Basic Research Scientists Close Up Shop

One thing the USA has going for it is it's strength in basic medical research. This is proven time and again by the number of Nobel Prize winning scientists from the USA. But did you know that "in 2007, more than 4000 NIH-funded researchers were denied grant renewals"? Read this article in The Scientist, something I've been meaning to comment on for some time now (having lost my own job in research).

First a little background for some of you. Most basic medical research is funded by the US government through the National Institutes of Health. Researchers apply for the money through a highly competitive, peer reviewed process. Today it takes about one million dollars to run a small lab for five years. More if you use animals in your research.

In the 1990's President Bill Clinton pledged to double the NIH budget over a 5 year period. This was started in 1998 and continued through 2003. Then the war on terror was put into play. Money had to be spent on war to protect us from nuclear and biological attacks. So the NIH budget began to flatline in 2003. From 1998 to 2003 the NIH budget jumped from 13 billion dollars to 26 billion dollars. This brought a lot of scientists into basic research because it was easier to get government funding. Since 2003, however, the NIH budget has barely tracked inflation going from 26.4 billion to only 27.9 billion in 2005. So what did this mean to the scientists?

In 1999 8,957 new grant applications were submitted to NIH. 1,761 of the applications were funded, that's 19.7%. In 2005, 10,605 grant applications were submitted and only 970 were approved for a success rate of 9.1%. The success rate for grant renewals was just as dismal. In 1999, 3,214 funded scientists submitted grant renewals and 1,772 grants were renewed - a success rate of 55% (it's easier to get funded after you have been funded the first time). By 2005, 3,896 grant renewal applications were submitted and 1,262 were funded for a success rate of 33%. In 2007, more than 4,100 scientists were denied renewed grant funding.

Eventually this means the scientist has to look for a new job. Research scientists, in academia at least, are responsible for finding their own funding for their salaries and that of their post-docs and technicians. So it's not just the scientist that loses his/her job.

The bigger problem here is that this budget situation discourages students from entering the basic research field. With fewer scientists and fewer labs the USA becomes less competitive in the world of science and technology - the one place we have dominated so far.

We may or may not be safer against terrorist attack. But at what expense?