There has been much wailing and gnashing of teeth discussion on the blogosphere of late regarding the dismal success rates with getting funding and the recent reorganizations at NSF's BIO directorate. Check out Joan Strassmann's thoughts on preproposals at the IOS and DEB divisions and the resulting comments, and Prof-like Substance's thoughts on potential changes at the NSF. Lots of good fodder for discussion at both places.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and repeat something I said over at the now long-silent NSF is Broken forum:

The NSF is not broken.

At least it wasn't prior to the BIO reorganizations.

In my experience as an NSF grantee, proposal reviewer and review panel member the system worked. Good science was funded. Sure, some, maybe even a lot of good science wasn't. Peer review ain't perfect. And there's never been enough money at the NSF to fund all the science that deserved it, but neither of those things are symptoms of a broken NSF.

The two most common themes that come out of discussions regarding whether or not the NSF is broken and how to fix it focus on just those two issues - the peer review system as implemented by the NSF and the horrendous funding rates we are now experiencing.

A major reason cited for the reorganization of the BIO directorate is the difficulty PO's are having finding people to review proposals. As funding rates have gone down at both NSF and NIH the number of proposals appears to have gone up. I tend to believe it, although I haven't seen any real data supporting the assertion. That puts a lot of strain on reviewers and review panels. Hence the BIO response of cutting back on the number of deadlines, limiting the number of proposals you can be PI or Co-PI on, and in the case of IOS and DEB, instituting preproposals. But that's a case of treating the symptoms, not the root causes.

According to PO's I've spoken with, it's become increasingly difficult to find people willing to review proposals and sit on panels. People are just saying no. Does that not mean we as a community are at fault here? It's our responsibility to step up and review. Whether it be grant proposals or manuscripts. You expect people to review your work, shouldn't you be reviewing the work of others? Of course we're all doing more than our fair share, but we all know people who aren't, don't we? I don't really know what the answer to this is, but the changes at the NSF seem to be mere bandaids.

Of course the big issue is the lack of money at the NSF. They just don't have enough to fund everything that should be funded. As I noted above, they never have, but in recent times it's gotten worse. And as NIH funding rates have plummeted, PI's previously funded by them are trying their luck at both agencies. As they probably should. Funding for Federal agencies is set by Congress of course, not by we scientists. But we should be trying to influence Congress, shouldn't we? Should have been all along, right? But let's face it, we as a community have pretty much sucked when it comes to lobbying for more money for science. It's all too easy to leave that up to others, our professional societies etc. Surely we should be concentrating on doing the science and let others worry about finding the money? Ummm, no. That's not how the world works.

Maybe it's our community that needs some repairs...

Of late I've been thinking, once again, about the value of providing research experiences to undergraduates. Or anyone for that matter. My recent thoughts were catalyzed by a conversation I recently had with a non-scientist. This person had just read a newspaper article reporting on a recent study that found some kind of link between carbohydrate intake and breast cancer. I haven't read the study, or even the newspaper article. Indeed, the details of the study are unimportant as fas as this post is concerned. What is important is the statement the non-scientist made concerning the article. They said they don't believe any of these kinds of studies because there are far too many things going on and it would be impossible to pinpoint one factor that might be involved in a particular human condition. Or words to that effect.

It certainly is true that scientific research can be very, very complex. At times mind-bogglingly so. But research scientists are trained to deal with exactly that. And someone who has had some research experience, even if just a few weeks over a summer, will know that. Even if they don't know exactly how a study into possible links between carbohydrates and breast cancer would be done.* Should one believe every newspaper report on a scientific study? Of course not. Neither should one believe everything published in the primary literature. But one should not dismiss something out of hand simply because you don't know how it's done.

A research experience is scientific literacy.

__________
* I don't. It's rather far removed from what I do.

The good guys often wore white hats. And always did the right thing.

The bad guys wore black hats. And/or were ugly. Or monsters. And were bad.

Then I grew up and the distinction between good guy and bad guy became... fuzzy.

In my daily life who is the "good guy" and who the "bad guy" is often subjective. It all depends upon who, if anyone, "loses" in each situation. Truth is, we all have to wear white or black hats depending on the circumstances.

This week I had to wear the black hat more than I would have liked. But it was necessary. There are people here who currently view me as the bad guy. That may, or may not, change as time passes.

I find being the bad guy hard. It's draining.

I hate being the bad guy.

I have noticed that my professional life has been changing a lot over the past couple of years. It used to be I could spend days at a time not having to deal with anything other than my research. And the occasional bout of teaching. Now I find my time more fragmented. I'm attending more meetings. Running more meetings. Spending more time dealing with people outside my own lab group. Worrying about, and tending to, facilities that in the past were always just there for me to use. Learning to understand, and use, adminspeak*. I guess that's what happens when you get sucked in a minor leadership vacuum.

I do miss having longer, uninterrupted periods of time to devote to my research and lab**, but I can't say I dislike this "new norm".

