Okay... so maybe that doesn't sound that astounding. However, consider that when submitting a grant, the principal investigator on that grant pledges to spend 20% of his or her time working on the proposed project. Now consider those 200 investigators with 6 or more (up to 32!) grants... that means that 200 investigators are pledging away at least 120% of their time.
Now, in some of these cases the grant recipient in question was actually the head of symposia or received monies as part of a center grant, etc. However, there are other cases in which a single investigator received multiple grants. These investigators are either not living up to their pledge or they are explaining away the hours they spend.
Says Hand:
Other researchers seem to run 'labs-on-steroids', earning multiple grants through the sheer volume and quality of their work[...]. They argue that if they're willing to work longer and harder — and still produce top research — then so be it. “Different people can achieve different things in 20% of their time. You should always reward the best science,” says David Rawlings, the 51-year-old director of the Research Center for Immunity and Immunotherapies at the University of Washington in Seattle. He was supported last year by nine NIH grants worth $3 million.
The inequity in the distribution of wealth should be considered when thinking about how to progress from the current climate in which it is very difficult - especially for young investigators - to obtain funding for their research. Federally funded science is at risk of going the way of Hollywood and politics; i.e. the well-funded, establishment types keep doing the same things over and over again, while those with truly innovative ideas are left to find alternate means of funding their work.
The critical quote from the article:
The agency [NIH] now funds significantly more people over the age of 70 than under the age of 30.Think about what this does for the future of biomedical research...
(Hand, Nature 2008)
No comments:
Post a Comment