive way to envision that this may be achieved. Many new, good ideas start this way. However, the means should not be confused with the ends. One important goal of this document is to explicitly state the principle.

My second purpose here is to propose one possible mechanism for achieving this. I believe my proposal is unique. I propose that researchers themselves help pay for this, similar to a voluntary unemployment insurance policy. There certainly may be other ways to achieve MBRF.

(NOTE: I am not proposing to do away with peer-review. Peer-review is a best practice and much better than cronyism or favoritism. However, for the reasons outlined in Part 2 of this series, it needs improvement.)

In this document, then, I discuss the details of this proposal.

Issues discussed below are:

1. How to establish an acceptable standard of productivity?

2. What level of funding should be provided?

3. How many people would need or use MBRF?

4. Criteria other than productivity for use of the fund.

5. Where would this funding come from?

1. How to establish an acceptable standard of productivity?

As a starting point, I would suggest that submitted (or accepted) publications and submitted grant applications are evidence of productivity. Some type of “committee” (Board of Directors or reporting to them) would be established to set productivity criteria. This committee should be composed of BOTH funded and unfunded researchers. Committees may be local or national. These could be web-based committees. Clearly, criteria for productivity evolve.

2. What level of funding should be provided?

The level of funding would be set by Board of Directors and may change over time. Levels will also depend on the specific research area. MBRF should not be a substitute for long-term funding. Compared to regular funding, the awards should be very low. Here, as an example, I make a suggestion based on my field, at the time that I was in this situation. I believe that with $5000/year, productive research (carried out by the PI) could be continued until major awards are received. It is to be used only for supplies. No personnel costs would be provided.

The committee will also establish criteria to minimize abuse and maximize successful funding independence. Eligibility is obviated by any other funding. Also a "buddy" system to link veteran funded researchers with unfunded researchers may help.

3. How many people would need or use MBRF?

This is very difficult to answer, for many reasons. Just to get started, I make some wild estimates. I will give two polar extremes: an extremely high and a relatively low estimate.

A high estimate

In Part 1 of this series, I estimated that there are 25,000 unfunded US researchers seeking funding. However, this is probably not the number that will be eligible for MBRF. Several requirements (discussed below), such as that the person have no funding and that he or she is actively pursuing research as evidenced by submitted or accepted publications, may mitigate this number.

A low estimate

For another estimate of researchers eligible for MBRF, envision a single academic biomedical research department. Examining one department’s website (http://tulane.edu/sse/cmb/faculty.cfm#CP_JUMP_678514), out of 19 faculty, 3 have NIH funding (http://projectreporter.nih.gov/reporter.cfm) totaling roughly $2 million for FY 2009. Of those without NIH funding, 6 have published in the last 2 years (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez). These are the “active” researchers. Lacking other data, I estimate that of these 6, half may have non-NIH funding (collaborations, other federal sources, such as NSF, other nonprofit funding agencies, or industrial sources). This leaves an estimated 3 researchers in this department requiring MBRF.

According the Department of Education (http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_230.asp), there are 270 public and not-for-profit institutions that are involved in research at either a “very high” or “high” or “Doctoral” level (including medical schools). (There are 131 AAMC accredited medical schools in the US [http://www.aamc.org/medicalschools.htm].) I estimate that each institution has an average of 4 biomedical research departments carrying out basic research (nonmedical schools probably have 1; medical schools may have 6). So, 4 times 270 equals 1080 relevant departments. 1080 departments times 3 eligible researchers per department equals 3,240 eligible researchers in the US.

So my estimates vary from 3,240 (times $5000 per year equals $16.2 million per year) to approximately 25,000 ($125 million/year) American researchers seeking MBRF.

4. Criteria other than productivity

In addition to meeting the established criterion of productivity, there are two other criteria to be eligible for an award. First, the person must have no current funding, not even as a collaborator. Second, the person must be actively seeking funding. The goal of this funding is to permit the person to continue researching until he or she establishes him- or herself as a self-supporting researcher.

