FundScience Blog

Happy 2010, everyone!

I’ve added a page (see top list of links in the right margin) with downloadable grantsmanship files … some from the NIH and NSF and a couple of writedit originals. One summarizes the shorter application format and enhanced review/scoring procedures, and the other is a big catch-all introduction to NIH terminology, policies, and whatnot for young investigators as well as an overview of early career stage funding mechanisms (fellowships, career development, diversity supplements). I’ll add more as I find them online or refine my own – suggestions welcome (as are critiques of what I’ve put up). Cheers!

Literally, considering ARRA research awards are tax-payer funded.

ScienceWorksForUS, which highlights all aspects of stimulus funding for university-based research activities, is brought to you by the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and The Science Coalition. You’ll find the expected news feeds about the economic stimulus program generally, ARRA-funded research anecdotes, and research findings stemming from ARRA-funded efforts.

The level of detail at the state level is nicely organized: total dollars and number of awards plus links to individual universities (the Web pages on which they report their ARRA awards and whatnot), a breakdown by funding agency (NIH, NSF, DoE), and more state- and university-specific news releases related to ARRA-funded research. You can run your cursor over the US map to quickly compare who’s getting what out of this initiative and click on individual states for the aforementioned details.

As a reminder, NIAID invites you to contribute your own story of how ARRA funds have helped you, as does the US DHHS, which invites you to submit stories or comments about ARRA funding.

So, with one FY of ARRA/stimulus funding behind us, where and how is it going? Nature has an economical infographic showing how 7 federal agencies are spending their R&D stimulus dollars and also includes brief commentaries by 6 experts on “what concerns them most about the US stimulus spending and … ways to ensure that it benefits research and society in the long term.” Many touch on the problems of feast-famine cycles in research funding and how these hit young researchers particularly hard. I suspect Michael Teitelbaum (Sloan Foundation)’s essay on “Incentives for universities do not promote sustainable behavior” will resonate with many regular readers of this blog.

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a commentary from our friends at AAMC entitled, Key for Future Investment: Researchers’ Response to America’s Recovery Act. And what is the proper response?

Researchers should continue to be unflinchingly positive about the opportunities that the Recovery Act has presented.

Unflinchingly. Indeed. The first comment submitted in response to this piece flinches a bit, certainly (“Unfortunately, most of the Recovery Act money was given to those who already hold NIH awards- so the rich get richer … I fail to see how this is going to provide much innovation, much added technology or job creation, and a stimulus to biomedical research other than that which already exists.”)

The authors urge beneficiaries of ARRA funding to demonstrate “thoughtful stewardship of those resources” so as to “bolster the nation’s future enthusiasm for science as a socially responsive and effective enterprise.” They caution that “future support for the NIH and research throughout the country could depend on whether Congress and the public perceive that scientists have taken appropriate advantage of [this] opportunity.” With regard to the reporting requirements on job creation and “other economic impacts of the grants”,

… such requirements will allow scientists to engage the public by putting in plain words the practical, present benefits from academic research, as well as potential future economic and societal gains that result … Some institutions already track the potential economic impacts and multiplier effects of research investments within local communities, such as job creation and the attraction of “high tech” health-sector jobs. … The willingness of researchers to create and improve upon such methodologies will reflect a commitment to be held publicly accountable for the generous public and private support they receive.

BICO already does this, and certainly, research, technology, health care, and education have replaced manufacturing and milling as the economic engine in our region – with spectacular success. But does that make universities here more worthy of increased federal funding? No, only the sound, peer-reviewed science that made such an economic transformation possible should be rewarded – here and elsewhere. As for public accountability … I guess you PIs should start disclosing those multi-million dollar bonuses you get every year.

But getting back to why we all should be “unflinchingly positive” about ARRA,

The act ends a five-year hiatus in real growth of the NIH’s budget, which had declined in inflation-adjusted terms by more than 14% since 2003. The recent rapid infusion of dollars illustrates the confidence of Congress in the ability of the NIH and other science agencies to play a vital, more immediate role as an economic engine essential to our national recovery. But those funds notwithstanding, the Recovery Act’s political significance for biomedical research goes far beyond material support, reflecting the trust of Congress and the administration in the medical and scientific communities as responsive and essential to long-term economic development and health.

