Comments on: Doubling Down on NIH Funding http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/doubling-down-on-nih-funding/ Progressive approaches to science policy Thu, 18 Mar 2010 02:59:00 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Frederick Sachs http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/doubling-down-on-nih-funding/comment-page-1/#comment-2688 Frederick Sachs Sat, 23 Aug 2008 11:21:44 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/doubling-down-on-nih-funding/#comment-2688 More money is not what NIH needs. The rate of scientific publication, as a measure of productivity, was uninfluenced by the doubling of the budget and by the decrease in the budget since 2004. At a funding rate of 15%, the chance of funding per submission is, on the average about 5%, or a 95% chance of rejection per submission. Ridiculous. Why would a young person decide to go into research if they have such a miserable chance of getting funded, and hence getting tenure? If NIH spent its budget on RO1 type research instead of the NIH-industrial complex we would learn a lot. With no increse in funding but only redistributing of the the existing budget insightful science will advance more rapidly and more creative young people will enter science. We have been told innumerable times to never submit a grant to the NIH where an experiment can fail. It is much more reliable for funding purposes to propose experiments that can't fail, but of course these are not experiments at all. The NIH has to start funding real experiments. They have plenty of money to do good science. All they are lacking is funds to build the industrial complex of giant centers where there has been no proof of increased productivity per grant dollar. Wait they say, there is a latency. Isn't that same argument that was used for our stay in in Iraq. Haven't we heard this excuse before? History will show.... More money is not what NIH needs. The rate of scientific publication, as a measure of productivity, was uninfluenced by the doubling of the budget and by the decrease in the budget since 2004. At a funding rate of 15%, the chance of funding per submission is, on the average about 5%, or a 95% chance of rejection per submission. Ridiculous. Why would a young person decide to go into research if they have such a miserable chance of getting funded, and hence getting tenure?

If NIH spent its budget on RO1 type research instead of the NIH-industrial complex we would learn a lot. With no increse in funding but only redistributing of the the existing budget insightful science will advance more rapidly and more creative young people will enter science. We have been told innumerable times to never submit a grant to the NIH where an experiment can fail. It is much more reliable for funding purposes to propose experiments that can’t fail, but of course these are not experiments at all.

The NIH has to start funding real experiments. They have plenty of money to do good science. All they are lacking is funds to build the industrial complex of giant centers where there has been no proof of increased productivity per grant dollar. Wait they say, there is a latency. Isn’t that same argument that was used for our stay in in Iraq. Haven’t we heard this excuse before? History will show….

]]> By: Marilyn Walker http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/doubling-down-on-nih-funding/comment-page-1/#comment-2530 Marilyn Walker Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:54:46 +0000 http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/08/doubling-down-on-nih-funding/#comment-2530 The downward trend of NIH funding has bad outcomes for more than just the researchers and their work. Those who benefit from research breakthroughs, the American public, lose when the NIH budget is cut, either real cuts or by increases not keeping up with biomedical inflation. As Research!America (where I work) points out in our <a href="http://www.researchamerica.org/uploads/fourreasonspdf.pdf" rel="nofollow">Four Reasons Why Congress Must Act Now to Support Medical Research</a> (PDF), when federal support for research stalls: 1. We lose length and quality of life to disease and disability 2. Health care costs continue to skyrocket without better treatments and without more emphasis on prevention 3. Our economy loses productivity when workers become ill or disabled 4. America begins to lose its leadership in science and the global economy Hope this is helpful. The downward trend of NIH funding has bad outcomes for more than just the researchers and their work. Those who benefit from research breakthroughs, the American public, lose when the NIH budget is cut, either real cuts or by increases not keeping up with biomedical inflation.

As Research!America (where I work) points out in our Four Reasons Why Congress Must Act Now to Support Medical Research (PDF), when federal support for research stalls:

1. We lose length and quality of life to disease and disability
2. Health care costs continue to skyrocket without better treatments and without more emphasis on prevention
3. Our economy loses productivity when workers become ill or disabled
4. America begins to lose its leadership in science and the global economy

Hope this is helpful.

]]>