5. Where would this funding come from?

I propose starting a 501c3 organization. The purpose of the organization would be to provide a mechanism to fund MBRF. Input funds would be placed in an endowment, which would generate interest. When the fund reaches a certain level, awards will be distributed from interest. Awards would be granted to institutions, to be used exclusively by the researcher for proposed research, in the same way that research funding is currently granted. The money in the fund should managed by professional, independent managers. Salaries for managers are not included in these estimates.

The numbers

Table I. Endowment amounts required to award specified number of annual awards. Calculated by the formula: A = Ae^.0725 - A , where A is Award amount. (http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/54632.html ).

Number of annual awards	Total amount awarded	Endowment required
1	$5,000	$66,489
10	$50,000	$664,894
50	$250,000	$3,324,468
100	$500,000	$6,648,936
500	$2,500,000	$33,244,681
1,000	$5,000,000	$66,489,362
3,000	$15,000,000	$199,468,085

Table I shows the endowment amounts required to distribute specified number of annual awards, assuming an interest rate of 7.25% (compounded continuously). Thus, in order to distribute one award, the fund would need an endowment of $66,489, while to award 1000 awards, $66,489,362 would be required.

I propose that researchers pay for this themselves, at least in part.

This would work like an insurance fund. Each researcher would contribute a small amount.

Table II shows two 5 year scenarios: 100 people donating $100/year and 1000 people donating $1000/year. In each case, cumulative funds with interest are shown.

Table II. Accumulated funds based on amounts and numbers of donations.

Interest compounded continuously, calculated by the formula : A= Pe^rt, where P = Principal, r = interest rate, t = time in years and A amount after time t. (http://cs.selu.edu/~rbyrd/math/continuous/)

	Added to Endowment that year	Cumulative donations	Cumulative with 7.25% interest
100 donors, each donating $100/year
Year 1	10,000	10,000	$10,752
Year 2	10,000	20,000	$23,121
Year 3	10,000	30,000	$37,289
Year 4	10,000	40,000	$53,457
Year 5	10,000	50,000	$71,846
1000 donors, each donating $1000/year
Year 1	1,000,000	1,000,000	$1,075,193
Year 2	1,000,000	2,000,000	$2,312,079
Year 3	1,000,000	3,000,000	$3,728,896
Year 4	1,000,000	4,000,000	$5,345,710
Year 5	1,000,000	5,000,000	$7,184,586

Combining the information from the two tables, at the lowest level, 100 people contributing $100/year, in 5 years one award would be generated (based on Table I, endowment amount needed per award). This is a 1 award per 100 donors award rate. At this level, in 15 years the endowment would be $445,027, permitting close to 7 awards (data not shown). If 1000 people donated $1000/year, after 1 year, $1,075,193 would permit close to 15 awards. After 5 years at this level, $7,184,586 would permit 108 awards.

To fund 3000 researchers, $200 million would be needed. This could be reached in 10 years if 5000 people gave $2000/year.

This level of funding for a nonprofit, charitable organization is not extravagant. Endowments of the wealthiest 25 charitable foundations on March 4, 2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wealthiest_foundations ) range from $3.3 billion (Kresge) to $35.1 billion (Bill and Melinda Gates). In fact, compared to the overall annual NIH budget ($30 billion), $200 million is 0.7%. Considering that this could be saving or improving the careers of thousands of scientists, this is not expensive.

Obviously, getting 5000 people to donate $2000 per year for 10 years would be difficult. Other revenue sources would be required. However, I believe that this general approach, at a lower level, is feasible in the short term.

For the researcher-supported part of the fund, I propose an intermediate-sized, medium range target: 3000 people donate $300 per year ($25/month). This would achieve $6,466,127 in 5 years, permitting 100 awards.

Incentives for researchers to contribute:

1. It’s cheap. Researchers for whom this is relevant are presumably already employed, so they can usually afford a small amount such as $25-$100/month.