Career advancement. It happens.

___________
* Now that does get a little scary. Especially when you not only understand, but begin to use words like "incentivize".
** I'm not sure my lab peeps are too upset about me not being able to bug them as much.

First up DM opines and asks:

you are certainly recommending a strategy that will enrage the Rock Talk commentariat. selfishness for the good of the herd? hmmm...

very provocative. how do we know where we draw the line of self-servedness?

First up, I have no doubt that there are may who comment over at the NIH's Rock Talk blog who would vehemently disagree with my strategy.

If you have a R01 (or equivalent) grant, you don't need another, you selfish bastard!

Actually, yes, yes you do. Having just one puts you in a very precarious position. You're screwed if you can't renew it in a reasonable amount of time. Kind of like, oh I don't know... Some of the commentariat at Rock Talk?

And let's be honest here. How many people, given the opportunity to land a second major grant, are going to turn it down? Including the Rock Talk commentariat?

Secondly, where do we draw the line? That's a tough one. More than one major grant, but less than what? That's going to be very field dependent. If you do a lot of animal model work, more than two may be necessary just to be able to support the colonies and personnel necessary to make decent progress. In my own work, which doesn't involve animals, two is probably sufficient. But maybe not...

In response to my comment that collaborators should be included as Co-I's on grants (and you as collaborator on theirs), DM pointed out:

Getting extra $$$ as a mere Investigator on another person's grant is a good gig...but as the knives come out for capping total direct costs or # of awards, it will *discourage* collaboration in this way. Who wants to have their own lab limited by the total grant award amount when half the budget is going to someone else?

To which I responded that yes, should total direct costs and/or number of awards be capped, then this would be an issue. But then the game has changed, hasn't it? At that point the knives really will be out and it will be every PI for themselves. Let's hope we don't go there because, as I replied:

It doesn't take much imagination to realize that those kind of changes will really screw science - only the BSD's will be able to do the kind of science that is currently done by small town grocer labs (like mine) via collaboration. More people will have money, but not enough for many of them to really do anything other than science that is very limited in scope.

Food for thought.

So, how can we survive the likely academic research cull?

The answer is we can't. At least not everyone. But there are things I'll be doing to try and optimize the chances of my survival.

Maybe you should too.

1) Work to prevent the cull in the first place.

Okay, maybe a better way to put it is work to block what is already a cull in progress...

The only way to prevent a massive cull is for there to be a massive influx of money into the budgets of the funding agencies (NIH, NSF, DOE, USDA etc.). Given the current economic climate that seems rather... unlikely. Nonetheless, the argument can be made that a healthy (i.e. higher) level of research funding will help pull the economy out of the toilet and help prevent it from going that way in the future. Call and write your congress-critters and advocate for more funding. DrugMonkey has been a consistent advocate of this for as long as I've been reading his blog. I've tried to be consistent about doing this, and will redouble my efforts. Despite my particular congress-critters being more likely to close down the NIH in favor of a National Institute for Faith Healing...

2) Get/keep your lab funded.

Okay, that's a given. This is really the key - it's hard to survive without a research program. This is what you obviously have to put the most effort into. And effort it will take. I can't tell you exactly how to do this beyond read, think, read, plan, read, do experiments, read, think, read, publish, read, write proposals, read, have your proposals critiqued, read, think, read, rewrite proposals, read, think, read, submit, lather, rinse repeat. And read.

Already funded? Good for you. Now try and get some more. This might sound selfish - every extra grant you have is one someone else doesn't have. And maybe that person is about to be dragged down by the pack of jackals circling the herd... Sorry, this is about survival here. It's time to be selfish. Your career comes first.* You can't do anything for others in the herd if you're one of the ones on the trailing edge, in danger of falling behind and being taken out by the jackals. And they be mighty hungry jackals...

Well, there is self-sacrifice. That would free up funding for someone else. But you're not going to do that are you? You've worked too hard to get where you are now.

3) Make yourself invaluable.

And help others while you're at it.

You have skills and knowledge. Mad skills and knowledge that others don't have. Others have skills and knowledge you don't have. See where I'm going with this?

Much of science has gotten to be too big to be done by individual labs. We all have collaborations. We all could have more. Get yourself on your collaborators grants, and them on yours (if you haven't already). As Co-I's. With money. There be strength in numbers.

Think about multi-PI grants. There are people out there who have nothing but multi-PI grants.** I don't personally advocate that approach - I'm old school enough to think you should have a research program all of your own - but I suspect we'll be seeing a lot more of this. Multi-PI grants let you think about tackling those interesting problems you've always wanted to go after but don't have sufficient expertise to be lone PI on. Again, strength in numbers.

You already knew all the above, didn't you? What did you expect? I'm no miracle worker.

Finally, if you have tenure and lose your funding, keep your dignity by making yourself useful around the department and university. Pick up some extra teaching and admin work. Help the young ones succeed. No one respects tenured dead wood.

