Lab Funding: What Does the Future Hold?
by
These days it seems the only thing lower than the grant funding line is Arnold Schwarzenegger’s approval rating. In 2010, many of the National Institutes of Health agencies exhibited funding lines around the 8th percentile. Ouch. For many of us, the grant writing process has become an exercise in futility – damaging our motivation as significantly as our pocketbook.
Although some claim the funding outlook is bright based on 2011 congressional budgets, others see a dire funding situation ahead. Beyond the numbers, anyone who has applied for a postdoctoral fellowship, career award or RO1 recently, knows empirically that things remain tough in the trenches. But what are we to tell researchers who are considering how funding prospects will impact their careers in the near future? “Hang in there, it’s going to turn around” or “Grab your Prozac and start writing a grant a week“?
Where do you think our lab funding situation will be five years from now?
.
.
Loading ....
.
@jhpincus
wrote on May 23, 2011 at 2:33 pm
Increases in NIH funding peaked in the 1late 960s. The 25 percentile payline for NIH grants in the 1970s steadily declined starting in the 1980s to where it is today. The problem was created by funding for science failing to keep up with the number of researchers entering the profession. The NIH funding base has also been diversified beyond basic research to support clinical and translational studeis. These trends are likely to continue with the unabated recruitment of scientists for advanced degree programs despite declines in grant funding and public pressure to find cures for intractible diseases. The good news for reserches if ther are now more diverse and equally rewarding career opportunities beyond a career in laboratory science.
Tenurechaser
wrote on May 25, 2011 at 11:09 am
As an assistant professor, I can say from experience that a sub 10% funding line is beyond discouraging. Beyond the practical matter of constantly writing grants, there is a philosophical one. I feel that peer review can sort out great grants from good grants, but can it really distinguish between an 8th, 10th or 12th percentile grant?