Image: Illustration by Serge Bloch
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Ever since Johannes Kepler traipsed over half of Europe wooing aristocratic patrons, scientists have grumbled about money. But their complaints these days go beyond the familiar griping about being underpaid and underappreciated. They amount to a powerful case that the system for funding science is broken—that it hinders scientific progress and fails to deliver the most bang for the buck. Fixing the system can no longer be put off.
Most scientists finance their laboratories (and often even their own salaries) by applying to government agencies and private foundations for grants. The process has become a major time sink. In 2007 a U.S. government study found that university faculty members spend about 40 percent of their research time navigating the bureaucratic labyrinth, and the situation is no better in Europe. An experimental physicist at Columbia University says he once calculated that some grants he was seeking had a net negative value: they would not even pay for the time that applicants and peer reviewers spent on them.
A vicious cycle has developed. With more and more people applying for each grant, an individual’s chances of winning decrease, so scientists must submit ever more proposals to stay even. Between 1997 and 2006 the National Science Foundation found that the average applicant had to submit 30 percent more proposals to garner the same number of awards. Younger scientists are especially hard-pressed: the success rate for first-time National Science Foundation applications fell from 22 percent in 2000 to 15 percent in 2006.
Not only does the current system make inefficient use of scientists’ time, it discourages precisely the kind of research that can most advance our knowledge. Many politicians go so far as to accuse scientists—particularly in politically contentious areas such as climate science—of cooking data to win government grants. They have yet to produce any evidence to support these claims, however. The real problem is more subtle. Inundated with proposals, agencies tend to favor worthy but incremental research over risky but potentially transformative work. Nobelist Mario R. Capecchi and other prominent scientists say they had trouble getting grants to make their breakthroughs. In 2009 a New York Times article quoted leading cancer researchers who said the war on cancer would make more progress if funders took more risks.
Funding agencies are well aware of these woes and have responded by, for example, tweaking the review process and the size of grants. That is not enough. They need to be experimenting more aggressively to find ways to fix the system. One especially promising idea is to fund people rather than projects.
That is the approach taken by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the largest private supporter of medical research in the U.S. It has selected some 330 researchers with a demonstrated track record of success, as well as 50 up-and-coming young scientists, and annually distributes about $500 million among them with a minimum of red tape. In 2009 three economists compared this system with the standard National Institutes of Health grant. The NIH grants last three years, end abruptly if they are not renewed and have very strict requirements—for instance, preventing scientists from shifting money from a project that is not working out to a more promising approach. Howard Hughes grants last for five years, are usually renewed, provide a grace period even if not continued and encourage reallocation of resources on the fly. The economists found that Howard Hughes grants led to higher-impact research, even when the researchers were compared with an equally elite sample of NIH applicants.
Another major private research foundation, the Wellcome Trust in the U.K., is now shifting to a similar system. The NIH started a Howard Hughes–like Pioneer Award program in 2004, but it is still tiny—only about a dozen scientists per year. Funding agencies should expand such programs considerably.
See what we're tweeting about
21 Comments
Add CommentAlthough I agree scientists certainly spend far too much of their time pursuing funding, I have also found academia to be grossly inefficient. In my experience, federal dollars would be better spent backing high risk technologies at small startups where every dollar is dear and treated accordingly. Programs such as SBIR and ARPA-E, although certainly political, have the right idea. I could not disagree more strongly that federal dollars should back certain researchers with "proven track records". The system is already an enormous "old-boys club" to the detriment of new and innovative ideas, as evidenced by the NSF first-time funding rate referenced in the article. Until patent laws are changed in such a way that venture capital begins to back riskier, longer range technologies at small companies, there is a important role to be played here by the federal government.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a grant manager in a microbiology department in a public university, I administered grants from HHMI, NSF, and NIH. This was in the 1990s and these were science education grants. HHMI was much easier to administer because we did not have keep running back to Washington to change or add anything. HHMI just said to include changes and rationales in the annual reports. They said this kept their administrative costs down, because keeping a battery of people just to approve or disapprove these changes was obviously expensive. Unfortunately, our university was so engrained with the rules of the federal government they kept making us call HHMI for approval of things. They said they were afraid not to require this. They had never dealt with a private funding agency before. This often caught me in between the two, HHMI because I kept calling them, and my institution because I didn't call HHMI. Over the years, we came to a stand-off and I followed HHMI's procedures and ultimately, people left us alone, as they realized HHMI was not going to have a fit if we bought more pencils than was on the list (exaggerated a little, but you know what I mean). I was just thinking about this topic last night. Perhaps, some of the lock-step of universities is because they don't have any administrative policies for private funding sources--mine didn't. They didn't even understand the meaning of private sources. Hughes has certainly been around long enough and with such a great record that perhaps schools need to revisit their policies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne more implication of this race for funds: driving away future scientists of america. all of my fellow graduating phd students declined to follow the traditional PI track, mostly due to the pressure of grant-writing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlways whining these scientists! We need the money for wasteful wars, government wastes and inefficiency, maintaining the empire with troops around the worlds, interfering in other people's business.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSciAm editorial staff wrote, "In 2009 three economists compared [the HHMI] system with the standard National Institutes of Health grant."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisREFERENCES PLEASE! Not referencing studies makes this article read like a toothpaste commercial. Was this the economic study completed by Cato?
