Improving American Science:
FUNDING BASED ON NEED:
Minimum Basic Research Funding (MBRF)
A THREE-PART SERIES
Proposal for "Minimum Basic Research Funding Level" By Marion Freistadt. Dec, 2009.
Part 1: The current situation
Part 2: The problem
Part 3: A solution
Series abstract
In this series, I discuss problems with funding of biomedical research in America today. After discussing the current situation in Part 1 of this series, I describe the problems being addressed in this series (in Part 2). These problems may be summarized as suboptimal return on investment. Large amounts of money are spent on research, yet outcomes are lower than they could be. 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 [1]). After discussing these difficulties, in Part 3, I propose a novel solution, which I call Minimum Basic Research Funding. The proposal may be characterized as research funding based on research need, rather than peer review.
Part 1: The current situation
Introduction
This series is being written by a former biomedical researcher: I was a professor with tenure in a Microbiology department in a US Medical School. I received numerous grants (I raised over $722,000 for research) and published extensively (23 publications). However, I came to perceive deep problems in the system currently used to fund biomedical research. The series is written from a personal perspective, informed either by my own experience or that of my colleagues. However, most points that I make in this series are backed by references.
What does it mean to do research?
People outside the field may not understand exactly what a researcher does. First, it is study. One must read and learn about the particular field, both in general and in the specific. Of course, initially, this involves classes. The student must learn “how to learn;” that is, how to find answers. The student becomes more and more intellectually independent. As the student learns, the laboratory part of research becomes integrated into his/her activities and thoughts. The student joins a laboratory group, usually after rotating through several groups. The student poses specific experimental questions and then learns to design and perform experiments to answer the questions. Then, as results accumulate, the researcher, in conjunction with the advisor and colleagues, must compile the information and evaluate when the experimental results have demonstrated significant findings. When sufficient novel results are acquired, the results may be written into a manuscript which may be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. Eventually, results will be submitted in grant applications. When I was in graduate school, grant writing was not taught. It now seems to be included in many current programs [2].
Built into this is that as knowledge increases, everything changes. The scientist must be adaptable: much of what was previously learned becomes obsolete.
Also intrinsic to the process is presenting results at national and international conferences. Another important aspect is self-promotion and nurturing of reputation: these are not explicitly taught.
How academic biomedical science is funded now? Getting started.
A researcher wants to do research. (I will also use the term PI, for Principal Investigator. The PI is the one applying for funding. A PI usually has several people working for him/her—these are also “researchers.” But here I am talking about the PI.) Typically, the person has trained for 5-10 years, during graduate and post-doctoral work. The financial and prestige rewards for research are low compared to many other highly skilled professionals, so most researchers are highly motivated: they are a self-selecting group. They usually have a deep love of science and desire to increase human knowledge. They are also very hardworking, putting in 50-60 hour weeks, especially during training.
To start independent research, he/she must have funding. Typically, a researcher must first secure employment in an academic institution, often a medical school. Funding initially, typically, comes from the department/institution where he or she is employed. “Start-up packages” usually provide 1-3 years funding. During that time, the researcher is expected to perform experiments (by him- or herself or directing one or more technicians, students and/or postdoctoral associates). These experiments should provide publishable results. Based on these published (or nonpublished) results, the researcher submits grant applications.
The role of grant funding in the academic process
In many cases, success in an academic career is dependent upon acquisition of external funding. During promotion and tenure review, one of the most important factors is grant success. This is often considered as an independent assessment of the researcher’s merit.
In addition, universities use researchers as “cash cows.” In addition to the face value of the grant, the institution receives “overhead” (aka “indirect costs”). This is a percent amount, set by the institution, which is added on to the face value of the grant. Although these values should be public information, it is difficult to determine how much these percentages are. I have heard up to 45%. This money is earmarked for costs such as building maintenance, utilities, support personnel, etc. Therefore, in addition to the obvious value of receiving grants, the university has a deeply vested interest in researcher’s financial success. Therefore, it is not surprising that universities task their promotion committees with emphasizing financial success. Researchers never see this money, nor do they know how it is used.
How much funding does one researcher need?
Assuming success, this depends entirely on the size of each researcher’s enterprise (and, therefore, the researcher’s ambition). Starting as a single researcher, minimally one R01 (the meat-and-potatoes research grant, typically 5 years, $250,000 per year) is required. The money is spent on personnel (student, postdoctoral, technician and, if required, PI salaries), supplies, equipment, travel and other things. This enables the researcher to accumulate people to perform research as well as covering supplies and equipment, if needed and budgeted. Whether the researcher’s salary must be covered depends on the type of institution. Successful results are published peer-reviewed journals. Having achieved publications, the likelihood of successful acquisition of additional grants is increased. Thus, a researcher can bootstrap his- or herself up to higher levels of funding and success. A mid-career researcher might have 3-5 R01s and several other smaller grants, or collaborative grants. Other sources of funding include contracts from industrial sources, such as pharmaceutical companies. If the researcher builds a megalab, millions of dollars of annual research funding is obtained.
