Wastage of money, time, and effort is a very general practical problem for scientific researchers. Wasted money in modern academic science is widely known to scientists (see “Wastage of Research Grant Money in Modern University Science” ). In this age with hyper-competition to acquire research grants and the issuance of some grant awards which support only part of a proposed project, reducing wastage has a much increased importance.
In my experience, little attention by academic employers of faculty scientists is paid to this issue. Several nominally anti-wastage forces are built into the system supporting science investigations at modern academic institutions, but those do not act to really decrease wastage of research grant funds by professional scientists; in fact, they often have the opposite effect! This dispatch takes a look at several causes currently contributing to wastage of research grant money and of the time faculty scientists are forced to spend doing secretarial work.
Why is ‘unused research grant money’ not returnable to the granting agency, or able to be banked for future research expenditures?
Every faculty scientist knows about the unstated rule that all dollars in awarded research grants must be spent before the end of the grant period. Returning unused funds to the granting agency is frowned upon; for faculty scientists who are unusually thrifty, that rule actually encourages making unnecessary expenditures and promotes wastage of research grant money.
It also is forbidden to save any awarded research grant funds for use with research expenses after the funding period has ended, unless official approval is sought and granted for an extension of the grant period. Such approvals are frequently given, but they have a strict time limit to complete all the subsequent expenditures. The federal granting agencies would consider proposals to permit banking of unused grant funds to be outside their mandate, since those later experiments would not have been reviewed and approved, plus they might even be in a very different area of science.
Research grants are officially awarded to the employer of faculty scientists, and only nominally to the individual researchers. Academic employers (i.e., universities, medical schools, research institutes, large hospitals, etc.) all strongly support the policy of not being able to bank any unused research grant funds, because they are very eager to obtain their own grant-supplied dollars which pay for the indirect costs of funded projects; those dollars also serve to increase their business profit (see “Research Grants: What is Going On with the Indirect Costs of Doing Research?” .
Faculty scientists can try to get around these directives by using some research grant money during their final year of support to purchase extra supplies that can be utilized after the research grant has expired. Of course, even if many cases of essential research supplies are purchased (i.e., yes, I do know that this actually happens!), this strategy can work only for some limited period of time.
What are the consequences of these restrictive policies?
These restrictions encourage spending the entirety of awarded research grant funds, and totally ignore the lesson learned from everyday life that it is good to save money for later use. In other words, there is no encouragement to be thrifty. Instead, faculty scientists are directly encouraged to spend their research grant money as if there is no tomorrow. When all funds awarded for a given year are spent (i.e., during a multi-year grant period), many then go ahead to start spending funds awarded for the next year of support. This perverse mentality for ongoing wastage explains much of the endless wailing that “we need more money for our research!”
What would result from encouraging thrift and permitting unused grant funds to be saved for future use or returned to the granting agency?
If there were no pressures to spend every dollar before a grant period ends, then the grant funds left unspent by thrifty scientists could be used either for their future research experiments or returned to the granting agency. New rules would ensure that the saved funds were spent only for valid research costs and not for non-research expenses. One good use of such banked funds would be for the purchase of supplies and materials needed to conduct experiments in pilot projects being developed for new research grant applications. Alternatively, if unused research grant funds were returned to the granting agency, then those dollars could very usefully be utilized to reduce the number of grant awards for only partial support.
Why must so much time be wasted on typing by today’s faculty scientists?
Most academic institutions now provide either very limited or no secretarial assistance to their faculty scientists needing to submit applications for research grants, handouts of teaching materials, manuscripts for research publications, various required reports, etc. The Chairs and Deans all have at least one secretarial assistant, presumably because their written output is so important. When science faculty complain about that, academic officials typically assert that they cannot afford to pay for any more secretaries; the faculty are urged to include some salary for a typist on their next application for renewal of their research grant(s). This situation means that science faculty must do all their typing and word processing by themselves, or else their grants and research will stop.
Although trained for years to conduct research, many days, weeks, and months now are spent by professional faculty scientists doing secretarial work. It is not an exaggeration to state that typing often now becomes the major activity for many faculty scientists; this necessity prevents them from spending that time working on research experiments in their lab. The scientists enmeshed in this situation should ask themselves a savage question, “Did I got my Ph.D. just to be a typist?”!
If wastage of research grant funds by faculty scientists could be reduced, then more money would be available to fund research studies. If unused research grant money could be banked by thrifty scientists, then more pilot projects would be conducted after a grant period ends. If the time and previous research training now being wasted by faculty scientists working on word processing could be decreased, then more research results would be collected. Additional attention by federal granting agencies and academic employers is needed to stop encouraging wastage of research grant funds and of hands-on research time by faculty scientists.
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Everyone knows that science and research now are active in almost every country all over the world. Many graduate students in science, and very many doctoral scientists employed to conduct research here, were born in foreign countries; thus, science and research in the U.S. have a distinctively global character. These facts commonly lead to a false assumption that scientific research is proceeding and progressing nicely everywhere. Actually, history shows different examples where events completely outside science can disrupt the practice and progress of research!
This dispatch considers the present situation for professional scientists and science students in Venezuela. I bring this up because many academic scientists in the U.S. and other Western countries complain loudly about the recurring shortage of money for support of their research, but fail to see that faculty scientists at certain foreign universities now must struggle just to get enough food to eat; that situation completely overwhelms all the many ‘normal problems’ in today’s academic research!
Brief background about Venezuela!
Venezuela is an independent constitutional republic of some 31 million people located on the Northern edge of the South American continent. It is nominally a rich country due to its very large deposits of oil and other natural resources; despite the recent political conflicts, some gasoline produced from Venezuelan oil is widely sold here in the U.S. Venezuela has several universities and big hospitals in its largest city, Caracas. Its current national leader, Nicholás Maduro, is a socialist who has responded to increasing economic difficulties (hyperinflation) and popular disapproval of current government policies by imposing dictatorial rule, capital controls, and political repression.
A university scientist describes how the current turmoil in Venezuela affects research and teaching in its universities!
Faculty scientists in the U.S. often remain blissfully unaware that their own career misgivings are minuscule compared to scientists in certain other countries that are seized with such a great turmoil that daily life descends into a struggle only to eat and survive. Venezuela now is the prime example of such an unfortunate situation.
Prof. Benjamin Scharifker courageously has just authored a dramatic description of current university science in Venezuela, “Science struggles on in my ravaged country”, published within the May 11, 2017, issue of Nature (volume 545, page 135). He is an Emeritus Professor continuing to conduct research at the Simón Bolívar University, and also serving as a Rector at the private Metropolitan University; both institutions are located in Caracas.
