Scinece and Medicine: Research Funding

Washington Post staff writer Christopher Lee was online to discuss the fight over government funding for medical research on Tuesday, May 29 at 1 p.m. ET

Read more in his Monday Science Page feature: Slump in NIH Funding Is Taking Toll on Research.

A transcript follows.

____________________

Christopher Lee: Hello, and welcome to our chat. A lot of scientists out there are unhappy with President Bush's budget for the National Institutes of Health. They say there isn't enough cash for biomedical research, and that momentum that came from a doubling of the NIH budget between 1998 and 2003 is now being squandered. On the other hand, some people point out that research grant applications have been rising steadily. Of course it's getting harder to win funding, they say, since so many more people are seeking it. Some in the scientific community say the U.S. is at risk of losing our economic competitiveness and our best minds as more groundbreaking research takes place overseas rather than here. How do you feel about any or all of this? I'll admit I'm a novice when it comes to scientific research -- freshman chemistry in college is about as far as my math aptitude would take me -- but I'll do my best to answer any questions you may have. Let's begin.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: If I understand the problem, NIH funding levels spiked a few years ago and now they've leveled off. Why can't the NIH make smaller grants and spread the money out to more scientists, particularly young ones coming up? It sounds like the process has turned into a star system, like publishing or professional sports, where the scientists with the best track record keep getting the money, even if they're not breaking new ground.

Christopher Lee: Sounds like you've got a good bead on what's happening. NIH officials say they have begun new initiatives to ensure that younger scientists have a fair shot at grants. They understand that up and comers will bolt to industry if it looks like they can't do the work they want to in the lab for lack of government funding. The NIH could dole out smaller grants, but scientists say it doesn't pay to hand out the bare minimum. If there is only enough funding to keep people hanging around on staff at labs, and not enough for the real science to take place, then what's the point? As for a star system developing, it is certainly easier for more established scientists to win grants, but what I'm hearing is that even that elite group of folks is seeing cutbacks in awards or denials outright.

_______________________

Wyoming: Hi Mr. Lee,

In poking around the web, I find that the National Science Foundation budget for 2003 was $5.3 Billion, and they get around 30,000 proposals a year. So I'm struggling not to think NIH scientists are spoiled, as they have 5 times the budget of the NSF and yet get almost the same amount of proposals. Granted all sciences should have higher funding rates, but it seems like NIH researchers are shocked to have the same success rates (15-25 percent) the rest of U.S scientists. I can't help wondering if the average NIH proposal is bloated with researcher salaries and other things that most of us in other scientific fields have had to eliminate long ago. I also wonder if the problem is not the government, but universities hireing researchers at unsustainable rates. Mr. Lee, what is your perspective: do you think NIH scientists are particularly hurting with respect to the rest of the scientific community?

Christopher Lee: Thanks for your note. I have to be brutally honest here and say that, having just waded into NIH budget issues for the first time last week, I can't give you a good answer about how NIH-funded scientists are doing relative to those who get their money from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy and other agencies that fund research. I've been told by people in the know that NSF and DOE are seeing larger increases in research funding this year in order to catch up with past flat budgets.

Anyone out there with a deeper background want to weigh in? I'll be happy to post some responses.

_______________________

Tucson, Ariz.: It is disturbing to me that universities continue to enroll large numbers of students in their Molecular Biology/Biochemistry/Genetics Graduate Programs while knowing full well that there are few jobs and very little funding for new scientists. In a five year period, a Department may graduate 50 or 60 Ph.D. level students, while hiring only one Assistant Professor. Job opportunities in the Biotech/pharmaceutical industry are not much better. Simply go to the Human Resources web site of any major university to see how miserable the job prospects are for anyone seeking a position above the post-doctoral level. Something of a dirty little secret foisted on bright ambitious students. Universities should not be pitching these graduate programs as promising career paths when they know that few real jobs and very little funding exist for their students five years after graduation.

M Rounseville, Ph.D.

Christopher Lee: Thanks for your email. This is certainly a trend -- universities ramping up their departments in certain research areas, only to see that federal funding increases in such areas level off, leaving too many would-be researchers chasing too little cash to fund them all. I still have to believe that the job prospects of a Ph.D molecular biology grad are far better than folks with doctorates in, say, English or anthropology.