Where does the money come from?
$94 billion was spent in 2003 on biomedical research in the US, taking place in academia, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries [3]. In the US, the majority of academic research funding is from the federal government [4]. American colleges and universities (690 institutions surveyed) spent $51.9 billion in 2008, of which $31 was from the federal government (all agencies, such as NIH, NSF, USDA, DOD, and EPA) [5]. Typically in the biomedical sciences, the grant applications are submitted to an institute at NIH. However, there are other funding agencies either charitable, such as American Cancer Society, or private, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. About “80 percent of the NIH budget supports extramural research at 3,100 institutions around the world” [6]. In 2008, NIH awarded $15,013,228,571 in 36,656 awards [7]. This roughly correlates with figures given in [8] ($5 and $9 billion to HHS in biological and medical sciences, respectively). The FY 2010 NIH budget request is for a program total of $31 billion [9].
How many NIH-funded US biomedical researchers are there?
By this I mean funded and unfunded researchers attempting to perform biomedical research (in an appropriate setting). This figure is difficult to determine, so here I present an estimate. NIH receives nearly 80,000 applications a year [10]. (Some of these are not in the US: NIH accepts applications from foreign institutions.) To calculate number of researchers, I used data on success rates. According to “Broken Pipeline” [11], overall success rate for R01 submissions was 24%, while first time submission success was 12%. Many researchers submit more than one application /year. However, many do not submit every year. For simplicity, I will assume these two variations approximately cancel each other out. Let’s say there are 80,000 academic biomedical researchers seeking funding in America today.
How many researchers are funded and how many are unfunded?
This is difficult to determine. However, I will make an estimate (based on the previous estimate). If overall success rates are 24%, then 19,200 (24% of 80,000) are funded and 60,800 are unfunded. However, another report suggests a much lower number are funded (by NIH). According to an on-line PowerPoint report from NIH, “NECB SPECIAL TOPIC-FIRST TIME total scientists supported.ppt” in 2007, there were over 8,000 investigators supported“ [12].
How are the funding decisions made?
In most cases, there is a canonical process by which funding decisions are made. In general, the system is called “peer review.” This is supposed to mean that proposals are evaluated by a group of the applicant’s peers. The entire process is called “dual review system.” This refers to two distinct steps: the first being scientific merit (“study section” aka Scientific Review Group [SRG]); the second being programmatic. However, the real decisions are made in the study section. There is a complex study section organization in NIH and other funding agencies. A study section consists of a panel of 15-20 specialists in a particular field[13]. Submitted grants are initially processed by the Center Scientific Review (a part of the NIH) and directed to the appropriate study section. Within the study section, grant applications are assigned.
What goes on in study sections?
This is the heart of the matter. Who is making these decisions and on what basis? There are certainly visible efforts and reports that much is done to make the process fair. Something relatively new is the “mock study section.” [14,15] Naturally, material made by CSR will be made to appear fair. Apparently, anyone with conflicts of interest (obvious, as well as not so obvious, like a former association) with the applicant is asked to leave the room. The primary reviewer gets 10 minutes, secondary, 5 and 15 minutes for discussion. Reviewers are asked to come up with scores.
Summary of Part 1
I have described the basic career path for an academic, American, biomedical researcher. Most are dedicated, hard-working individuals. Often, however, instead of simply “doing research,’ their primary occupation becomes raising money for their research. The majority of opportunities to fund their research are found through the NIH, which is part of the federal government, although philanthropic and industry sources exist as well. An extremely complex process for applying for grants has been developed. Success in research appears to be linked to success in fund raising. While this system cannot be considered a failure, since it has produced a high level of useful results (for example, the human genome project and all its fallout), the outcome is suboptimal. Much human effort, physical materials and money is wasted. The next part in this series, deals with this.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. http://www.amazon.com/Leaving-Science-Occupational-Scientific-Careers/dp/0871546949
2. http://ucsdgraduatefunding.wordpress.com/2009/04/
3. http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/294/11/1333
4. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf09318/
5. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf09318/
6. http://www.nih.gov/about/director/budgetrequest/fy2007directorsbudgetrequest.htm
7. http://report.nih.gov/frrs/index.aspx
8. http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf09318/
9. http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/pdfs/FY10/overview.pdf
10. http://cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/Welcome+to+CSR/
11. http://www.brokenpipeline.org/brokenpipeline.pdf in 2007
12. http://report.nih.gov/frrs/index.aspx
13. http://grants.nih.gov/Grants/glossary.htm
14. http://cms.csr.nih.gov/ResourcesforApplicants/InsidetheNIHGrantReviewProcessVideo.htm
15. http://www.4researchers.org/articles/30
No comments:
Post a Comment