He describes the present difficult situation in graphic detail and with heartfelt anguish. A sampling of quotations from his published report includes: “concomitant shortages of food and medicine”, “annual inflation rate in excess of 500%”, “A full professor makes much less than US$100 a month”, “we did not have running water in the laboratory”, “the brain drain in Venezuela is staggering”, and, “How do we cope? We don’t; we just try to survive.” Most reading his story have never personally encountered the extreme situation described by Dr. Scharifker, and probably cannot readily believe or even imagine that any faculty scientists and science students could be facing this in 2017!
The large crisis in Venezuela soon probably will advance to cause the shutdown of universities and all their activities for teaching, scientific research, and other scholarly pursuits, despite the determination of students and faculty to carry on no matter what happens. Nevertheless, a large number of university faculty and graduate students already have left Venezuela in order to be able to continue conducting their research and education; this brain drain is very sad, since I know that Venezuela previously has produced some renowned research scientists! Prof. Scharifker comments that he hopes there will not be further bloodshed of university students in their public demonstrations and protests!
What are the main messages for scientists in the West?
This situation in Venezuela is gory! Let us hope that it does not spread to any other countries! Many of us who sincerely complain about the decayed and degenerated current condition of scientific research at our universities, must recognize that our own troubled situation is drastically better than what our fellow scientists and students in Venezuela must face every day!
Science never exists in a vacuum, but always takes place within some social and political context. Scientific research can be corrupted either internally (e.g., by scientists and science companies with dishonesty or greed) or externally (e.g., by economics, politics, or society). Scientists everywhere should simultaneously be citizens, and so must take part in national and local disputes, governmental issues, and politics; just because we are always busy with researching and teaching is no reason to avoid participating personally in these areas.
In turn, science and research interact with the external milieu to produce some changes that help everyone (e.g., advanced technology, better education, improved public health and safety, innovative new concepts, new medical and dental therapies, the internet, etc.). Thus, science and society usefully interact with each other!
From my viewpoint, I believe the following conclusions are warranted. (1) Scientists are privileged people who should actively accept their simultaneous role as citizens in their country! (2) Complainers about not enough money for research, or counterproductive policies in modern academia, must recognize that everything could get very much worse! (3) Let us give our fellow faculty scientists and science students in Venezuela our hopes for their better future!
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Manuscripts submitted for publication in science journals, and applications for research grant funding of proposed investigations, both must be critically evaluated to determine acceptance or rejection. For science, these examinations are termed ‘peer review’ because they utilize the opinions of other scientists having expertise and experience in the research topic involved. Peer review aims to objectively judge quality and merit. A very informative history of peer review in science, “In Referees We Trust?”, was recently published by Melinda Baldwin in the February issue of Physics Today .
Although most scientists accept the usefulness of the peer review process, several operational issues can compromise it (e.g., conflicts of interest). Today’s essay examines some current problems in peer review that are encouraged by the corruption within modern scientific research (see: “More Hidden Dishonesty in Science is Uncovered!”). I am talking here about deceitful lies and outright cheating!
What stimulates corruption in modern science?
Job pressures in both academia and commercial industry negatively impact scientists working on research. At universities, strong pressures to obtain important results more quickly, produce more research publications, and acquire more research grants, all can cause unethical behavior in attempts to find an easier way to satisfy these demands. At industrial companies, evaluations of a new commercial product can be compromised by pressures to only acquire data supporting its merits and to ignore any data denying its desired qualities. At both locations, corruption results in some expert scientists not being rigorously honest and making false judgments during peer review.
Intense job pressures at modern universities largely are due to the conversion of academic science and scientists into business entities. That ongoing change means that: (1) money now is everything, (2) quantity is much more important than quality, and (3) the nature of scientific research is fundamentally altered (i.e., the chief goal is to get more money (from research grants), instead of getting more new knowledge; applied research is much more valued than is basic research). These conditions encourage judgments by peer reviewers to become distorted.
Since research scientists are only human, it always is hard to criticize a collaborator, personal friend, or teacher. Similarly, it is not so easy to avoid being more harsh when reviewing some research competitor. These common psychological inclinations are made much worse in academia by the vicious hyper-competition for research grant awards (see “All About Today’s Hyper-Competition for Research Grants” ). Getting and maintaining research grant awards now is a life-or-death matter for all faculty scientists. For industrial scientists, the concept of loyalty can become wrongly centered on the employer at the expense of dedication to the integrity of science.
Actual examples of distortions and inadequacies in peer review!
Some real faculty scientists I have known sought to have ‘friends’ in the peer review boards evaluating their research grant applications. Others worked to have ethnic counterparts supervise the peer review of their output. These successful tactics degrade the objectivity of peer review and make it only a game of strategy. Officials at federal granting agencies do try to keep peer review objective by requiring reviewers from the same institution as the author being evaluated to leave the room when that submission is being discussed; of course, input from any absent reviewer still can be given at other times and in other ways. Journal publishers use analogous rules to try to prevent favoritism by manuscript referees.
How frequently is peer review in science inadequate?
A distinguished former Editor-in-Chief of the very prominent New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, stated in 2009 that “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published” . Dr. Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief of the prestigious clinical journal, The Lancet, stated in 2015 that “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue” . These dramatic quotes are strong evidence that the process for peer review is defective, the objectivity of scientists as peer reviewers is decayed, and examples are shockingly frequent!
Why are ethical aberrations in peer review tolerated by professional scientists?
Working scientists usually view this problematic situation as being part of the current degeneration in modern science. Few scientists try to change anything; it much easier to just keep quiet. Nevertheless, some exceptional ‘whistleblowers’ like Dr. Peter Wilmshurst have the personal strength to expose ethical wrongdoing in science (see: “Whistleblowers in Science are Necessary to Keep Research and Science-based Industries Honest!”). Wilmshurst describes many examples of outright corruption, including amazing cases where known miscreants and liars continued to publish research reports or head an ethics board for many more years [4,5]. Lawsuits for misconduct in research today are frequently reported in the media (e.g., see: “Whistleblower Sues Duke University for Acquiring Research Grants via Falsified Research Publications!”). Admittedly, dishonesty in academia and industry often is covered up by insincere investigations.
What can be done to make peer review more meaningful?
Several factors need to be changed in order to remedy inadequate peer reviewing and the growing corruption in science: (1) graduate school education of scientists must strongly emphasize the necessity for total honesty by all scientific researchers, (2) evidence for cheating and dishonesty must be more vigorously sought and investigated, (3) the penalties for research misconduct must be made much harsher, (4) nondestructive alternatives to the current hyper-competition for research grant funding must be developed, and, (5) the process of peer review must be separated from the distorting influences of career progression, money, and unethical trickery. Whether making these changes are actually possible, and whether they will have the desired beneficial effects for science, remain to be seen. Changing the status quo always is extremely difficult!