Actually, we all pretty much despise dead wood and would like nothing more than to make a nice cozy bonfire out of them...

________
* Actually my career comes first. Then yours.
** Yes there are. I know one.

There are many, many comments over at RockTalk on that post. Many offer possible solutions. Many others appear to consist of primarily whining about the system.* While addressing a comment the inimitable DrugMonkey offered up the following nugget:

Your colleague’s situation is indeed sad….but every indication is that this is the intentional outcome from the NIH perspective. They need to shrink the pool of applicant PIs.

They need to shrink the pool of applicant PIs.

i.e. Funding levels are very, very low and likely to stay that way for quite some time.

Or get worse.

The NIH simply cannot afford to support the academic biomedical research enterprise at the same level to which we've all become accustomed. The result, whether a deliberate move by the NIH or not, is going to be quite a few labs going under.** We will see a reduction in the number of PI's working in the biomedical sciences. It's already beginning to happen.

I find this very scary, but I fully intend to survive. How about you?

______
* Whining won't change the system and won't keep you funded.
** Obviously for the individuals in those labs this is a very bad thing. Most likely for the science as well.

First, what I mean by "research idea". For this post I mean some question or problem of interest that can be formulated as a research plan and submitted to a grant-making agency. Obviously different people with have their own permutations on this, but let's stick to that definition for this particular post.

I don't know how others do it, but can describe how it works for me. I suspect others operate in similar manners.

Basically the process of generating research ideas is organic. It all comes down to reading, listening, and asking lots and lot of questions. Lather, rinse, repeat. Ad nauseum.

The reading part should be obvious. All researchers should be constantly reading the literature. And hopefully more than just what is being published in their own particular sub-sub-sub-fields. Don't feel like you have time to read all the literature you "should" be reading? Make time. Set aside time just for reading. Even if you have ample funding and aren't looking to submit a new proposal anytime soon.* Read. Then read some more. Think about what important questions are currently unanswered. How would you go about answering them?

Go to meetings. Seminars/talks on your campus. And nearby campuses if you can. Listen to what the speakers are saying. Talk to them afterwards. And ask lots of questions. Talk to colleagues in your department about science. Go to journal clubs. Ask lots of questions. Present at journal clubs. Volunteer to read and critique colleague's grant proposals. Ask lots of questions. I'm not saying steal other people's ideas. That's an absolute no-no. Don't even think about it. What I find though, is that the more I immerse myself in a diverse range of science, the more ideas I have about my own. Gotta get that brain ticking over. I often have ideas regarding my own research while listening to presentations that have nothing to do with my own sub-sub-sub-field.

Ideas for new research questions/proposals just seem to grow out of the above.

And if you do all that and still can't seem to come up with an original idea of your own, maybe, just maybe, you should rethink your career aspirations...

One last thing about coming up with ideas for research. Don't limit yourself.

Don't dismiss ideas/directions because you feel you don't have quite the right set of methodologies. Collaborators can make up for those kinds of deficiencies. Or you could even pick up new techniques. I do constantly. Or more correctly, my lab personnel do. If your lab is limited to a particular set of techniques and is not constantly evolving, you're screwed.**

Don't limit yourself to doing what you've done in the past. Sure, there's a big advantage, for example, starting a TT position with a research project that leads directly out of your postdoc training. You can be up and running far more quickly than if you're trying to get something going from scratch. And generally it's easier to get funding for working on something that you have a track record in. But just doing more of the same ad infinitum is boring, bad for your research program and bad for science.

Be adventurous and keep your research evolving.

_____________
* Even if you think you have "ample" funding, you should still be looking to submit new proposals on a regular basis. Complacency will kill your research program. Trust me - I almost let that happen and it's very, very hard to dig yourself out of that hole.

** Obviously one can have a main technique/approach in which you are an expert etc., but that shouldn't be all you can do. And you should be prepared to tackle projects that don't require that technique if that's where the research is leading.

This is the last of the fairy series. Sorry - there just aren't that many usable pictures of men in fairy costumes out there. Unless I turn off Google Image Search filtering...

We. Don't. Want. To. Go. There.

Now go give to The Stolen Cells of Henrietta Lacks! project at Donors Choose. Let's git r dun!

[Update] The Henrietta Lacks project is now fully funded! w00t!!!!!!!! Now let's do another. There's a class in a high poverty area in NY that needs basic supplies. Really basic. Like paper. They need $368 to be fully funded. Do it!

As of this moment, we need about $300 to fully fund this very, very cool project. Why is it so cool? Firstly Ms. Mucha's students will learn some science. Secondly, they will be learning some local history (the Lacks live in Baltimore!). Lastly, they'll read. That's a trifecta of win!

So give!

As a bonus - the Donors Choose Board of Directors is matching all donations made today through tomorrow, so you'll get to help even more kids!

Do eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeettttttttttttt!!!!!!!!!!!!!