2. It would be 100% tax-deductible, so donations could automatically be deducted from payroll and included in the cafeteria plan.

3. A researcher must contribute to receive an award.

Several additional points must be made here. First, this is NOT a personal investment. Money donated is not returned and there is no “return on investment.” Like a church or synagogue, it is not a “fee for service.” You cannot only contribute when it’s time for your child’s bar mitzvah: the organization needs to run all the time. It is like insurance, in the sense that you hope you never have to make a claim. If the fund disbands completely, money should be returned to donors, with interest (less expenses).

Who will donate?

I believe that any researcher who has gone through the process of desperately needing grant awards and having all applications rejected, will be sympathetic to this cause. Given overall success rates of 25% and first time success rates of 10%, this is a significant proportion of the biomedical science population. Ultimately, most scientists may wish to donate, since they realize that they someday may face the same situation.

Other possible revenue sources

In the long term, other sources of revenue will be required. These may come from existing research funding mechanisms or from new fund-raising options.

NIH or other relevant federal agencies

The simplest solution would be if NIH or research institutions provided this funding. It has been shown (in Canada) that the cost of submitting rejected grant applications exceeds the cost of small grants themselves. (“Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant”

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909104450

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/04/why_eliminate_the_peer-review.php). Therefore, a theoretical source of funding would simply be abolition of submitting unfunded grant applications. However, if it was known which grants would be funded, the review process would be unnecessary.

I am not proposing that NIH fund MBRF, at least not now. If I were, this proposal would be no different from the multiple, existing cries for more money dedicated to research. While I support that, the essence of this proposal is different. Simply taking money from NIH would require that that money not be spent elsewhere in NIH.

Institutions

Some institutions provide “bridge” or interim funding http://www.bumc.bu.edu/medicine/research-in-the-department/announcement-of-bridge-funding-application-deadlines/ .However, such mechanisms are not universal. If such a policy became universal and easy to access, my goal would be accomplished.

Other fund-raising options—researcher initiated.

Here are a few other ideas: MBRF could be a required use of overhead funds. Royalties from research inventions that currently go to institutions could be used. Science-related art and music is another potential source of income.

HOW TO CHOOSE WHO GETS AWARDS?

Ideally, if a person contributes, that person should automatically get an award when you needed. However, initially, the fund will not be large enough do this.

Criteria for receiving awards will be set by the Board of Directors. A formula would be developed. It could reflect: order in which application was received, length of time without funding will be derived. Critical to the MBRF plan is that it would NOT be based on peer-review.

OBJECTIONS

This proposal will not solve all problems in American academic basic biomedical research. However, it is a modest proposal as a start to improving American science. Objections will certainly arise to this proposal, particularly about its practicality. This has been addressed throughout the proposal. (1) Another objection is the lack of peer-review. (2) Another objection is that this may be abused. (3) Finally, it may be objected that this money is TOO low: it is not enough to perform research.

(1) Undermines peer-review system

Although criticism has been raised against it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review), peer-review has proven to be a “best practice” for allocating funds. Its purpose is to identify work most deserving of funding. I do not object to peer-review; in fact, I support it. Ideally, applications are judged and funded purely on the basis of merit, in contrast to arbitrary or capricious ways. Traditional ways may be to fund one’s friends and deny funding to one’s enemies. Peer-review is certainly preferable to graft or kickback payments.

The current proposal is for a “tweaking,” a refinement of the process. It is intended for cases in which the peer-review process does not succeed in achieving the goal for which is it intended.

(2) Abuse: INCENTIVES TO AVOID ABUSE

First, this level of funding is very low, making the incentive to cheat very low. Moreover, many people who do not succeed at the NIH level, are able to procure funding from other sources. This is for people who do not succeed, even from other sources. However, I believe that the requirement to contribute may eliminate “free-loaders.”

(3) Award not high enough

The low level of funding may be considered a reason NOT to do this. It may be felt that the amount is too low to permit productivity. I have heard this raised, primarily by highly successful fund-raisers. Such individuals may be unfamiliar with the situation being discussed here.

