Several interesting articles have surfaced lately. First among these is an article by Dr. Sally Rockey, Deputy Director for Extramural Research at the National Institutes of Health. In it, she annotates the decline in success rates for researchers of obtaining NIH grant funding and explains some of the underlying reasons for this decline. Indeed, in the last 10 years or so, the number of applications to the NIH for grant funding has increased dramatically. In 1998 NIH received 24,151 applications, but by 2011, this number soared to 49,492. The budget for the NIH did increase over this same period (from just over $13 billion in 1998 to $30 billion in 2011), however this increase has not allowed for a sustained increase in the success rates of obtaining funds. This success rate has dropped from a high of 32% to a new low of 18%. This number represents all funds, but funding rates for new grants are much lower (very far south of 10%).
The second article, or rather a series of articles, was published in Nature Magazine this week. In this series, the idea of science philanthropy and scientists fundraising for themselves from wealthy donors or from a large number of smaller donors was discussed. It is an interesting idea. Scientists are beginning to use websites like Kickstarter where they pitch their lab research ideas and those interested make donations to fund these projects. Sure, this isn’t the traditional peer-reviewed technique used by NIH and other funding agencies, however it does connect scientists to the public. Besides, peer-review isn’t the only model.
Funding science is worth the investment. In 2010, NIH granted almost 9,500 new grant awards and distributed $22 Billion to investigators for both new and continuing grants. It is estimated that this allocation yielded $69.2 Billion in economic activity in the US and created 484,939 jobs. This equates to a rate of return estimated at 32- 43%. Federal investment in research is highly productive. Not only does public funding of research produce a great rate of return on the investment, but publicly funded research also stimulates a additional 25 - 32% increase in privately funded medical research.
I think there could be a new way to fund science research that can work in parallel to the NIH and other public funds. The US has a strong history of philanthropy among private citizens and companies. What if individuals and companies -- from actors to Wall Street firms -- were to contribute to a centralized non-profit that funds basic and translational research. This could be styled like NIH in that it can fund a broad range of research areas, but can employ and explore new ways to evaluate the science and distribute the funds. What if companies and individuals set aside just 1% of their yearly profits or charitable contributions to establish such an organization? This money can be used to fund young emerging scientists and new ideas that may help improve the lives and health of everyone. Isn’t 1% a small price to donate? This might not be what has always been done, but isn’t it time to start looking for new ways to help fund science?
Have a comment? Email me at jck@n3scicom.com or post it here.
References:
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2012/01/nih-examines-what-drove-its-grant.html#more
http://www.nature.com/news/finding-philanthropy-like-it-pay-for-it-1.9815
http://www.nature.com/news/alternative-funding-sponsor-my-science-1.9814
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7381/full/481260a.html
NIH - history of budget allocations
http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/approp_hist.html
“Benefits of medical research and the role of the NIH”, May 2000, Office of Senator Connie Mack.
“An economic engine: NIH research, employment, and the future of the medical innovation sector.” Dr. Everett Ehrlich, United for Medical Research.
n3 science communications
No comments:
Post a Comment