$500 million from HHMI represents 1% of US university research spending (~$50 billion annually). The federal government funds about 60%. The idea of funding people rather than projects might work well at this level, but I do not believe it would scale well when looking for long term results for American university competitiveness in research.
Funding people is akin to funding political campaigns. It will stifle innovation by entrenching "incumbent" scientists. This will reduce competition and waste resources. Is there any reason to believe that the reputation of the University and/or researcher is not already a significant factor in awarding grants?
Funding projects is exactly how it works in private industry (universities only do 13% of all research). Operating and capital budgets require approvals; and project accounting is required. The same "bureaucratic waste" exists. Benefits do result by having to justify a project's worthiness. The difference is that research in private industry is typically self financed and university research is externally financed. This increases the chance for fraud and other moral hazards and agency costs. Therefore, external financing is more expensive and requires greater controls.
The same is true for external financing in private industry (e.g. venture capital). A venture capital firm typically takes ownership in 40% of the company and installs its own people to key management positions. Could you imagine if the NIH sent its representatives to oversee local administration of funds in research departments? Then again the NIH is not seeking a financial return, but it does want its funding to produce results.
Money does not grow on trees. Researchers must understand that spending must be justified. Funding also needs to be spent on projects as specified; otherwise, there would be less of a motive to fund. That's the nature of our society in a world of limited resources. As the article started out, "Ever since Johannes Kepler..."
The system can definitely be improved, but funding people rather than projects does not seem to be the answer. But who knows, maybe I would have a different opinion if I was able to read the results of the study by "three economists."
No science - No progress.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is interesting that NIH has never polled reviewers about their experience on study sections. Demoralization is rampant, because the reviewers know that the review process is fatally flawed and that the old-boy network is alive and well. The system is not objective and the playing field is not level. To claim otherwise is the height of hypocrisy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis article seems to forget one of the underlying facts to grant work. You are essentially beholden to funding institution to provide whatever was promised in your proposal. It may not be as rigid as a contract but you have been engaged to provide a specific service. I believe the phrase, "their money, their rules," comes to mind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso the comment, "preventing scientists from shifting money from a project that is not working" is what we lovingly refer to as commingling of funds. This is in direct conflict with the foundations of good accounting and financial management. The gravity of this situation is only intensified if the funding source is tax-payer dollars. If not, what institution would want the burden of funding another project that was never theirs in the first place?
As for funding people, a previous commenter has mentioned that the political "good ol' boy" system is alive and well (to which I whole-heartedly agree). If this is the case how can you offer up as the only alternative a system where people and not ideas are the funding motivator? I can't see how this would be an improvement to the funding drought.
Am I defending the current system? Absolutely not. It's woefully inefficient. However, if you're expecting Carte Blanche research funding, you must live in a different world than the rest of us.
;-) very much agree...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust to remember. Nearly all great scientific achievements in basic science were done for small money by individuals. Therefore, I am in favour that young devoted scientists are getting the limited funds without any administrative obligations at all. However, applied (translational) research and CoE should be carefully checked by research funding institutions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou couldn't be more correct! NIH continues to present a sunny public face, as do the big medical research institutions. I would ask, though, at what point do we take custody of the system and find a way to force NIH to be accountable for the grossly flawed system? There is a clear consensus that granting policy changes over the last 5 years have been catastrophic to investigator initiated research. But what have we as a community of scientists done about it? Lots of hand-wringing and fretting by those of us on the bottom of the totem, and a stick-your-head-in-the-sand approach by those few at the top. HHS and NIH are public entities, beholden to the tax-payer, who in turn relies on us to act as stewards of their money. If we think it's broken, then it's our responsibility to fix it. Scientists at all ranks need to work with a single voice to exert pressure on behalf of their fields of study; our senior scientists need to step up and lead in this effort!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo if I was young say 15 and happened to look at this article and see hey life is going to suck. If I dedicate my studies to science I am going to spend nearly 40% of my time asking for the money that I need to get my work done. I might be intelligent, and excited about the science. But hey maybe the money is more attractive in the labor force so I shift over towards starting a small business, trades or services. That is of course after I have not gone to college and spent some time at some parties when I am ready there are lots there that pay well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo why should they fix the system, because students who see it won't be attracted to staying and working through the mess of it.
That is of course unless they don't see the mess until they are already there. Because then they don't have the choice most have student loans. They need the employment and their education is all they know. So they have to work with the kinks.
If we could get rid of those kinks then our society would progress further faster. We would increase our knowledge because more science would happen. Yes more money ,may be spent but more science would happen because funding would be available in a steady flow if it was fixed correctly.