_______________________

Chicago, Ill.: I work in research administration so I am deep in the system. My faculty are constantly struggling to get funding for their research. Part of the problem is that their research has little applicability or is at such an early stage that the applicability to problems is not clear. Perhaps what is needed is a better differentiation between translational research and basic (knowledge) research. How do you feel future administrations could address this need?

Christopher Lee: The scientists I have spoken with say that it's extremely important for the federal government to fund basic research, whose commercial applicability is unclear, at best, at the outset. They say industry funding usually targets research with an obvious upside, so the NIH and other federal agencies should concentrate on basic research. Of course, many of the scientist I spoke with do this kind of research themselves, so they have a dog in the hunt, so to speak.

_______________________

Del Mar, Calif.: Do you know how the latest numbers of applicants versus funds compare to those under the Varmus/Clinton years?

Christopher Lee: In 1997, the year before the doubling of the NIH budget began, there were 24,221 applications for grant funding. The success rate was 30.5 percent, and the total money awarded that year was $1.82 billion.

In 2006, there wree 45,688 grant applications, the success rate was 20 percent, and $3.36 billion was awarded.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: Christopher,

Good article; I work for a nonprofit that promotes biomedical research and I found the article spot on. When long-time grantees are having trouble getting grants renewed, it's a very tough situation. Mowst biomedical researchers say that if the NIH can fund about one-third of the grant applications submitted, you are probably funding almost all of the best stuff. But once the success rate drops to less than 25 percent, it becomes a crap shoot becuase it is almost impossible to pick between equally meritorious proposals to fund and you just don't know. The peer review system doesn't work well when the agency is funding about 2 in 10 proposals.

Pete F.

Christopher Lee: Here's one take on the current funding climate.....

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Mr. Lee - Getting government funding for research is remarkable easy. All you need to do is define the project as biodefense and the cash comes rolling in. NIH researchers are well aware of this.

Christopher Lee: I've heard this theme, too, and not just in scientific research. It's quite popular in government contracting circles these days to cast your pitch in terms of what it does for national security.

_______________________

Storrs, Conn.: One concern that I have is that there are many non-scientists attempting to formulate policy. As a result, scientists feel unappreciated and our work discounted.

Second concern--due to the stem cell moratorium, several scientists have left the US. Singapore, the UK, and other countries are taking them with open arms.

Christopher Lee: Well, non-doctors determine how much physicians get paid through Medicare, civilians determine how big a budget the military gets, and so on. So I don't see that as a big problem. It may be that scientists are not as adept as defense contractors at getting heard on Capitol Hill.

As for the stem cell moratorium, President Bush has made his position pretty clear: that veto pen is coming out any time Congress wants to clear the way for funding embryonic stem cell research. Some people say that the research quite understandably will take place overseas instead. Let me put this question out there: If the research happens overseas, is that bad for the U.S. One argument is that as long as the work gets done somewhere, people everywhere will benefit from it? The folks on the other side, including lots of U.S. -based scientists, say the U.S. is best positioned to capitalize on ground-breaking research that takes place here in the U.S.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: Your article really didn't provide any new facts as NIH has presented these data many times. What is somewhat surprising, even if you are new to this area, is the statement that there was not enough time "to plan" given the "dramatic changes in the budget."

NIH was well aware of the proposal to double its budget before it was started, it new it would take 5 years, and it knew that then the budget would level off to little or no increases. Why was this topic not pursued with NIH?

Christopher Lee: If I understand your comment correctly, then one could just as easily wonder why the research community continued to ramp up its infrastructure since it was clear that the reserach budget couldn't go up dramatically forever. What I've been hearing from scientists is that it would make much more sense for the government to increase the research budget by a predictable amount each year, say 6 to 10 percent. That would allow sound planning in the laboratory.

_______________________

D.C.: You just wrote that the total NIH grant funding for 2006 was about $3.5B and yet the total NIH budget was close to $30B. Is all the rest going into the intramural program?

Christopher Lee: Ha! That's a great question. The numbers struck me as odd, too, so last week I asked NIH officials what the deal was. What they said, in essence, is that the $3.5 billion was in new, first-time money doled out that year. But at any given time, the agency also is handing out cash tied to awards made in previous years, so the total level of research dollars flowing out the door in any given year is much higher than the $3.5 billion. I wish I could give you that number, but I don't have it.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: I think that part of what needs to change is the attitude in academia that success is only acheived with a career in the lab and your first R01. Lots of PhDs have very rewarding careers in policy, teaching, industry, law and scientific publishing. It should not be viewed as a failure of the system if scientists choose to apply their skills away from the bench.