Clearly the amount of funding must be evaluated regularly. Also, it will depend on the specifics of each researcher’s field.

Keeping the monetary level low is a strength of this proposal. First, this is meant for minimal survival. If this funding was at a higher level, it would not be the minimum required for sustainability. Moreover, higher level would not be feasible—it would take on the aspects of big money funding of science.

Conclusion

This document does not have all the answers. My purpose here is to publicize the basic concept of MBRF and that it could, at least in part, be initiated and funded by researchers. In addition, I propose a number of possible routes to achieving MBRF.

Advocacy groups for science funding:

http://www.aboutastra.org/about/index.asp

http://www.cnsfweb.org/

Improving American Science: FUNDING BASED ON RESEARCH NEED: Minimal Basic Research Funding (MBRF). A SERIES: Part 2: The Problem

“There is a population of gifted American researchers who are trying very hard to achieve sustainable national funding but, for various reasons, are not succeeding.”
by Marion Freistadt

Part 1: The current situation
Part 2: The problem
Part 3: A solution

NOTE on terminology: the phrases: scientist, researcher, principal investigator (PI), or American, academic biomedical basic researcher (AABBR) are not identical in meaning. However, for the purpose of this series, I use them more or less synonymously.

Series abstract
In this series, I discuss problems with the funding of basic biomedical research in America today. After discussing the current situation in Part I of this series, I describe the problem in the Part 2 of the series. The problem being addressed here may be summarized as low return on investment. Large amounts of money are spent on research, yet much money and human effort is wasted. Supplies and equipment are purchased on arbitrary budget cycles, rather than as needed. Moral is low among many qualified scientists and some leave research (49% in one survey [http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Science-Occupational-Scientific-Careers/dp/0871546949]). After discussing the difficulties, in Part 3 I propose a novel solution, which I call Minimal Basic Research Funding. The proposal may be characterized as research funding based on research need, rather than the peer review.

Summary of Part 1

In Part 1 http://thinkoutsidetheicosahedron.blogspot.com/ (Dec. 27, 2009 post), I described the current situation with regard to career paths for American, academic biomedical basic researchers (AABBR). After about 10 years of graduate and post-graduate training, the researcher seeks to acquire grants, generally from NIH (http://www.nih.gov/ National Institutes of Health, the federal government) while holding an academic position. I described the grant application process. A primary difficulty is passing the “peer-review” process. Universities have a vested interested in researchers’ acquisition of grant funding because in addition to the face value of grants, high overheads are charged.


Part 2 (in the series): The problems
Here, I describe 4 aspects to problems in American academic biomedical basic research. The three aspects are:
1. Why should progress in science be linked to money grubbing?
2. Wasted time and money
3. Wasted materials
4. Discouragement

1. Why should progress in science be linked to money grubbing?

No question, science requires money. Historically, science has carried out by people with money. For example, Darwin was independently wealthy and married a wealthy woman (“Angels and Ages,” By Adam Gopnick). As an undergraduate, it was often quoted to me that the word “school” comes from the Greek word “skole,” roughly meaning “leisure;” that is, having the leisure time to reflect.

However, as described in Part 1 of this series, doing science is, currently, inextricably linked to acquiring funding. The processes are now inseparable. A scientist’s merit is linked to his or her fundraising ability.

I wish to put forth the idea that the process of science should be unlinked from the process of fund-raising. I am not saying that the linkage is undeserved — there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a good scientist being a good fund-raiser. I am saying that they are not the same thing and should not be forcibly linked. The ability to do science consists of skills such as having sufficient background knowledge, forming and testing hypotheses, designing pertinent experiments, performing experiments reliably and interpreting results. The ability to raise funds is a different skillset. As described in Part 1, raising funds for American Academic Biomedical Basic Research requires granstmanship. For example, Karen Hopkins quotes Robert Moon, a Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) investigator and a professor of pharmacology at the University of Washington in Seattle: "If you fail to win someone as your advocate [in your study section], your grant will sink to the middle of the pile." http://www.mountain-research.org/grantsmanship.htm

I contend that although these skills are somewhat related and may occasionally abide in the same person, they are significantly different skills. Moreover, the opportunity to perform one skillset (science) should not be contingent upon success at a significantly different skillset.