Good points, ivanl. Over the past 50 years, I have personally solved technical problems with numerous systems I knew little or nothing about, even when the "experts" gave up. I KNOW where that wisdom came from and it was NOT funding that did the trick. While no one is asking you to believe that all wisdom comes from the Creator God, that has been my Source for decades.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a junior faculty member and a Dr. No Money, I couldn't help to get very much discouraged in the past several years. As a foreign born and a child of working class parents, I didn't realize what I signed up for until several years of unsuccessful trials. I even began to doubt if my research ability was good enough or not. But then recently I came across arnetminer and checked my stat there. I found all my stats (except longevity, of course) such as H-index, total citations and uptrend are all among the top 3% of all CS researchers. And then I check many of my peers who had got their shares from NSF are actually way below me. If NSF funding rate is 15% for beginner investigators, why I still didn't get my share? It is sad that I don't even mind to be overwork (what's weekends and holiday?) and underpaid (probably 30-40% discount from working in the industry). It is just I can't continue (to get my tenure) without my share from NSF.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDeep down, I knew it was a packaging problem. I went to many grant workshops for the last several years. The conclusion is that I need to transform myself into a travelling salesman. But after 30 years or so as a nerd, I am not sure how far I can transform myself. After all, I am already prepared for the worst, I probably will go back to Asia or industry if my tenure doesn't work out.
We definitely need changes. I suggest that the academic research community provide input to derive a funding equation that considers how to best parcel out the limited funding to ensure equitability. All research units having PIs in one sense or another deserve and merit support; however, a PI should not spend a significant amount of her/his time writing grants. It is counterproductive to the advancement of science. Also, it diminishes and compromises the functionality of the PI with respect to teaching and her/his other duties/roles. Our system has become a lottery that awards prize monies, the collection of which has become a credit/feather to the "winners" and a way to support administrative layering in research units. It is high time we rectify this broken system.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToday we practice science much like the establishment did in the times of Nicolaus Copernicus (1473–1543) mathematician and astronomer. Today academic "priests" and industrial mongols control and limit our contemporary science and technology evolutions. we are taught from an early age what to believe can be science accomplished as well as what can not be done. We are also given the beaten pathways to follow for science and technology advancements even if those pathways as contemporarily practiced prove to be generations slow, unproductive, and always expensive. At times such grants steered science seem to amount to welfare with dignity. It is especially noticeable when unending "free" grant money is dispensed only to establishment favored ("chosen") candidates. I have read examples of stagnant technology that is a result of running with the tide of "conventional wisdom" to solicit academically approved grants. That is not much different than middle ages religious practices where you had to please high priests by endorsing their bad science to remain in their money graces.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor example why is there no serious public research being conducted on wireless delivery and distribution of electrical power over narrow conductive ionized air paths? Power could be delivered between cities without using copper wired electric grids. Eventually automobiles could use wireless trolleys to draw electric power from over head lines or power distribution poles. And yes the military would definitely and quickly develop ionized air path weapons which would amount to controlled megawatt lightening cannons. Such could cut an aircraft or a ship in half in fractions of a second. That would be like directing wireless airborne welder's rods to a a distant target.
Under our system of sponsorship Many "science breakthroughs" are really a benign tiger as applied to the true meaning of the advancement of science. Today we need more scientists with the courage, determination and conviction of Nicolaus Copernicus to bring about change to our stagnated science practices.
Ernest Bellantoni
I very much agree. I like the idea of granting persons instead of just projects. When there is a professor with long experience accomplishing high value research it has no sense to waste hours and hours filling useless forms and exhausting justification documents.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt strikes me that the suggested options are very similar to selection criteria for genetic algorithms; Elitism - Keep funding the top producers, Reproduction - Fund new up-and-coming scientists, Mutation - Use a lottery to randomly select recipients. It seems like a similar class of problem, find paths through a large problem domain while trying to avoid getting stuck in local maximums, over-fitting and stagnation. It shouldn't be a surprise though given how ideas tend to evolve from other ideas rather than emerge spontaneously from the creator. Perhaps there are other evolutionary "techniques" that could be applied to science funding, such as forcing everyone to have a double major (reproduction) to ensure that they have a unique perspective rather than becoming a disciple of a single professor.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI work in IT and support researchers. I hear about lots of researchers blowing left over money at the end of grants instead of returning it. Isn't this another huge problem with the system?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe physicists ignored the cold fusion research whole decades heartily (http://tinyurl.com/copqjmo) because it doesn't play well with your silly theories - and now we are facing global energetic and financial crisis (http://tinyurl.com/75q8ffm)... Is the censoring of ideas and whining for money everything what they can do?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you bench monkeys think the funding situation is tough, you should try funding basic taxonomy and conservation work.Writing for fieldwork of any sort is a total waste of time...unless of course you know somebody...which is what it boils down to these days, who you know. The "good old days" when the markets were high and people feel that they had money to donate to useless but mildly entertaining pursuits such as field biology are gone forever as the U.S. loses influence in the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this