Christopher Lee: No argument here. I think the point several research scientists were making is that the U.S. has no shortage of scientists working in industry, or doctors working in lucrative specialties in private practice. It is at risk, they say, of losing good basic research scientists, though. Speaking as someone who learned more from his classmates than from his professors in college chemistry and Calculus, however, I would applaud any scientists who is a good teacher to make that the focus of his or her career.

_______________________

Pennsylvania: Part of the problem is that the NIH has gone toward earmarking significant portions of its budget for initiatives like the Roadmap and Biodefense. If your research falls under one of these headings, or if you can sell your research in one of these areas, then you are in relatively good shape. However, if you are not in these categories, then you end up in the big pool with all the big fish. And it is difficult to compete with the established investigators with long track records if you are a new investigator.

I liked how you started with the Kornberg quote. I might add that he might not have been as successful if his last name weren't Kornberg as well.

Christopher Lee: Thanks for your comment. For those who do not know, Roger Kornberg, the Stanford biochemist who won a Nobel prize in chemistry last year, is the son of Arthur Kornberg, who won the Nobel prize in Medicine in 1959. Talk about good genes....

_______________________

Pennsylvania: Pete F. is spot on. What is happening nowadays at many of the review sections is a game of "wait your turn". In other words, there are too many meritorious applications that cannot be funded in a particular cycle that reviewers are having to select a few and let the rest back up. There are lots of excellent grant applications stuck in this holding pattern.

Christopher Lee: Some props for Pete F.......

_______________________

Gaithersburg, Md.: If the situation is so bad, how is it that the number of grant awards is still between 9500 and 10,000?

Christopher Lee: This is the counter argument, that plenty of good research is still being done and plenty of good money is going to fund it. Scientists note, however, that in inflation adjusted terms, the current NIH budget is lower than that in 2003, so even if large numbers of applications are being funded, the money doesn't go as far as it used to.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: NSF grants do not pay salaries for the grantee except for summer salaries (i.e., 3 months worth). The grantee can ask for money to fund a technician or some other kind of lab helper, but can only ask for 3 months salary for himself. NIH grants, on the other hand, usually include salaries for the PI and others. This is one reason why NIH grants are so much larger. But, another reason is that biomedical research is very expensive, and even has a different inflation calculator than general inflation (called the biomedical research and development price index, or BRDPI for short). BRDPI is usually 1-2 points more than general inflation. So, not only is it expensive to do, but simply keeping up with inflation is more expensive as well.

Christopher Lee: Thanks for writing in.....

_______________________

San Diego, Calif.: Just a comment here. I am a worker bee in the system - I submit grant proposal to the NIH and NSF, I review grant proposals to those agencies, and every once in a while I get a grant to do what I hope is creative and useful science. The system is not broken - the U.S. is still generally the best place in the world to start and maintain a career in scientific research, and the NIH and NSF are the reason.

The problem now is that science has gotten to be very, very good indeed - so good, that we are in the midst of true revolutions in many areas. But it has also gotten more difficult and more expensive as the frontiers become more challenging. Keeping funding levels constant is really to lose ground. The choice for our policy makers is between making slower progress and making revolutionary progress - and also between making sure that the U.S. or other parts of the world lead the way.

Our future economy is in large measure based on the basic and applied science done today, and increasing the budget for scientific research is a wise investment. Competition among scientists is good, but it is also necessary to make sure that good scientists can spend time doing science rather than scrambling all the time for funds.

Christopher Lee: Thanks, from one worker bee to another....

_______________________

Seattle, Wash.: I used to work at a university lab with many published papers in Cell, Science, and other journals but since the net effect was to cut funding so only 8 percent of NIH qualified grants get funded from 20 percent (back in 2000), even though we were very successful, we barely got half funding. Why does DC think our costs go down when equipment and materials alone go up 4 to 10 percent in any research lab - not including staff?

Christopher Lee: See, inflation hurts.....

