By: Aurelie

Aurelie — Thu, 23 Aug 2007 02:10:36 +0000

Inflation is indeed a very real problem when it comes to funding – the Early Career awards given to promising young researchers by the National Science Foundation have remained at $400,000 (for a duration of five years) for many, many years now – as a result scientists cannot fund graduate students in the same amount as before, or if they do they have to curtail other expenses such as equipment or travel to conferences.
The flip side of the coin: I am not familiar with NIH-funded work but when it comes to engineering, it is so important for tenure and for US News rankings to fund (and graduate) doctoral students that the pressure to get those grants becomes extreme, although in many cases researchers would be better served doing the work with fellow faculty members (paying for equipment using their startup package) and doing consulting work to pay for their summer salary. (Again, I am talking about engineering.) But medical researchers certainly face a unique set of challenges given the cost of setting up and running a scientific lab.
Finally, another thing I have noticed from serving on review panels: many grants get rejected because their authors do not bother figuring out how to write a decent proposal (including for instance a set of clear, measurable objectives, a list of deliverables, a description of the methodology and a time management plan). When I have served on panels not more than 20% of the proposals met these simple standards (over 50% were actually classified “Do Not Consider”, which means “do not fund even if you have tons of money”); researchers see grant writing as a distraction although a well-written proposal is the only piece of evidence the NIH and NSF have when they decide to fund the research that taxpayers’ money will not get wasted. To get good at a sport you have to be willing to play by the rules; things are not much different in academia.

Comments on: ‘Looming Crisis’ from NIH Budget

By: Aurelie