Some attempts are underway to make science and peer review be better. Recent establishment of very large philanthropic support for scientific research liberates some small number of lucky scientists from the perverting influence of the research grant system (e.g., see: “Getting Rid of Research Grants: How Paul G. Allen is Doing It!”); of course, that approach cannot extend to the multitude of other scientists. Some new journals avoid the traditional practices for peer review (e.g., openly publishing everything, removing the secrecy of appointed reviewers, having direct discussions between authors/applicants and their reviewers, etc., [1,6]). A critical discussion of corruption in science journals by Piotr Sorokowski and colleagues is published in the March 22 issue of Nature (see: “Predatory Journals Recruit Fake Editor”) ; this convincingly reveals that peer review of manuscripts often is only a fraudulent sham.
Do you wonder how inadequacies in peer review matter to you personally?
Research corruption can immediately hurt innocent people and later cause other researchers to waste time and money when they base new experiments upon false data published in journals. You yourself might become totally convinced about the inadequacies in peer review when some honest physician gives you an approved new medication that is based on published research falsely showing almost no dangerous side effects. Peer review has considerable practical importance to you and to everyone else!
I must emphasize that many research scientists do not surrender to the common job pressures and do sincerely try to participate in peer reviewing with unemotional evaluations of merit. Any distortions of ethical standards by scientists subvert the true aim of science. Much greater effort to avoid all dishonesty in modern science should also help prevent the impending death of scientific research at universities (see: “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?”).
 Baldwin, M., 2017. In Referees We Trust? Physics Today 70:44-49. (Available on the internet at: http://physicstoday.scitation.org/doi/10.1063/PT.3.3463 ).
 Angell, M., 2009. Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption. The New York Review of Books, January 15, 2009 issue. (Available on the internet at: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2009/01/15/drug-companies-doctorsa-story-of-corruption/ ).
 Horton, R., 2015. Offline: What is Medicine’s 5 Sigma? The Lancet, April 11, 2015. 385:1380. (Available on the internet at: http://thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(15)60696-1/fulltext ).
 Robbins, R.A., 2012. Profiles in Medical Courage: Peter Wilmshurst, the Physician Fugitive. Southwest Journal of Pulmonary and Critical Care, April 27, 2012/4:134-141. (Available on the internet at: http://www.swjpcc.com/general-medicine/2012/4/27/profiles-in-medical-courage-peter-wilmshurst-the-physician-f.html ).
 Smith, R., 2012. Richard Smith: A Successful and Cheerful Whistleblower. The BMJ (British Medical Journal) Blogs, October 10, 2012. (Available on the internet at: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2012/10/10/richard-smith-a-successful-and-cheerful-whistleblower/ ).
 Sorokowski, P.,Kulczycki, E., Sorokowska, A. & Pisanski, K., 2017. Predatory Journals Recruit Fake Editor. Nature 543:481-483. (Available on the internet at: http://www.nature.com/news/predatory-journals-recruit-fake-editor-1.21662 ).
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Chris Woolston reports that Nature’s latest survey of job satisfaction by professional researchers “uncovered widespread dismay about earnings, career options, and future prospects”, and found that 1/3 of the respondents are unhappy  (see “Salaries: Reality Check” )! Such a high level of job dissatisfaction by professionals is truly shocking!
Today, I am updating my dispatch from last year, “Job Problems for Scientists Get Bigger in 2016!”, because there is far too little effort by government officials, university administrators, leading research scientists, science societies, and the public to stop this very destructive situation!
What exactly are the biggest problems facing today’s research scientists?
The largest problems currently damaging research are: (1) money (i.e., government agencies for science do not have enough money to support research by the ever-increasing number of doctoral scientists), (2) modern universities regard science departments as business entities where money is everything, and making important discoveries is not the primary goal, (3) applied research is being emphasized to the detriment of basic research, and (4) corruption in research is increasing and threatens the integrity of science. This situation is much worse in academia than in industry (see “The Biggest Problems Killing University Science Still Prevail in 2016!” ).
Working research scientists begin to speak out!
Harsh opinions of the ongoing problems for science and research are held by many faculty scientists, research associates, postdocs, and graduate students around the world. Woolston’s figures reveal that 39% of all the different scientists responding would not recommend a research career !
“There is no future in a research career in Italy” is stated by a female Italian molecular biologist working in Naples ! A Ukranian postdoc working on physics in Australia does not recommend a science career to people who ask him ! A faculty geneticist in Germany states, “Many people who wanted to do research end up as salespeople at some company” !
Won’t more money for science solve these current problems?
The public gives money for research via paying their annual taxes (i.e., all money in U.S. research grants comes from the taxpayers!). Many people also donate money in response to repeated tearful cries for ‘more money to support more scientific research’. Unfortunately, history shows that increased research funding never solves these grave problems! More money is not the answer!
My view is that any giant new increase in research support only makes the current problems get even bigger (see “Huge Additional Money for Research Will be Bad for Universities and Their Science!” ). Effective maneuvers, such as reducing the number of new doctoral scientists produced every year, and emphasizing quality over quantity when evaluating scientists and their research, are overwhelmed by the ongoing commercialization of science at modern universities.
The large practical problems with money are directly caused by bad policies of universities and the federal science agencies. These causes and their effects are strongly interwoven, and combine into nothing less than a system problem! Providing more money or reforming one or two destructive conditions are not enough; instead, the entire system must be remodeled or replaced!
My answers to a few important ‘why questions’!
(1) Why do scientists work for years to earn a Ph.D., just to have so many job problems in academia? My best answer is that new doctorates in science increasingly are using their degree and research skills in jobs outside academia!
(2) Why is science at universities and medical schools now a business? The best answer is both simple and direct: because it provides big financial profits!
(3) Why don’t professional scientists complain and try to change the system for funding research? In the U.S., they are very afraid that any such activity would doom chances of getting their research grant(s) renewed!
(4) Why don’t members of Congress and the presidents of national science societies act to change the present system for funding research? Everything is very entrenched, and it always is extremely hard to change the status quo. As the traditional saying goes, ‘Do not rock the boat’!
Will career problems for faculty scientists become even bigger in 2017?
For FY2017, the proposed budget for all federal expenses increases by 4%, which is $4.2 trillion dollars [2,3]! Science and research will receive a small portion of that total [2,3].
In addition to funding for research projects, there are several special targeted research programs termed ‘initiatives’. Those include the ‘Precision Medicine Initiative’ prompted by the former President, and the ‘Cancer Moonshot’ urged by the former Vice-President [2-4]. For just these and several other initiatives, the U.S. could spend over $6.9 billion dollars in FY2017 ! The funding for initiatives is on top of the nicely increased governmental funding for regular research projects [2-5].
