The Funding Crisis in Biomedical Research, Part I-Addressing the Issue
T
HE National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, concerned about the funding crisis affecting the new researcher, conducted a national forum recently to address the issue and develop some options* toward its resolution.
Dlmenslons of the Issue The federal government’s outlay for health care is $600 billion, about 1.8 per cent for research and development (R&D) with 2.6 per cent spent by West Germany and 2.8 per cent spent by Japan. The budget of the National Institute of Health (NIH), currently at an all-time high of $7.5 billion, has received modest increases in its budget. Yet, why does a funding crisis exist? The heart of the concern is that over the last 2 years, the number of new investigator awards (ROls) is down from 6,400 in 1988 to 4,600 in 1990. The chances of an ROl grant getting funded in 1970 was 50 per cent compared with 25 per cent in 1990. Yet, these grants are often described as the “lifeblood of basic biomedical sciences.”
award quality grants and what proportion should be new investigator awards. The values attributed to research are under scrutiny. Public policy has directed health care providers to diagnose and treat illness. There will be no savings from research until public policy places a value on altering life styles and reduces our preoccupation with treatment and disease.
Effects on the Researcher and the Research lnstitutlon The increasing social importance and public awareness of science and technology make it essential that new researchers be recognized as the guardians of future scientific endeavors; otherwise they might become “endangered species.” What are some of the effects on the new investigator who is unable to receive funding? If new researchers fail to receive NIH support in the first few years (with a 50 per cent chance of approval and a 25 per cent change of funding), their careers as researchers may come to a halt. The future of science, which includes nursing research, depends on young people and their ideas. As research funds become tighter, danger from erosion of the peer review system increases as friends and rivals of researchers compete. It also becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between a superb proposal and an outstanding proposal. Senior investigators also worry about competing renewals, sharing their stress with graduate students, and in some instances, encouraging them to abandon research as a career. The lack of funding can result in research teams breaking up. Many predict a severe shortage of scientists and engineers by the year 2,000 (Naisbitt and Aburdene, 1990).
Contributing Factors Fewer dollars are available for ROl grants as currently funded researchers themselves demanded that their grants be awarded for 4 to 5 years rather than for a shorter time. Further, many researchers felt that they had to spend an inordinate amount of time writing research proposals. Researchers submit multiple applications (average 1.9 grants per researcher) to improve their chances of getting funded. Investigators with multiple applications do have a greater success rate; however, the concentration of multiple grants with one researcher reduces the chances of new investigators getting funded. The lack of a long-range strategy at the NIH hampers determining what criteria should be used to FAYE G. ABDELLAH,
RN,
EDD,
ScD,
FAAN
Reference
Fotmer Deputy Surgeon General US Public Health Sewice Department of Health and Human Services
Naisbitt, J. & Aburdene P. (1990). Megatrends 2000. Ten new directionsfor the 1990s (p. 384). New York: William Morrow.
Washington, DC 20201
Copyright 0 1991 by W.B. Saunders Company 8755-7223/91/0701/0006/$3.00/0
JOUM~ of Proftisiod
*“Part II-Options for Action” March-April 1991 issue.
Nursing, Vol 7, No 1 (January-February),
1991:
p 7
will be published
in the
7
T
HE National Academy of Sciences, Institute of Medicine, concerned about the funding crisis affecting the new researcher, conducted a national forum recently to address the issue and develop some options* toward its resolution.
Dlmenslons of the Issue The federal government’s outlay for health care is $600 billion, about 1.8 per cent for research and development (R&D) with 2.6 per cent spent by West Germany and 2.8 per cent spent by Japan. The budget of the National Institute of Health (NIH), currently at an all-time high of $7.5 billion, has received modest increases in its budget. Yet, why does a funding crisis exist? The heart of the concern is that over the last 2 years, the number of new investigator awards (ROls) is down from 6,400 in 1988 to 4,600 in 1990. The chances of an ROl grant getting funded in 1970 was 50 per cent compared with 25 per cent in 1990. Yet, these grants are often described as the “lifeblood of basic biomedical sciences.”
award quality grants and what proportion should be new investigator awards. The values attributed to research are under scrutiny. Public policy has directed health care providers to diagnose and treat illness. There will be no savings from research until public policy places a value on altering life styles and reduces our preoccupation with treatment and disease.
Effects on the Researcher and the Research lnstitutlon The increasing social importance and public awareness of science and technology make it essential that new researchers be recognized as the guardians of future scientific endeavors; otherwise they might become “endangered species.” What are some of the effects on the new investigator who is unable to receive funding? If new researchers fail to receive NIH support in the first few years (with a 50 per cent chance of approval and a 25 per cent change of funding), their careers as researchers may come to a halt. The future of science, which includes nursing research, depends on young people and their ideas. As research funds become tighter, danger from erosion of the peer review system increases as friends and rivals of researchers compete. It also becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish between a superb proposal and an outstanding proposal. Senior investigators also worry about competing renewals, sharing their stress with graduate students, and in some instances, encouraging them to abandon research as a career. The lack of funding can result in research teams breaking up. Many predict a severe shortage of scientists and engineers by the year 2,000 (Naisbitt and Aburdene, 1990).
Contributing Factors Fewer dollars are available for ROl grants as currently funded researchers themselves demanded that their grants be awarded for 4 to 5 years rather than for a shorter time. Further, many researchers felt that they had to spend an inordinate amount of time writing research proposals. Researchers submit multiple applications (average 1.9 grants per researcher) to improve their chances of getting funded. Investigators with multiple applications do have a greater success rate; however, the concentration of multiple grants with one researcher reduces the chances of new investigators getting funded. The lack of a long-range strategy at the NIH hampers determining what criteria should be used to FAYE G. ABDELLAH,
RN,
EDD,
ScD,
FAAN
Reference
Fotmer Deputy Surgeon General US Public Health Sewice Department of Health and Human Services
Naisbitt, J. & Aburdene P. (1990). Megatrends 2000. Ten new directionsfor the 1990s (p. 384). New York: William Morrow.
Washington, DC 20201
Copyright 0 1991 by W.B. Saunders Company 8755-7223/91/0701/0006/$3.00/0
JOUM~ of Proftisiod
*“Part II-Options for Action” March-April 1991 issue.
Nursing, Vol 7, No 1 (January-February),
1991:
p 7
will be published
in the
7
