It's interesting to get an international perspective. Susan Amara, President of the Society for Neuroscience, says that American scientists were encouraged by the surprise $10bn boost to NIH funds that made it into the 2009 economic stimulus package. But these funds are due to run out in 2012.Meanwhile, in Europe, some countries have slashed funding as part of their austerity programmes - Greece most of all - while the larger and richer nations like France and Germany have protected science. Japan has also opted against major cuts, so far, but with a massive deficit, researchers fear that the axe will fall in coming years.
A repeated complaint is that biomedical research has faced a rate of inflation much higher than the rate experienced by the economy as a whole. Nutt says that if the overall inflation rate is 4% per year, the rate paid by scientists is more like 10%. As a result, even if nominal budgets are protected, the real budget will fall. The current British government has decided to keep nominal science funding flat, while cutting pretty much everything else, which is nice, but it still means falling real investment.
So everyone pretty much agrees that there are cuts, and cuts are bad. OK. Where things get more interesting is in the debate over what this means for individual scientists. Susan Amara says that she fears that investigator-initiated "R01" grants are in danger. These are when a scientist gets an idea, writes it up as a proposal and says "Isn't this cool? Can we have some money to do it?"
Amara warns that this kind of thing seems to be getting harder, while established, ongoing research programmes are being protected. But Tom Insel, head of the NIMH and, therefore, the guy with ultimate responsibility for these R01 grants, says the exact opposite. Insel claims that R01s are being protected in favour of the big programmes! "Where have we cut back in order to preserve R01 grants? ... We have reduced the budget of our intramural research programme."
Who's right on this point? I'm not sure. Maybe US readers might be able to comment.
The authors express particular worry that young neuroscientists (postdocs and PhD students) will suffer, either directly, as a result of not being able to find money, or indirectly in terms of poor morale and a sense that their talents might be better rewarded outside of science - leading to long-term harm to the next generation of neuroscientists.
They offer some words of encouragement, though, saying that the pendulum will swing back towards more investment in the future. Until then, hang on as best you can, even if it means being willing to move to find work with a supervisor, or in a country, which does have good funding prospects...
Amara SG, Grillner S, Insel T, Nutt D, & Tsumoto T (2011). Neuroscience in recession? Nature reviews. Neuroscience, 12 (5), 297-302 PMID: 21505517
8 comments:
We should all move to China. That's where the economic muscle is-- and the future of research funding. In the States, if the Tea Party nuts gain power, you won't have a NIH/NIMH anymore. These idiots want to get rid of (not just trim or cut) EVERYTHING save for the Defense department.
So? The Defence department have their own research facilities too ?
Do you speak Chinese? China is not the most safest place for foreign researchers..
Why hold onto a job paying you peanuts? Life is short. If things are really that tough, get a corporate job, make lots of money, then go back to your peanut making hearts content.
Where does the 10% number come from?
It's not clear. There are no references. David Nutt asserts that it's 10%. On the one hand, he is in a good position to know, on the other hand he has an incentive to exaggerate. So take it with a pinch of salt. To be honest though, even regular general inflation is so high now that a flat nominal budget would translate into marked real cuts.
veri: Are you serious? You want the Pentagon in the States to be the sole or primary agency conducting mental health research?
That wasn't my point.. there is a real world outside the academia.
I'd like to see more scientists run for office. The next generation have an aptitude for programming, technology etc. who better than to have decision makers with a research background to address these modern challenges? See beyond.
I am baffled by the prioritization of NIMH sometimes. They stated maybe 6 months ago that behavioral (i.e. non-imaging) research would no longer be a priority. But imaging work is far more expensive than behavioral work and often used to answer questions that could be answered behaviorally. Of course, as a behavioral researcher, I'm hardly an unbiased observer, but it seems that funding more scientists is the greater good.
Michelle - Good point. Besides, lots of money has been and will continue to be wasted on poorly designed fMRI studies. Behavioral studies can provide a lot more bang for the buck, but, unfortunately, they're not as sexy...
Post a Comment