_______________________

Ann Arbor, Mich.: As a postdoc at a major research institution, I can say that funding levels are pretty frustrating. I know many people say to give less money to more people, but most grants are bare minimum right now. Research staff are already paid much, much less in academia than in industry, and there is very little waste in the budgets. Fact is, most of my very talented collegues are going to industry for the (much higher) salaries and lack of funding stress. I'm resisting, because I like the freedom to conduct my own research that I think is important and fruitful as opposed to what helps the bottom line. However, if the only way I can get grant money is to write the safe, conservative grant, then there really isn't much difference, is there?

Christopher Lee: Thanks for this personal take on the industry vs. academia decision......

_______________________

Winston-Salem, N.C.: As a researcher who works to find the causes of brain diseases I have to say that the current NIH funding situation is the worst I've seen in my 15 year career. It is sadly ironic that at at time in which advances in human health are reported nearly every day, that funding to continue this progress is drying up.

I think most people aren't completely informed about what is at stake -it's not just a few researchers losing their jobs, it's a national research infrastructure that may represent real progress toward curing a disease like cancer, diabetes or parkinson's disease.

There's also a basic misunderstanding of what researchers do and how they get their funding. While many of us work at medical schools, we earn our salaries through competitive grants. In other words, we are not guaranteed a job - it's continuously earned, and nearly constantly at risk. The reductions in NIH funding can be directly linked to the policies of the current administration, and the impact on the future of our nation's health stands as another sobering and tragic example of the high cost of the Iraq war.

Christopher Lee: Posted without comment, except to say that scientists are no different than any other group that relies on federal funding. If you want to make sure it goes up, you've got to lobby the right people on Capitol Hill. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just a practical reality in today's Washington.

_______________________

Annandale, Va.: Your article this morning was right on target, and I believe it's the first time the Post has taken notice of this vital issue. The only other times I've noticed it, and I've been watching carefully, were: a brief note about the Democrats forcing a revision of $600K in the NIH budget; a comment on the unmet, great need by Rep. Obey; and a full page paid advertisement by the American Association for Cancer Research.

My question: Why did it take so long for the Post to focus on this issue, an issue which affects so many Americans? Far less important issues have been given miles of column inches.

I am a 7 1/2 year survivor of a challenging case of prostate cancer, and whether I survive the disease will probably depend on research.

Jim

Christopher Lee: I must admit that I missed the brief note you refer to, the Obey comment, and even the paid ad by the American Association for Cancer Research.

My more established colleagues at the Post who cover science have been well aware of the debate over NIH funding for some time now. Indeed, they were generous in sharing their files on the subject with me. But with many competing stories for them to write --- remember the flap about contaminated pet food, to name just one -- they have to pick and choose and jump on things that are moving. They had hoped to get around to the NIH story at some point.

As for why I did it and why now, honestly, it had something to do with Dr. Kornberg and a few other Nobel prize winners stopping by the Post a few weeks ago to meet with the science editor and some science writers. They were in town pressing their case for more funding, and it taught me a lot about the issue. I though the Science page would be a good place for a story about it.

_______________________

Tappahannock, Va.: Yes basic research is important but the I believe that the NIH has a responsibility to look at the application of their research also. This is done at the NCI through the SPORE program where basic and clinical researchers work together to bring findings to a level that industry can pick them up. To dismiss programs like these because of budget problems seems problematic to me. If I heard you correctly that is what you heard from the scientists. Cutting the clinical part of the research because of budget shortages does a major disservice for the people who benefit from the research. Shouldn't NHI be keeping that in mind and in balance? If they do not what is the ultimate goal of the research?

Christopher Lee: Thanks. I don't think they were advocating cutting funding for clinical research, only shoring up funding for basic research. As with many folks who want budget increases, they aren't standing up talking about what should be cut -- only about what should get more.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: To give you some more numbers for the distribution of funding: in FY2007, about $3.7 billion will be for "competing" (new and renewal) research project grants, while nearly $11B is for the "noncompeting" or continuation grants. Another $4.5B is for research centers and other types of grants; $0.7B for research training; $2.8B for R and D contracts; $2.75B for the intramural program; and the last $3B or so covers management, buildings, and some other categories.

