| Followers | 73 |
| Posts | 3426 |
| Boards Moderated | 1 |
| Alias Born | 04/28/2004 |
Sunday, June 28, 2009 12:16:12 PM
Cancer Research:
I enjoyed the article. If others would like to chime in, I would appreciate it. But here are some points that I think are worth discussing:
1) The Her2 story is a true success story. I guess one could argue, based on a reading of this article, that the NIH failed as Slamon had to solicit funding from other sources. I won't debate that, as it is impossible to know which source of funding was truly pivotal for his lab. However, I would bet that Slamon has received significant funding from the NIH to develop the Her2 story. And for that investment, the NIH gets no return. This is an area of failure for the NIH, imo. They need to work in a mechanism where the government shares in the return on investment.
2) Articles like this inevitably make it seem as if the unfunded researchers have truly revolutionary breakthroughs but remain marginalized by the system. Those who naively read the article will see this in the ideological frame of government waste. However, it is difficult to objectively judge the relevance of a finding when you allow its owner to complain, in a one-sided manner, as to how they're being shafted. Having read many grant applications, there are truly bad ones that are no doubt written enthusiastically by the sponsor. I'm not sure you can unequivocally point your finger at the system.
3) A similar argument applies to the researcher studying diets. His research is derided by the article simply because it is not using some fancy molecular approach to studying disease. It may not sound sexy, but it fails to point out if the application, as written, provided an articulate and highly convincing account of the project and the benefits of its completion.
4) Researchers can find seed money for new ideas, so I don't particularly like the whining about not being able to generate preliminary data. Money that enters the lab can be used for multiple purposes and can, therefore, be stretched. So if you are a PI and your lab brings in 200K a year, nothing keeps you from getting off your ass and going into the lab to gather some of that data. A piece of equipment purchased with one grant can be used to generate preliminary data for another grant. Many of the people whining are doing so because they can't hire people to generate preliminary data. However, if they themselves went back to the bench, while asking others in the lab to pitch in, things work out. So stop being lazy.
5) There is a trend now to ask for more and more preliminary data from the submitting lab. This has been a major source of complaint from the community. I'm personally unsure as to how much of this is legitimate and how much of it is whining. In the majority of cases, researchers are attempting to renew funding, meaning that they're at the end of a 4-5 year duration of being funded. You should have plenty of data at that time for your next resubmission.
6) The NIH does find itself a victim of the "too big to fail" problem. I've often heard junior faculty who go to grant reviews say they feel intimidated against speaking out regarding a poorly written grant from a leader in the field. I blame them for not speaking up. At the same time, some people reviewing grants from large labs will hesitate to pull their funding because it would put the lab in a dire situation. These actions inevitably reduce the chances of new and novel ideas finding funding. It's a major shortcoming.
7) The NIH is trying to squeeze more out of its budget by greatly reducing its overhead. The grant application process is a single system, virtually paperless process. It used to be that the review sessions would necessarily involve 20-30 people flying into a city and locking themselves in a big room to review grants nonstop for 2-3 days. They're now implementing strategies to review grants by conference call, as well as initiatives to appraise grant applications through secure message boards. The intent is to reduce the overhead so that more of the NIH funding is sent out to applicants (right now, something like 90% of the money the NIH receives is doled out to labs).
8) These articles rarely mention that the NIH is, by and large, about educating a new generation of scientists. This has to be placed into the equation when the public decides how they want to proceed with the institution. So when the article notes that the NCI has spent 105 billion dollars, it gives the reader the impression that since cancer has not been cured, the taxpayer is left with nothing after all that spending. I would disagree.
9) Under 20% of applicants are funded. Anyone else want to enter a field where you constantly have to be in the top 20% to keep your job? There are no stock options, your salary has a ceiling dictated by the NIH, and if you mess up your project, there is no golden parachute
I enjoyed the article. If others would like to chime in, I would appreciate it. But here are some points that I think are worth discussing:
1) The Her2 story is a true success story. I guess one could argue, based on a reading of this article, that the NIH failed as Slamon had to solicit funding from other sources. I won't debate that, as it is impossible to know which source of funding was truly pivotal for his lab. However, I would bet that Slamon has received significant funding from the NIH to develop the Her2 story. And for that investment, the NIH gets no return. This is an area of failure for the NIH, imo. They need to work in a mechanism where the government shares in the return on investment.
2) Articles like this inevitably make it seem as if the unfunded researchers have truly revolutionary breakthroughs but remain marginalized by the system. Those who naively read the article will see this in the ideological frame of government waste. However, it is difficult to objectively judge the relevance of a finding when you allow its owner to complain, in a one-sided manner, as to how they're being shafted. Having read many grant applications, there are truly bad ones that are no doubt written enthusiastically by the sponsor. I'm not sure you can unequivocally point your finger at the system.
3) A similar argument applies to the researcher studying diets. His research is derided by the article simply because it is not using some fancy molecular approach to studying disease. It may not sound sexy, but it fails to point out if the application, as written, provided an articulate and highly convincing account of the project and the benefits of its completion.
4) Researchers can find seed money for new ideas, so I don't particularly like the whining about not being able to generate preliminary data. Money that enters the lab can be used for multiple purposes and can, therefore, be stretched. So if you are a PI and your lab brings in 200K a year, nothing keeps you from getting off your ass and going into the lab to gather some of that data. A piece of equipment purchased with one grant can be used to generate preliminary data for another grant. Many of the people whining are doing so because they can't hire people to generate preliminary data. However, if they themselves went back to the bench, while asking others in the lab to pitch in, things work out. So stop being lazy.
5) There is a trend now to ask for more and more preliminary data from the submitting lab. This has been a major source of complaint from the community. I'm personally unsure as to how much of this is legitimate and how much of it is whining. In the majority of cases, researchers are attempting to renew funding, meaning that they're at the end of a 4-5 year duration of being funded. You should have plenty of data at that time for your next resubmission.
6) The NIH does find itself a victim of the "too big to fail" problem. I've often heard junior faculty who go to grant reviews say they feel intimidated against speaking out regarding a poorly written grant from a leader in the field. I blame them for not speaking up. At the same time, some people reviewing grants from large labs will hesitate to pull their funding because it would put the lab in a dire situation. These actions inevitably reduce the chances of new and novel ideas finding funding. It's a major shortcoming.
7) The NIH is trying to squeeze more out of its budget by greatly reducing its overhead. The grant application process is a single system, virtually paperless process. It used to be that the review sessions would necessarily involve 20-30 people flying into a city and locking themselves in a big room to review grants nonstop for 2-3 days. They're now implementing strategies to review grants by conference call, as well as initiatives to appraise grant applications through secure message boards. The intent is to reduce the overhead so that more of the NIH funding is sent out to applicants (right now, something like 90% of the money the NIH receives is doled out to labs).
8) These articles rarely mention that the NIH is, by and large, about educating a new generation of scientists. This has to be placed into the equation when the public decides how they want to proceed with the institution. So when the article notes that the NCI has spent 105 billion dollars, it gives the reader the impression that since cancer has not been cured, the taxpayer is left with nothing after all that spending. I would disagree.
9) Under 20% of applicants are funded. Anyone else want to enter a field where you constantly have to be in the top 20% to keep your job? There are no stock options, your salary has a ceiling dictated by the NIH, and if you mess up your project, there is no golden parachute
Join the InvestorsHub Community
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