It is anticipated that the new budget of $8 billion for the National Science Foundation in FY2017 will permit thousands more new research grants to be awarded to faculty scientists . That sounds like a very substantial increase, but the rate for applications being funded will only increase from 22% to 23% ! Thus, the intense hyper-competition between all academic scientists to get research grants will hardly be lessened!
All the well-publicized debates and arrangements made by Congress for 2017 do not really concern science and research, but are only posturing and trade-offs of political favors [e.g., 5]. My conclusion is that the new large increases in funding for research will only make the big problems in science become even bigger, so 2017 will be much more distressing for scientists than was 2016!
Want to understand more about causes and effects?
If so, please examine some of my earlier articles! For money in academia, see: “Money Now is Everything in Scientific Research at Universities!”. For the vicious hyper-competition to get research grants, see “All About Today’s Hyper-Competition for Research Grants!” . For mechanics of the current research support system, see “Three Money Cycles Support Scientific Research!” . On the growing commercialization of science in universities, see “What is the Very Biggest Problem for Science Today?” . For corruption in research, see: “Whistleblowers in Science are Necessary to Keep Research and Science-based Industries Honest!” , and, “Why is it so Very Hard to Eliminate Fraud and Corruption in Scientists?”.
Several big and very difficult problems confront today’s research scientists, and are getting even worse in 2017! If the present downward course is not changed soon, the end result will be the death of science and research at universities (see: “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?” ). To rescue academic science, big changes must be made to the entire system for modern scientific research! The system is not able to resolve its own problems, so much more external help is needed.
 Woolston, C., 2016. “Salaries: Reality Check”. Nature 537:573-576. Available on the internet at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7621/full/nj7621-573a.html .
 Office of Management and Budget, 2016. “Fiscal Year 2017 Budget of the U.S. Government, Investing in Research and Development”. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. PDF pages 26-28. Available on the internet at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/BUDGET-2017-BUD/pdf/BUDGET-2017-BUD.pdf .
 J. Tucker and L. Koshgarian, 2016. “Fighting for a U.S. federal budget that would help all Americans” . Available on the internet at: https://www.nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2016/president-obamas-2017-budget/ .
 H. Ledford, S. Reardon, R. Monastersky, A. Witze, and J. Toliefson, 2016. “Obama makes risky bid to increase science spending“. Nature News (Feb. 10, 2016). Available on the internet at: http://www.nature.com/news/obama-makes-risky-bid-to-increase-science-spending-1.19316 .
 S. Karlin-Smith, B. Norman, and J.Haberkorn, 2016. “Biden’s farewell gift: Cancer moonshot helps pass $6.3 billion research bill”. POLITICO (December 7), Available on the internet at: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/joe-biden-cancer-moonshot-bill-232342 .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Postdocs need to recognize the key difference between science and business! (http://dr-monsrs.net)
Postdoctoral training is intended to provide new Ph.D.s in science with advanced research experience under the guidance of a successful senior scientist. This typically lasts from 1-5 years, and results in an independent researcher with several research publications as first author. In response to the current difficulties with finding a job as a faculty scientist in academia [e.g., 1], questions are arising about whether this advanced research training as a Postdoc is necessary. The intriguing possibility that the years of postdoctoral research training are not needed is nicely described by Erika Check Hayden with a new article in Nature, “Young Scientists Ditch Postdocs for Biotech Start-ups” . Today’s dispatch looks critically at the pros and cons of skipping postdoctoral training by starting a small business where the new Ph.D. is the owner and chief researcher.
Is postdoctoral training in research absolutely necessary to be a good scientist?
Postdoctoral training has been regarded for a long time as an essential prerequisite to hold a faculty position in academia. However, many doctoral scientists working in industry have been hired without postdoctoral training, and went on to produce good research results; this is made practical by the facts that: (1) new research staff in industry usually receive a special intensive training period upon starting their new job, and (2) industrial research often involves working within a small or large team of co-researchers. If one looks only at doctoral scientists working in universities, some science faculty also can be found who were hired having no postdoctoral training (e.g., in departments of anatomy or computer science). Thus, the answer to this question clearly is ‘no’!
Why is postdoctoral training still deemed so essential for faculty scientists?
Postdoctoral research training is required in academia because new Ph.D. scientists need several qualities not provided by their graduate school education: (1) full independence as a researcher, (2) experienced judgment for designing and evaluating research experiments, (3) wide practical knowledge and experience with conducting research projects, getting results published, obtaining research grants, presenting reports at science meetings, dealing with bureaucrats and the public, (4) in depth knowledge in a science specialty, so teaching can be done with confidence, and, (5) understanding the business aspects of being a faculty scientist. New Ph.D. scientists generally only have limited expertise with a few research methods and approaches; being a postdoc greatly expands their hands-on experience, expertise, and critical judgment.
How will this new arrangement operate, and what will it lead to?
New Ph.D. scientists now can found a small business where they are the owner, chief executive officer, and principal researcher . First and foremost, this new career pathway requires one very determined individual with total commitment to making this unconventional activity succeed. Support funds for early stage financing must be found, and are available from start-up organizations, venture capitalists, and biotech incubators . Those associates not only provide money to get a lab furnished and staffed, but also give valuable advice about handling business concerns; that is particularly important since new science Ph.D.s usually have zero experience about business and financing. Lab space is available for rent or at some university-based incubator facility. Research technicians, managers, accountants, lawyers, etc., all can be hired as needed, and as funding permits. Some individuals already are doing this, thereby avoiding the need to spend more years as a postdoc before starting independent research .
The original aims of this new career path are to skip the postdoctoral period, yet immediately start doing research, receiving a good paycheck, and being an active part of science. After early stage financing is obtained, continuation of research depends on success of the business (i.e., generating profits, persuading investors to buy stock of the new company, outdoing commercial competitors, and having good luck). Ideally, some large industrial company will buy the promising small business and then take care of all financial matters. Note that being successful at research is not enough; one must also be successful at business! Industrial research is different from academic research, and industry accepts that business must direct their research activities!
What problems will this new career path face?
Many non-science problems can arise in any small business, particularly with development of new commercial products, marketing and advertising, and increasing sales. I know of one young doctoral physicist who formed a small service business with several colleagues over 30 years ago; his venture collapsed when alternative methods developed that were less expensive. At some large industrial labs, there are quite a few graphic stories where company administrators suddenly cancelled an entire large research project for business reasons; if this arises within small research companies, then everything stops.
Thoughts about business and science!
Businesses exist to make financial profits. Scientific research exists to find new knowledge and to test the truth. These 2 are fundamentally different! Although science at universities conducts basic and applied research as part of its traditional mission, today academic research increasingly is just amother business entity where money is everything, and faculty scientists are hired to increase their academic employer’s profits by getting research grants. Hence, many faculty scientists researching in academic institutions already have merged their science with a business! The destructive problems in academic research will recur within new small research businesses!