With the stimulus package of 2009, more money became available to researchers. However, a “lottery mentality” prevailed, in which there was a mad dash to submit applications in hopes of increasing one’s odds of success. “Since no one knew, at least initially, how many others were applying or what the odds of success were, a sort of wild optimism—that it might be possible to throw something together faster than competitors and edge them out—took hold, especially among many less-established scientists” http://www.slate.com/id/2217229/pagenum/all/. Many feel that likelihood of success depends (at least in part) on chance (who reviews your grant, how they are feeling, etc), so anything that will increase the odds of success is pursued. Short term increased funding simply was thought to increase their short term odds.

Research science itself is very difficult. Researchers should just do research. They should not be forced to grovel for funding. Ordinarily applying for grant funding is a thankless rat race. When the stimulus package allocated an additional $10.4 billion to NIH, an unseemly money-grabbing gold rush mentality ensued.

Ulterior motives
This linkage become particularly pernicious when linked to University overhead budgets. Not only is the skilled scientist being asked to raise his or her own funds, but to help contribute financially to his or her institution.

A topic that is rarely breached (and is minimized here to avoid appearing unprofessional) is bias in study sections. Reviewers tend to be “leaders” in their field. Therefore, it is often in their interest to stifle competition. What better way to do that than to deny funding to their competitors? Ostensibly, the Center for Scientific Research (CSR, the branch of NIH that oversees the application process) follows strict rules about conflict of interest, but they can never completely remove this. In this way, scientists on study sections can reward their friends and punish their competitors. One blogger points to a linkage between reviewers and the reviewed: researchers from each section are approving researchers from the other study sections! The blogger calls this “insular sub-groupings of scientists protect and maintain themselves and their peers through the grant review process”
http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2009/12/repost_ifcn_clustering_a_crisp.php#more From personal experience, one time a supervisor of mine (a professor at a medical school) told me that he had just rejected a paper of a competitor because he knew that that person would do the same to him.

2. Wasted time
The process of perpetually seeking research funding is often personally detrimental to the researcher. First, it is extremely time-consuming. Here I am speaking of both initial efforts and resubmission efforts.

What fraction of a PI’s time is spent applying for funding?
To achieve success, a researcher must spend a significant proportion of his or her time applying for grants. How much time is spent writing grant applications? One estimate is 50-90% (http://www.slate.com/id/2217229/pagenum/all/).

Here is my estimate, based on personal experience and my colleagues’ experiences. When a grant application deadline approaches, essentially 100% of the PIs time is spent on completing the application. This lead time may constitute up to about one month. If the PI has other professional duties, such as teaching, during business hours, grant-writing may be taken home and/or done during evenings and weekends. During other times, an estimated 20% of a PIs time may be spent identifying funding sources, part-time application preparation, strategizing and other grant-related activities. This constitutes 26.7% of the researcher’s time (100% of 1/12 months + 20% of 11/12 months). If 2 grants are submitted per year, and estimated 33.3% (100% of 2/12 months + 20% of 10/12 months) of a PI’s time may be spent applying for funding. If 3 grant applications are submitted per year, this rises to 40% (100% of 3/12 months + 20% of 9/12 months).

According to Group of Concerned Universities and Research Institutions (GCURI)— “this trend represents a clog in the system that is causing researchers to abandon promising work, downsize labs, and spend more time searching for other financial support" http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2009/01/the-nih-past-present-and-future.html.
The 2007 overall success rate for NIH grant submissions (includes resubmissions) is 24%. This means that a grant application, on average, would have to be submitted 4 times to get funded. (For this calculation, I am ignoring the rule that no separate grant application may be submitted more than 3 times.) Thus, if 40% of a researcher’s time is 24% successful; then 9.6% (24% of 40%) is not wasted, i.e., 30% of his or her time is wasted.