Christopher Lee: Some more context about why the research funding numbers I reported are in the single digits while the overall NIH budget is around $29 billion.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Not a question, just a comment. I'm a doctoral student in psychology (another under-funded area), and work on a large NIH/NIDA-funded study. From a graduate student's perspective, it's incredibly discouraging to watch outstanding researchers be denied funding at the last minute, or their budgets be slashed by 50%. NIH may be funding approx 10,000 grants, but rarely if ever at the requested funding amount, which is already low. My mentors have said that's one of the biggest recent funding changes, and one which severely undermines scientists' ability to conduct solid research. I am passionate about research, and have been since my college days, but sometimes wonder if a lifetime of constant uphill battles for funding is something I could do. I don't speak for everyone, of course, I just think that the full ramifications of these budget cuts may not be apparent until much later in the future.

Christopher Lee: Interesting perspective, thanks for writing in.

_______________________

Rockville, Md.: The issue of sound planning again. The comment was not based on the individual lab but rather was directed to the Agency. The implication was that NIH could have done something to ameliorate the "difficult time " now with better planning, but couldn't because there was not enough time. This is not challenged and should have been. Ever heard of the "soft landing" approach?

Christopher Lee: OK.

_______________________

Alexandria, Va.: In answer to the question about where the NIH money goes, here's a breakdown for 2006:

Training - 3 percent

Research Mgmnt/Support 4 percent

All other - 5 percent

Other research - 6 percent

Research Centers - 9 percent

R&D Contracts: 10 percent

Intramural Research - 10 percent

Research Project Grants - 53 percent (15.494 Billion)

The vast majority of this money is spent off the NIh campus. The major program in this list that supports in-house, NIH research at their own government labs in Bethesda, Md., is the intramural research program, at less than $3 billion.

Christopher Lee: Who says budget analysis isn't fun?......Thanks for the information.

_______________________

Pittsburgh, Pa.: The plight of the NIH-funded scientist is very serious. What's even more serious is that slowed funding for NIH can translate to adverse effects on patients and their families. What cannot be overstated is the impact that cancer research - and all biomedical research - has had on individuals' lives. Research advances that have led to increased cancer survivorship, prevention efforts, and enhanced treatment and understanding of the disease are at stake as research funding becomes more scarce.

In the coming year, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Clinical Trials Cooperative Group Program may cut a substantial number of new clinical trials. These trials would answer questions that help lead to more effective therapies and other interventions for cancer, as well as methods for screening and prevention. Not only will these patients be unable to benefit from the cutting-edge treatments available only through clinical trials, patients for generations to come will not benefit from the results of this research.

These are very exciting times in science and, particularly, in cancer research. Our generation has been fortunate-a diagnosis of cancer is no longer the certain death sentence it was for our parents and grandparents. We owe the same to our children and grandchildren.

Barbara Duffy Stewart, MPH

Executive Director

Association of American Cancer Institutes

Christopher Lee: Posted without comment. (Except to say 'posted without comment'.)

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How does Federal support for science compare to that of the arts and humanities?

Are scientists right in grumbling about downturns in funding, or should we be seeking a more equitable distribution of funding for other areas of society?

Christopher Lee: I haven't looked carefully into this issue, but a quick surf around some federal Web sites indicates that the FY 2007 budget for the National Endowment for the Arts is

$124.6 million and that the president last year requested $141 million for the National Endowment of the Humanities. So, clearly, science is doing a little better on the appropriations front.

_______________________

Boston, Mass.: The question about whether NIH should have planned for a flat funding world after the doubling, or that researchers should tighten belts and not complain would be fine if it were not a question of our national interest rather than an individual researcher or institution. The fact is that the doubling of the NIH budget was a sensational success. We currently have therapies in the pipeline as a result, new powerful tools opening vistas never seen before and a pipeline of new knowledge ripe for further investigation. Whole fields of inquiry have been transformed in the past ten years as a result. So it is a national decision of priority as to whether we take advantage of the opportunity and continue the traditional investment that has always led the world in discovery. Or, we can clog the system with excellent proposals that may get funded down the road, discourage the next generation of brilliant minds, and stagnate the speed of discovery. I suggest we should not as a nation squander the pay-off from this investment and we should begin to invest reasonably but consistently. A 6.7 percent per year increase for three years would get us back to where we would have been with only inflationary increases these past 4 years. That is a good place to start.

Christopher Lee: Seems like as good a note as any to end on. Thanks to everyone for writing in. I hope it was less painful than my chemistry lab experience in college -- four hours, no product.

We'll try to keep tabs on the NIH budget fight and will update the story as next year's budget gets worked out in Congress.

_______________________

Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions. washingtonpost.com is not responsible for any content posted by third parties.