A fusion of business with scientific research seems to me to be full of difficult problems. Success will not be easy! The new article by Hayden explicitly states, “Most young biotech firms fail” , but does not identify the causes. I feel that the chief cause is the inherent conflict between science and business. Ex-Postdocs can either seek the truth or they can seek money!
Some brief discussion!
In my opinion, deserting the postdoctoral experience altogether is not a good answer to solving current problems for postdocs. I suggest and urge young postdoctoral scientists who are dissatisfied or feel trapped to: (1) devote much more attention to seeking good science-related openings outside academia (see: “Postdocs in 2016 Need to be More Clever, Not More Angry!” ), (2) recognize the basic purposes of science and of business, and, (3) closely inspect what is displayed in the incredible photo in Hayden’s article , showing the courageous young and eager biotech scientist, Dr. Ethan Perlstein, standing alone inside his empty business “laboratory”!
Fusion of scientific research with a small business might work for certain new science Ph.D.s, but that is not a general possibility. The result could be exchanging one problem for others!
 Powell, K., October 26, 2016. Young, talented and fed-up: scientists tell their stories. Nature (Oct. 27) 538:446-448. Available on the internet at: http://www.nature.com/news/young-talented-and-fed-up-scientists-tell-their-stories-1.20872?WT.mc_id=SFB_NNEWS_1508_RHBox .
 Hayden, E.C., 2016. Young scientists ditch postdocs for biotech start-ups. Nature (News, Nov. 1, 2016) 539:14-15. Available on the internet at: http://www.nature.com/news/young-scientists-ditch-postdocs-for-biotech-start-ups-1.20912 .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
HUGE ADDITIONAL MONEY FOR RESEARCH WILL BE BAD FOR UNIVERSITIES AND THEIR SCIENCE!
Universities have a long tradition as being repositories of knowledge, and, centers for advanced education, scholarly studies, and scientific research. Modern universities in the U.S. have had vexing problems paying for their many programs and diverse activities, so tuition is raised year after year. Faculty in science departments and medical schools conduct studies financed by research grants issued from governmental science agencies. That external source of money now also pays for very many non-science operations and activities. The end result is that scientific research at universities has been converted into a business venture providing extensive profits for money-hungry universities.
What has this recent change done to faculty scientists, science departments, and science education at universities? My answer is that any giant increase in research grant funding will make many current problems for university science get worse! My last dispatch covered the bad effects of a huge increase in research funding upon faculty scientists and their research efforts (see: “Huge Additional Research Money Will Be Bad for Faculty Scientists and Their Investigations!” ) . Today’s essay presents my reasoning about its bad effects upon universities!
Background: What causes the perennial shortage of money for university research?
The direct causes of the shortage of money for research are known and were explicitly listed in the preceding article . The ultimate causes are the bad policies and destructive activities of: (1) modern universities, and (2) the federal science agencies. While these very large institutions have generated many research advances in basic and applied science, they also have created very difficult unsolved problems in university science (see: “The Biggest Problems Killing University Science Still Prevail in 2016!” ).
Foreground: How do these ultimate causes presently operate?
Money collected from taxpayers is awarded by the U.S. governmental science agencies as research grants to academic institutions (i.e., universities, medical schools, and research institutes). Faculty scientists at universities must win a research grant, or they are unable to conduct any research investigations. Every year, more and more doctoral scientists compete to acquire research grants; the intense struggle to win federal support for research is so enormous that it must be termed a hyper-competition (see: “All About Today’s Hyper-Competition for Research Grants!” ). This battle to get research grants means that most faculty scientists today spend more time working on grant applications than working on experiments in their lab.
Granting agencies of the U.S. national government have a certain pool of taxpayer dollars available to disperse every year for a large slate of administrative and regulatory activities, as well as for support of scientific research. Priorities and proposals for funding must be harshly evaluated. Many requests cannot be funded; the National Institutes of Health, which is the largest government agency providing grants for biomedical and hospital research, was able to fund only 18.3% of all applications for support of research projects in 2015 .
Three cyclic movements of money support scientific research and determine how modern U.S. universities organize faculty research and operate science departments (see: “Three Money Cycles Support Scientific Research!” ). These mechanisms cause substantial changes from academic traditions. In particular, they make research into strictly a business activity. Universities then regard their faculty scientists as busness employees whose main job is to produce profits for their employer by acquiring research grants. This changes the entire standard concept of what basic scientific research is for (i.e., generation of new knowledge and discovery of the truth), and, converts faculty scientists into businessmen and businesswomen.
How would adding big money for research grants affect science at universities?
Some good effects for university science include: (1) a greater number of faculty scientists will receive research grants and thus be able to perform research investigations, (2) more faculty grantees will receive full funding instead of only partial funding (i.e., partial funding necessarily always restrains what can be done), and, (3) additional universities would be able to participate in new ‘big science’ projects.
Many negative effects also can be recognized: (1) universities, their science departments, and faculty scientists now all are business entities; (2) the total income acquired in each year becomes the standard measure for quality of faculty scientists, science departments, and entire universities; (3) since research results now are increasingly for sale (see: “How Science Died on 9/11” by Kevin Ryan and Paul Craig Roberts ), there will be increased cheating at research and more frequent allegations of research misconduct by university faculty employees; (4) science departments will have many more involvements with companies and lawyers, and, will evolve to become either close partners or commercial competitors of businesses involving pharmaceutical products, engineering developments, and new technologies; (5) the number of science faculty holding an untenured soft-money appointment (i.e., their entire salary comes from their research grants) will increase since that change substantially decreases expenditures for hard-money salaries; (6) new buildings will be constructed to house shared research labs for all the new soft-money faculty; (7) teaching of science students in graduate schools will expand to include courses on running a business, business law, dealing with finances, and other subjects needed by doctoral scientists working in commerce and industry; and, (8) as a result of all these effects, many more students entering U.S. graduate schools to prepare for a career in science at universities will change their aim to working in industrial research.
The conversion of university science into a business solves financial problems for modern universities, but also creates some new and very destructive difficulties. In particular, shifting scientific research into a profit-seeking business causes degradation of university science and degeneration of faculty scientists.
The entire system for supporting scientific research at universities needs to be changed! If left untouched, today’s system problem in academic science is so grave that it even could result in the death of university research (see: “Could Science and Research Now Be Dying?” )! New ways to support research in academia are badly needed, and could stop the current decay, corruption, and waste of money and time in modern university science.
 Dr.M, 2016. “Huge Additional Research Money Will Be Bad for Faculty Scientists and Their Investigations!” Available on the internet at: http://dr-monsrs.net/2016/10/25/huge-additional-money-for-research-will-be-bad-for-faculty-scientists-and-their-investigations/.
 NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT), 2016. “Research Project Success Rates by NIH Institute for 2015” Available on the internet at: https://report.nih.gov/success_rates/Success_ByIC.cfm .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
There is never enough money for scientific research! (http://dr-monsrs.net)
Liberals, and even many normal people, feel that the serious problems facing science at modern universities in the U.S. can all be resolved by providing much more money for research studies. They claim that the total of $132,500,000,000 spent for research in 2014  still is not enough!! They imagine that dramatic discoveries then would produce cures for more diseases, develop robots to do everyone’s housework, lead to free electricity, etc., if only huge additional dollars would be given for research by university scientists!
I totally disagree! More money for university research is not the answer to these problems! Giant increases in research funding would only make the present problems for faculty scientists even worse! This essay briefly presents my reasoning about its bad effects upon faculty scientists and their research! The following dispatch will cover its bad effects upon U.S. universities!
Background: What causes the perennial shortage of money for university research?
The direct causes of the shortage of money for research are: (1) there now are too many scientists, (2) more new doctoral scientists are graduated every year, (3) more foreign scientists move here to work on research every year, (4) there is enormous wastage in research grants (see: “Wastage of Research Grant Money in Modern University Science” ), (5) many purchases used for research are duplicates and/or are not justified, (6) the research grant system has no provision for trying to save money (i.e., the working rule is to never have any grant funds left over), and (7) university science now is just a business where financial profits are everything. All that is really necessary to greatly increase the funding for research in universities is to decrease or stop these causes!
The ultimate causes are the misguided policies and destructive activities of: (1) modern universities, and, (2) the federal agencies awarding research grants. While both these very large institutions have been the basis for many research advances in basic and applied science, they also have created some very big problems for science at universities (see: “The Biggest Problems Killing University Science Still Prevail in 2016! “ ).
Foreground: How do these ultimate causes presently operate?
Money collected from taxpayers is awarded by the U.S. federal science agencies as research grants to academic institutions (i.e., universities, medical schools, and research institutes). Faculty scientists researching at these institutions operate as major providers of scientific research. Without winning a research grant, faculty scientists are unable to conduct any research investigations. Every year, more and more doctoral scientists are seeking to acquire research grants; the intense struggle to win federal funding for research is so enormous that it must be termed a hyper-competition (see: “All About Today’s Hyper-Competition for Research Grants!” ). This vicious battle to get research grants means that most faculty scientists today spend more time working on grant applications than working on experiments in their lab. The annual rise in the number of new applicants and seekers of multiple research grants makes hyper-competition get worse every year.
Granting agencies of the U.S. national government have a certain pool of taxpayer dollars available to disperse every year for a large slate of administrative and regulatory activities, as well as for support of scientific research. Priorities and proposals for money must be harshly evaluated, and not every request can be funded. The National Institutes of Health, which is the largest government agency providing grants for biomedical and hospital research, was able to fund only 18.3% of all applications for support of research projects in 2015 . The granting agencies thus have a strong influence and control over which research areas and which scientists get funded. Many academic scientists believe that basic research, where practical usage is not a goal, is disfavored, while applied research, which aims to develop or improve commercial products, is promoted.
How would adding lots more money affect science faculty and their research?
More money for scientificstudies at universities will have some good effects, but to completely solve the shortage of research support would require trillions of dollars! The chief improvements would be that a greater number of university faculty scientists will be able to do research investigations, and more will receive full funding instead of only partial funding (i.e., partial funding necessarily always restrains what can be done).
Many negative effects of adding a huge amount of dollars for the support of faculty research can be recognized: (1) there will be a large increase of foreign scientists seeking funding here, thereby causing the hyper-competition for research grants to become even worse; (2) the entire aim of scientists for making research discoveries and finding the truth will officially change to winning more dollars from research grant awards; (3) the identity of faculty scientists as businessmen and businesswomen dedicated to acquiring more profits for their employer will be solidified; (4) since research results now are increasingly for sale in the U.S. (see: “How Science Died on 9/11” ), increased pressure will build to cheat in order to hasten production of pseudo-discoveries and published research reports; (5) the number of science faculty with a soft-money appointment (i.e., their entire salary comes from their research grants) will be greatly increased in order to get larger financial profits for the universities; (6) science faculty will be seen only as transient employees and renters of lab space, meaning that many will relocate soon after receiving a new research grant award; and, (7) the whole nature of evaluating faculty scientists for the quality of their research activities will be transformed into counting the quantity of dollars acquired from research grants.
A very brief discussion!
Science at universities now is a money-hungry business! The nature of science, research, and scientists has been changing and will shift further with any huge increase in research funding!
Providing much more money for research will make the current bad problems for academic scientists get even worse! If left as they are, today’s problems in science are so grave that they even could result in the death of university research (see: “Could Science and Research Now Be Dying?” )!
There is no simple or easy solution to these big difficulties because all the causes combine into a system problem. Fixing only one or two parts of this system problem will not resolve anything! The entire system for supporting scientific research needs to be changed in order to stop both the current degradation of faculty scientists and the degeneration of science at universities!
 Sargent, J.F., for the Congressional Research Service, 2014. The U.S. Science an Research Workforce: Recent, Current, and Projected Employment, Wages, and Unemployment. Available on the internet at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf .
 NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT), 2016. “Research Project Success Rates by NIH Institute for 2015” Available on the internet at: https://report.nih.gov/success_rates/Success_ByIC.cfm .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
JOB PROBLEMS FOR SCIENTISTS GET BIGGER IN 2016: HELP!
The international science journal, Nature, has just released the results of its 2016 survey of job satisfaction by scientists and other professional research workers . The new survey results are skillfully reported by author, Chris Woolston (see“Salaries: Reality Check” ). This survey found that “nearly 2/3 of the 3,328 who responded to the question say that they are happy with their current job” ; that is good news, but the exact same figures also show that 1/3 of the respondents are unhappy! The author concludes that the new survey “uncovered widespread unhappiness about earnings, career options, and future prospects” ! Such a high level of job dissatisfaction is both amazing and worrisome!
My dispatch today discusses the shocking results of this 2016 survey. For background information, please see my earlier articles on “Why Are University Scientists Increasingly Upset With Their Job? Part I” , and, “Part II” .
Key features about the 2016 survey in Nature !
Every 2 years Nature surveys salaries and job satisfaction with its many worldwide readers. All in the survey are self-selected, meaning that those who are strongly disheartened or upset will be more likely to respond. The respondents work in diverse positions, including everything from agricultural research to engineering; research workers in academia range from Postdocs to Full Professors. The survey results are nicely broken down by age, geography, discipline in science, salary level, amount of job satisfaction or dissatisfaction, positive or negative effects of certain job conditions, and, biggest influence on career progression. Woolston’s report on this 2016 survey is eminently readable (see:http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7621/full/nj7621-573a.html )!