Even the NIH (CSR) assumes that grant applications will be rejected and resubmitted. This is from the CSR website: “Shortening the review process by 45 days could thus reduce the time to resubmit by 4 months.”

A January 2009 article (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a909104450 ) estimates that (in Canada), it costs about $40,000 to prepare, submit and have a grant application rejected. Since this may happen 3 times, annual cost may be $120,000. Since the majority of grant applications (90%, given a 10% first-time success rate) are NOT funded (http://www.brokenpipeline.org/brokenpipeline.pdf), this represents a significant waste of human effort.

3. Wasted materials
I contend that, in addition to wasted time and effort noted above, the grant funding system as it stands results in an unconscionable waste of materials. First, there is the assumption that if grant money is granted, it must be spent. Very few researchers desire to return unspent funds. So spending decisions are based on the amount of money remaining in the budget, rather than what is actually required for research.

Moreover, since budgets are delimited in time, unspent funds must be spent in a particular budget period. Most researchers are familiar with task of spending inordinate amounts of money at the end of a grant period. Thus, piles of unused or underused materials accumulate. Much of this is not used and eventually discarded. Data on this phenomenon is hard to find, since records are not kept. Yet it is a phenomenon that most researchers have experienced.

Submitting applications is not a GREEN process
Electronic grant submission is improving the “paper” footprint of the grant funding system, but certainly many mountains of paperwork have been generated and thrown away in the process. As a graduate student, I remember hearing tales of backhoes being used to move applications around NIH receiving warehouses for grant applications.

4. Discouragement
Aside from the inherent waste of time and money, many scientists get discouraged. This is reflected in many ways. “The personal and institutional toll of continuing to write unfunded applications and concern over attaining research aspirations is severe, and often not recognized,” from “The Broken Pipeline” a report issued by Group of Concerned Universities and Research Institutions (CGCURI) http://www.brokenpipeline.org/brokenpipeline.pdf
“Tom Cech, a Nobel laureate and [HHMI] president, said that the current NIH funding climate is highly stressful and distracting. ‘Here you have these people who've been in school for 30 years, they've just gotten their labs going, and instead of spending their time making discoveries in the lab or mentoring younger scientists, they spend all their time in an office writing federal grant applications. It's not a very effective use of their talent" http://www.boston.com/news/science/articles/2008/03/10/funding_freeze_chills_research_careers_too/?page=2.
A scientist who persists in applying, despite lack of funding success, may have undue stress and lose professional enjoyment. They may become depressed (http://www.brokenpipeline.org/brokenpipeline.pdf).
To clarify, the word depression has two senses. Clinical depression is a disease, with a (partially understood) chemistry, that is treatable with medication. This kind of depression is often unrelated to life events. The word “depression” is also used vernacularly to describe discouraging situations. Here, I am mostly talking about the LATTER, nonclinical depression. However, in some people (presumably those that have some sort of predisposition) discouraging situations can lead to depression, the disease.

According to Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs, all humans require esteem and self-actualization. Constant deprivation of professional success may lead to social anxiety, depression and suicide http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs . (According to http://listverse.com/2007/10/07/top-10-scientists-who-committed-suicide/ , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Scientists_who_committed_suicide some scientists commit suicide. Obviously, these are complicated cases, with multiple and inscrutable factors contributing this disastrous outcome. I mention only it to emphasize the importance of providing satisfactory working conditions for scientists.) I would like to reduce the discouraging nature of AABBR life, keeping an eye to rare, pathological situations.

