How should the NIH spend its stimulus money?

Steve Quake has an interesting post on Olivia Judson’s blog (Quake is a guest columnist while she is on sabbatical) about what life is like for a scientist at a modern research university. The interesting stuff is at the end, when he talks about how labs are funded. It’s a particularly important time to think about how we spend money in science, given that the economic stimulus bill working its way through Congress contains billions of dollars for the NIH, a substantial part of which would go to the NIH extramural program.

Here is Quake’s discussion: 

You may have noticed that one of my lifelines actually came from the N.I.H. — an agency not known for taking risks. I could write pages about the last presidential administration’s disastrous approach to science. However, for whatever reason (and I suspect it was dumb luck: the exception that proves the rule) George W. Bush appointed an N.I.H. director who was both visionary and an adept leader — Elias Zerhouni. Dr. Zerhouni changed the process for awarding grants, which had become inbred and conservative. Among other steps, he created a series of special awards — for “Pioneers” and “Innovators” — to fund highly risky research, and it is one of these that I was the recipient of.

As we think about how to heed President Obama’s call to “put science back in its rightful place,” I wonder if this should also be the time to rethink the basic foundations of how science is funded. Could we stimulate more discovery and creativity if more scientists had the security of their own salary and a long-term commitment to a minimal level of research support? Would this encourage risk-taking and lead to an overall improvement in the quality of science?

As we consider the monumental challenges facing our generation — climate change, energy needs and health care — and look to science for solutions, it would behoove us to remember that it is almost impossible to predict where the next great discoveries will be made — and thus we should invest broadly and let scientists off their leashes.

What, however, does it really mean to let scientists off their leashes? And how do we accomplish it?Given the pending infusion of at least $1.5 billion from the stimulus package to the NIH extramural budget, this is a particularly timely question.

From a standpoint of economic stimulus,  the important thing is simply to fund more research. There is a large pool of talented biomedical researchers, and the funding crunch in the last few years means that there is a large reservoir of projects that are ready to go, which will lead immediately to new, good jobs that will help stabilize the economy.

But it’s interesting that the House justified this spending as follows:

$1.5 billion for expanding good jobs in biomedical research to study diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, cancer, and heart disease – NIH is currently able to fund less than 20% of approved applications.

The House is citing that 20% figure in part to show that there are lots of projects that can be funded immediately – which is what the economy needs. But there’s also a clear implication that pumping more money in to biomedical research will make it easier for scientists to get funded. Unfortunately, recent history shows that this is not necessarily true. 

The NIH budget effectively doubled during the Clinton administration. In most ways this was a fantastic thing for biomedical science. It eliminated a huge funding bottleneck that was leaving many very talented scientist out in the cold, and helped new faculty (like me) to get stable funding early in their careers. However, as has been pointed out elsewhere, this increase in funding also led to a big increase in the number of scientists, as universities invested in biomedical research infrastructure and hired many new faculty to fill their shiny new buildings.

Because of this hiring binge, it did not become easier for scientists to get grants. The number of applicants for grants simply increased – and continued to increase even after the budget increases stopped. This led, somewhat  paradoxically, to a smaller fraction of grants getting funded after the doubling than before.

Given that experience, it seems prudent to think about how we can ensure that as many worthy projects get funded as possible without creating perverse incentives for universities to hire more biomedical researchers than the system can support. From an economic perspective, it’s not clear that it’s substantially better to increase the number of labs that are getting NIH support than it is to increase funding to existing labs – both lead likely lead to proportionally more students and staff and expenditures on research supplies and equipment.

There are obviously a lot of good scientists with worthy projects whose grants have not been funded. But funded scientists also suffer in current conditions, as effective funding levels are lower, and the amount of time required to get funding has significantly increased. So there’s a choice to be made between directing new money to people currently outside of the system and increasing funding to existing grants and grant-holders. (Full disclosure – I am funded by the NIH). The former spreads the wealth and encourages people to go in to science – all worthy goals – but will not alter the funding landscape from the perspective of individual labs. The latter is arguably less equitable, but, by relieving some of the funding tension from existing labs,  is more likely to unleash scientists in the way that Quake so rightly advocates.

This entry was posted in politics, science, science and politics. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

One Comment