Notable results in this latest survey of researchers !
Money is the chief influence on scientists for creating positive or negative feelings about their job. It determines their salary, pay raises, position, ability to do research studies, security, and future prospects. Many report they are making financial sacrifices by pursuing a career in science . Almost half the responders say that “the main challenge they face is competition for funding” (of their research) . On the other hand, less than 20% of responders working in non-research positions listed competition for funding as a major problem; that probably is the chief reason they work in non-research jobs.
Geography has a major role in determining both salaries and job satisfaction for scientists, largely reflecting the status of the economy within different countries. At least 50% of responders in 8 nations believe job prospects now are worse than for previous generations; these include Brazil, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Soain, United Kingdom, and, United States . Only 2 countries are listed where around 70% see job prospects now as being better than for previous generations (i.e., China, India) ; it seems likely that several other nations are in this group, but did not have sufficient responders to be listed.
Significant job problems for scientists beyond the very frequently cited harsh competition for research support funds d(see: “All About Today’s Hyper-Competition for Research Grants” ) had only low levels of response, except for “lack of appropriate networks and connections” . Scientists holding non-research jobs selected “lack of appropriate networks and connections” and “unwillingness or inability to sacrifice personal time or time with family” as their biggest job problem .
Direct quotations by working research scientists !
Many quotations from individual scientists are notably included in Woolston’s report . These give a human side to the statistics reported, and some are very dramatic!
“There is no future in a research career in Italy” is stated by an Italian molecular biologist working in Naples . She sees many young Italian scientists now relocating to other countries where their career path will not be so very difficult as in Italy . Clearly, something must be extremely amiss to elicit this kind of explicit opinion! Some other countries in Europe also are facing large difficulties in supporting research due to the condition of their national economy.
A Ukranian postdoc working on physics in Australia does not recommend a science career to people who ask him . A faculty geneticist in Germany concurs and states, “Many people who wanted to do research end up as salespeople at some company” ! Most of the public is blissfully unaware of these strongly negative feelings by scientists.
Are there other big problems besides money for today’s research scientists?
Yes! Several other big problems are particularly destructive for scientists working in academia (see: “The Biggest Problems Killing University Science Still Prevail in 2016!” ). The increasing corruption in scientific research is not mentioned in the 2016 survey, but is painfully felt by faculty scientists. Management of time is a very general difficulty for almost all academic scientists.
The large practical problems with money are directly caused by the bad policies of universities and of national research granting agencies or programs. These causes and their effects are strongly interwoven, and combine into nothing less than a system problem! It will not be enough to provide more money or to reform one or 2 conditions; instead, the entire system must be remodeled or replaced!
Many people do not see the devastating effects caused by the entrenched problems in scientific research. Woolston’s report gives figures showing that 39% of all the different investigators responding would not recommend a research career ! If the present downward course continues, the end result will be the death of science and research at universities (see: “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?” ).
The 2016 survey of scientists by Nature indicates that today’s researcher is confronted by several difficult problems. These result in conducting research becoming more problematic and scientists leaving the lab. To rescue academic science from destruction, big changes must be made to the entire system for modern scientific research!
 Woolston, C., 2016. Salaries: Reality Check. Nature 537:573-576. Available on the internet at: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v537/n7621/full/nj7621-573a.html .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
WHISTLEBLOWER SUES DUKE UNIVERSITY FOR ACQUIRING RESEARCH GRANTS VIA FALSIFIED RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS!
It’s time to stop the need to cheat in academic research! (http://dr-monsrs.net)
Dishonesty in scientific research hurts everyone and seems to be increasing. Cheating and corruption are especially notable for research activities at universities and medical schools (see “Why Would Any Scientist Ever Cheat?” ). Most steps aiming to reduce research misconduct sadly are not very effective, due in part to the well-known tendency of universities to stonewall and deny any wrongdoing.
This article discusses how research fraud by a staff employee at the Duke University Medical Center now has expanded with a lawsuit filed by a whistleblower alleging that many millions of dollars of research grants from several federal agencies were acquired based on research results known to be falsified [1-4]. This new legal case is unusual and could force this prestigious university to return up to 3 times the awarded research support funds to the U.S. government [1-5].
Brief background about the U.S. False Claims Act  !
The False Claims Act (FCA) lets a U.S. citizen file suit on behalf of the federal government, to recover awarded funds that were fraudulently obtained. Previous use of the FCA against research fraud has been very limited. This new case at Duke not only will involve faculty and academic officials, but also invokes participation by the U.S. Department of Justice, officials at the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies, several institutions having research collaborations with Duke, and very specialized lawyers. A whistleblower winning an FCA lawsuit can obtain up to 30% of fraudulently acquired funds mandated to be returned to the government!
Nothing is simple in research misconduct, because others always are involved [1-4] !
To its credit, Duke University formally investigated the research staff employee, Erin Potts-Kant, suspected of producing fraudulent research results, and found that over a dozen research publications involving her with coauthors, including the Principal Investigator, Prof. William M. Foster (Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, at the Department of Medicine) were retracted or “corrected”; some published data was admitted to be unreliable.
The new FCA lawsuit recently has been filed (and unsealed) against this researcher, her supervisor, Duke University, and Duke University Health Systems by Joseph Thomas, formerly employed as a research coworker with Potts-Kant. He earlier had expressed his concerns about research integrity to officials at Duke. This FCA suit alleges that fraudulent published data was knowingly included in over 60 research grant applications, yielding awards totalling some $200,000,000. Trial for this FCA case currently is pending.
What does this FCA case mean for dishonesty and corruption in academic science?
I have previously described my view that dishonesty with scientific research in academia is largely an outcome of bad policies and activities by both (1) university science, which has been converted into a business where money is the goal (see“Money Now is Everything in Scientific Research at Universities” ), and (2) the current research grant system, where the destructive hyper-competition for research grant money now overrules all aspects of being an academic scientist and directly causes dishonesty (see “All About Today’s Hyper-Competition for Research Grants” ). Punishments for university faculty scientists getting caught with unethical research conduct have been notoriously weak or meaningless (see “Dishonesty in Scientific Research: Are the Punishments for Being Caught Sufficient to Deter More Cheating?” ); now they will become much tougher due to the new involvement of the FCA for cases alleging research fraud.
The new legal situation using the FCA can result in a university actually having to pay big dollars for not having adequate control of dishonesty in its science activities. The possibility that universities could face substantial financial penalties for research misconduct by any faculty cheaters and unethical employees now worries all private academic institutions; that’s good news! Dealing with this grave problem of cheating in research publications and grant applications finally is given some teeth!
Whistleblowers are very significant!
