Is the problem with US research an “erroneous assumption of never-ending rapid growth in biomedical science” as noted by Alberts B, Kirschner MW, Tilghman S, Varmus H. Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. PNAS 2014 111: 5773-7? U.S. medical research has been cut 25% in real dollars since 2003. By contrast, medical costs are increasing without regard to the limits suggested for science funding as evidenced by the increase in health insurance premiums of 80% over this period http://kff.org/report-section/2013-summary-of-findings/ . So why should the investment in basic research that provides advances in treatments and keeps people out of the hospital not increase proportionately? Does flat or decreasing funding for science make any logical sense with the growing problems of antibiotic resistance, emerging pathogens, aging population, and increasing environmental stresses.
Hi John, I think that the major problem with research funding is that it is basically an ol' boy's network.
People doing mediocre science are being funded just because they are friends with members of grant review panels.
If you are an outsider applying for government grants, well, you are F'ed.
Investment in basic science has, and will always generate benefits for patients. To me the problem, in this funding climate, is how to identify and fund promising technologies without politics and friend-networks being involved.
As funding becomes inadequate for researchers to survive objective review becomes ever harder to achieve and people become protective rather than creative. This makes your goal of funding the most promising efforts challenging.
Hi John, I wish there was an easy way to evaluate research grants based only on their scientific merit and not involve politics, pressure groups or friends in grant review panels.
As for the current system of evaluating grants, I am reminded of a quote by Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
This is a complex issue, but my question was intended to ask for responses on the issue of whether we should be more effort into doing research with limited or diminishing resources as implied in the PNAS publication or in pushing for increasing funding to deal with the many major challenges facing modern society that would benefit from scientific aid.
Hi John, point taken.
As for the PNAS article, they are correct. The current system is unsustainable. But this truism will result in fewer talented people choosing science as a career.
Students are not stupid. They will choose a carrier path that will give them a chance to have a future with a stable income..
Sadly, I think this problem will be self-correcting.
Fewer talented students will want to choose science as a career.
As a matter of fact, I have met many talented students that are choosing medicine as their career. Science is just too uncertain as a future career at this point.
We have a system now where there seems no limit on the jobs and salaries in banking and finance. My postdocs who can program can get jobs making 4 times a full professors' salary writing software to buy and sell shares based upon fractions of a cent differences in the various stock exchanges. Why society thinks this is a reasonable investment whereby the government and society basically subsidize these positions under the idea that they are somehow useful but science must be limited is beyond my understanding.
Consider this. According to the report, entitled "Cost of the Crisis", the financial and economic crisis cost Americans $12.8 trillion – see http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/2008-financial-crisis-cost-americans-12-8-trillion-145432501.html. The NIH invests ~$30 billion annually in medical research. An investment equivalent to the cost of the bank crisis of 2008 would therefore fund NIH for 426 years. Is the current effort to limit NIH funding consistent with the relative values of scientific research versus banking speculation?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Biomedical Science