Here are some blogs by biomedical graduate students (and other researchers) documenting the travails of AABBRs. These blogs give a sense of the AABBR laboratory life culture. Some discuss depression. All show dedication and hard work. (http://youngfemalescientist.blogspot.com/2006/10/psychology-of-young-scientist.html http://ilovesciencereally.wordpress.com/ , http://wecansleeplater.blogspot.com/ , http://2postdocswalkintoabar.blogspot.com/ http://trainingprofessor.blogspot.com/ )

A discussion board in the “Slate” revealed a torrent of unhappy former researchers (http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/thread/2857508.aspx)

“--After getting a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry at MIT (one of the top programs in the field) I was unable to find a job in science that would pay enough to support my family.
à If you want to work you butt off, expected to put in outrageous hours and have no social life, for financial rewards that don't remotely compare to the amount of time and lost earnings you put into your education, this is the career for you!
--If you want to write grant proposals, 90% of which will be rejected, then observe the government hand AIG $180 billion, equal to several years of combined NSF, NIH and NASA budgets, go for it.
--Please go philosophize to the dozens of friends (women and men) that I've seen laid off. You can't do much science if you're unemployed. Preach to the assistant professors denied tenure, not for lack of publications, or lack of quality research, or failing to teach; it's solely because they couldn't master grantsmanship fast enough, or weren't in an area deemed important by the powers-that-be at the funding agencies. Tell it to the many who disgustedly left science to get law or business degrees.”
Another consequence of the funding difficulties is that fewer people are choosing this career path. From 1970-2006, the overall number of total PhD faculty in (?American) medical schools increased from 8,800 to 38,000. However, the percentage of these that constitute new faculty decreased from 13% to 3%. (http://newvoicesforresearch.blogspot.com/2009/05/from-training-to-practice-joining.html. According former NIH director, Elias Zerhouni, soon there will be more scientists over 65 than those younger than 35 (http://www.brokenpipeline.org/brokenpipeline.pdf). More blog comments on the aging of new investigators can be found at: http://www.boston.com/news/health/blog/2008/03/flat_funding_fo.html


How many scientists have left science due (directly or indirectly) to lack of funding, and/or discouragement from the situation?
http://www.brokenpipeline.org/brokenpipeline.pdf gives anecdotal evidence, but not data, for this. Anne Elizabeth Preston (“Leaving Science: occupational exit from scientific careers” [2004]) surveyed about 1,700 people “who received university degrees in the natural sciences or engineering between 1965 and 1990.” Dr. Preston found that only 51% remained in science. This analysis focuses on salaries and job satisfaction. Dissatisfaction was found in “lack of mentoring and guidance, especially early in the career, inability to shoulder the double burden of scientific career and family, mismatch between the individual’s interests and the requirements of a scientific career, discontent with income and opportunity." The extent to which discouragement about raising funds is not clear; however, it certainly plays a role. “Discontent with income and opportunity” may be indirectly related to research funding difficulties, since advancement is linked to success in fund-raising.

Final note: throwing more money is not necessarily the solution

Earmarking money for basic science research is a good thing. However, equally important is how that money is used. The quote below describes the electrifying, but polarizing, effect that simply throwing money at a problem (even to normally reserved scientists) can have:

“The lottery mentality has been especially acute when it comes to the new NIH Challenge Grants, which promise, in total, at least $200 million to 200 or more researchers. …"In my lab, people stopped doing anything smart," a biology researcher in New Jersey told me. (Most of the half-dozen researchers I spoke with declined to talk on the record, for fear of jeopardizing their applications.)… (Many have combed the topic lists to see where their work might fit in. This has involved a lot of all-nighters and an "almost comedic reshaping of what people do," said the New Jersey biologist.)…. As a result, the competition has started to look something like America's Got Talent—if Bob Dylan, Beyoncé, and Bono were allowed to compete.” http://www.slate.com/id/2217229/pagenum/all/

A recent article http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007015#s2 analyzes whether there is a relationship between research funding and new drug approval in the decade 1995-2005. The authors find that correlation is low; that is, despite significant increased funding, new drug approval “was flat or declined across therapeutic areas.” Moreover, the authors conclude: “remedies must include changes beyond additional financial investment.”

The proposals put forth in this series are NOT for more money. My ideas are how to use existing funding better; that is, how to get more bang for the buck.