I’m not sure ARRA ended the loss of “real growth” in the NIH budget, as the base appropriation will go up by just 1.3% for FY10 and probably not much more for FY11. If the impact of this unanticipated and hastily (frenzily) planned and implemented $10.3B infusion turns out to be mediocre at best (at least in the short-fuse time span acceptable to elected representatives), and if Congress therefore feels justified in maintaining flat-lined federal spending, this would seem to be akin to basing the future of the US research enterprise on the outcome of a pop quiz. Put another way, would someone who proposed this high-risk experiment as a pioneering or innovative project to demonstrate the value of research to US society have been funded?

On the other hand, a glimmer of hope for the Administration’s commitment to science. The NSF can be grateful to the White House for their concern over the Senate plan to reduce funding to the NSF and NIST (Natl Institute of Standards and Technology) by $200M and to “transfer … icebreaker operations and maintenance funding from the NSF to the Coast Guard.”

Oh joy. Joe Biden’s office likes the ARRA transparency so much that he wants to make the quarterly reporting permanent:

“We’ve never followed the dollars the way we are now and this should be the start of a new way of doing business rather than the implementation of a single program.”

I’m sure he’d find some interesting spending practices if he followed every dollar of every NIH grant … and of course not spending every dollar the way you said you would (or were advised to) can be a good thing, as in the case of Nobel laureate Mario Capecchi. Imagine a world without transgenics.

By way of reminder, NIAID has a nice collection of information and links on the what, why, and how-to of ARRA reporting. Have fun.

It’s a bit sad that my first reaction was to cringe when I received this NAS news release excitedly touting the National New Biology Initiative,

a new multiagency, multiyear, and multidisciplinary initiative to capitalize on the extraordinary advances recently made in biology and to accelerate new breakthroughs that could solve some of society’s most pressing problems — particularly in the areas of food, environment, energy, and health. …

The committee used the term “new biology” to describe an approach to research where physicists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, mathematicians, and other scientists are integrated into the field of biology to create the type of research community that can tackle society’s big problems. “‘The new biologist’ is not a scientist who knows a little bit about all disciplines, but a scientist with deep knowledge in one discipline and a ‘working fluency’ in several,” the report says. To be sure, biologists are already working successfully in many instances with other scientists and engineers. But for collaborations to take advantage of advances in imaging, high-throughput technologies, computational science and technology, and others, a major new initiative is needed, the committee concluded.

The national new biology initiative should have a timeline of at least 10 years and funding in addition to current research budgets, and it should be an interagency effort to reflect the interdisciplinary approach to research, the committee emphasized. The report also underscores the importance of making information technologies a priority in the initiative given that information is the “fundamental currency” of the new biology. …

The report says that by targeting society’s major challenges, the initiative would provide an opportunity to attract students who want to solve real-world problems to scientific fields. The initiative will need to devote resources to interdisciplinary education to support the training of new biologists, the report adds.

You can, as usual, read the report — A New Biology for the 21st Century: Ensuring the United States Leads the Coming Biology Revolution – online for free and download the prepublication PDF.

You can also view a PowerPoint presentation by the co-chairs of the Committee on a New Biology for the 21st Century, Thomas Connelly of the DuPont Company and Phillip A. Sharp from MIT, where you’ll learn that the Initiative’s goals are to “Propel science to a new level” and “Provide solutions to pressing societal problems” and become inspired by the sense of tension and excitement the slides generate:

• A moment of unique opportunity — Current research has brought biology to an inflection point
• An opportunity for New Biology with impact at an unprecendented scale
• New Biology could affect urgent problems
• Mission: sustainable local food production
• Mission: halt and reverse ecosystem damage
• Mission: sustainable alternative to fossil fuels
• Mission: individualized health surveillance and care
• One biology: same science supports all four missions

Wow. So nice to know that “New Biology” is on the case. Wonder what the rest of us have been mucking about doing all these years … in the meantime, possibly yet another grant-writing gimmick to work into my repertoire if they do manage to carve out a mega interagency budget to solve the world’s ills.