Did anyone catch this Cell paper from early June about NIH funding levels? Yesterday pretty much all we talked about in lab meeting was how the shit has really hit the fan in terms of NIH funding, with some people having to close down for lack of funds (don't worry, we're ok). The cell paper has this figure, which I think is showing the relevant trend.



Hopefully this won't last until I have to apply for a major grant, by then maybe the Give Up effect will be complete and we'll have thrown the bums out. If not? Well, I don't know that I want to spend my life scratching by from grant to grant. Is that running from a challenge or just being sensible about the prospects for a career in science? I don't know, I'll make up my mind when I get there.

They discuss in the paper new structures for reviewing of grants that some feel are not working out well.

In 2000, the Panel on Scientific Boundaries for Review recommended a new organizational structure for IRGs, which would more accurately reflect the types of research applications that NIH receives. "The first study sections were established in 1946 and had not been revised since, despite the fact that science has changed dramatically. Reorganization was one option to address this issue," says Anthony Scarpa, who became CSR director in July 2005. Another issue the panel grappled with was that some of the most cutting edge research was assigned to too few study sections causing the best science to compete with itself, whereas relatively low impact work had little or no competition. The goal of the new IRG structure was to even out the playing field.
...
Another concern is that "in some cases, basic science expertise is not well-represented, so basic science grants are not getting expert review," says Heidi Hamm, a pharmacologist at Vanderbilt University Medical Center who is president-elect of the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB). "With the reorganization something like 5 to 6 basic biochemistry study sections are gone, and thus grants in a wide range of expertise are being funneled to just a few, much larger, study sections." Others echo the concern. "One of the big concerns before the reorganization was that translational science was not getting a fair review. Now we may have gone to the other extreme. The emphasis may have now swung to translational research to the detriment of outstanding basic science," says Judith Bond of Penn State University, ASBMB's current president.

I don't know about you guys but the last grant review we got back was downright retarded. It wasn't just about not understanding basic science, it showed a lack of understanding of science period. This is what happens when the joint is run by Republicans. You get underfunded and nothing works due to incompetent management. It's the double whammy. The article suggests that the incompetent management preceeded the Republicans and the lack of funding has just unmasked it. I think they're just being nice.

Thanks to the daily transcript. Everybody should subscribe to the scienceblogs group feed by the way.