History shows that science cannot police itself. The False Claims Act provides a strong pathway for whistleblowers to make their case known for research misconduct observed at universities and medical schools. The new FCA case at Duke has the very positive effect of calling everyone’s attention to the important role of whistleblowers in reporting unethical science. Dr. Peter Wilmshurst, a courageous clinical faculty researcher who has successfully blown the whistle on several cases of shameful misconduct by faculty scientists and medical industries (see “Whistleblowers in Science are Necessary to Keep Research and Science-Based Industries Honest!” ), provides an inspiring model for having the guts to struggle with protecting honesty in clinical science. If the new FCA trial verifies the alleged misconduct at Duke and forces that large university to refund research grant funds awarded on the basis of falsified publications, then the vital role of whistleblowers in keeping academic science honest will be made more widely recognized.
The increasing incidence of research misconduct in academic science is one of the gravest problems facing modern university scientists. The pressures on science faculty from the hyper-competition for research grants are just enormous and causes some scientists to cheat. Unless this hyper-competition and the conversion of university science into just another business entity both are stopped, then academic science will continue dying (see “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?” , and“The Biggest Problems Killing University Science Still Prevail in 2016!” ). The extensive changes needed to accomplish that must involve the entire system for modern science!
 McCook, A., 2016 (September 2). Duke fraud case highlights financial risks for universities. Science 353:977-978. Available on the internet at: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/353/6303/977.full ).
 Staff Reports, 2016 (September 2). Former researcher sues Duke, alleges Uni used improper data to receive funding. The Duke Chronicle. Available on the internet at: http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/09/former-researcher-sues-duke-alleges-uni-used-improper-data-to-receive-funding .
 Patel, V., 2016 (September 7). Experts address research fabrication lawsuit against Duke, note litigation could be lengthy. The Duke Chronicle. Available on the internet at: http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/09/experts-address-research-fabrication-lawsuit-against-duke-note-litigation-could-be-protracted .
 Aquino, J.T., 2016 (September 9). Whistleblower suit claiming Duke faked data is warning signal. Bloomberg BNA. Available on the internet at: http://www.bna.com/whistleblower-suit-claiming-n73014447442/ .
 McCook, A., 2015 (March 18). So you want to be a whistleblower? A lawyer explains the process. Retraction Watch. Available on the internet at: http://retractionwatch.com/2015/03/18/so-you-want-to-be-a-whistleblower-a-lawyer-explains-the-process/ .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Most people are not at all concerned with science, so they presume that everything is just fine for scientific research at universities. This is utterly wrong! Just because science journals continue to publish myriad new articles by faculty scientists, and the government agencies spend billions of taxpayer dollars each year to support research studies, does not mean that all is well! In fact, many faculty scientists are very dissatisfied with their job (see: “Why are University Scientists Increasingly Upset with Their Job? Part I” )!
In this essay I briefly summarize the present status of the biggest problems causing me to conclude that university science is being so distorted and so diverted from its true aims that it is headed for collapse (see: “Could Scientific Research Now Be Dying?” ). My purpose in today’s article is to encourage awareness of this critical situation, stimulate forthright discussions and debate, and, emphasize that much more attention to this problem is badly needed.
A brief background!
There are 2 main causes for the decay and degeneration of scientific research at modern universities: (1) the academic institutions, and (2) the research grant system. Both of these are happy with the resulting consequences of their bad policies and actions.
Why do these bodies operate like that? All the many expenses of doing research must be paid by someone. For academic institutions, research grants are the usual source for funding their scientific studies. In recent times, that reality has expanded into the rule that getting and renewing research grants is the main job for members of the science faculty. Research grants provide a very welcome solution to the financial woes plaguing modern universities. The overwhelming importance of research grants has transformed universities into businesses where money is everything. Research accomplishments are only the means to increase financial profits at these businesses (i.e., getting more money is the true goal, and research is not directly valued).
The current research grant system is very happy to be awarding billions of dollars every year to support scientific research. By sponsoring all these research studies, the large federal agencies issuing research grants achieve: (1) approval from the both the public and scientists for supporting research, and, (2) acquisition of ever increasing power to control, influence, and regulate which investigations can be done and by whom. On the surface, everything with university science and the research grant system seems quite fine, but if one peers more deeply then hidden problems become apparent (see: “Science has been Murdered in the United States, as Proclaimed by Kevin Ryan and Paul Craig Roberts!” ).
How does the university money system work to cause such bad effects?
A previous dispatch examined details about how research grants are used in modern universities (see: “Three Money Cycles Support Scientific Research” ). Study that article and you will then comprehend how the causes and their effects lead to the degradation of university science.
Getting a research grant renewed involves winning a competition between all faculty scientists. Many applications from science faculty are not successful! The resulting struggle to win funding is so deep and so time-consuming that I term it a hyper-competition (see: “All About Today’s Hyper-Competition for Research Grants” ). I believe that the vicious effects of this hyper-competition bothers faculty researchers more than anything else in their job environment.
What happens to individual faculty scientists who are ‘temporarily between grants’ (i.e.,not funded!)? Lab space assignment soon is cancelled and graduate students must leave. Teaching assignments often are increased. All work time must be spent on trying either to get funded again, or to find a new employment in a science-related job. Professional reputation diminishes. Job satisfaction decreases, as anger, disappointment, and frustration all increase.
Many science faculty now must spend much more time working on research grant applications than they do with work in their lab! Obtaining a new grant or a renewal award means that a faculty scientist then can pay rent for their lab space, pay salaries for their graduate students and postdocs, buy needed research supplies, and, hope to get promoted and tenured. But, as long as the hyper-competition continues, it: (1) elicits dismay at the status of science, (2) encourages corruption and dishonesty, (3) generates immense pressure to worry about the future, and, (4) precludes trust and collegiality with faculty research collaborators, since everyone must compete with everyone else. This hyper-competition is getting worse in 2016.
Why is nothing done to resolve this big problem?
Both universities and the federal research grant system think the current status is just wonderful! Thus, neither wants to make any changes! Most faculty scientistsworking on research at universities, medical schools, and research institutes are quite aware of these problems, but almost all remain quiet since they are afraid to hurt their chances to obtain renewal of their research grant(s). Although their lack of action is readily rationalized, they have been transformed from researchers into employees in a business; actually, they are slaves to the research grant system. High-level administrators employed at the research grant agencies also are aware of the problems described above, but cannot speak out without getting a reputation as being troublesome or even disloyal; similarly, high administrators at education centers are kept silent by the recognition that profits from research grant awards are paying their own salary.
Who and what are left? Science societies represent very numerous scientists who feel the bad effects of this problematic situation, but they prefer to remain silent and uninvolved. Hence, in 2016 we are left only with the public! The general public in the U.S. unfortunately is estranged from science and research; for most adults, scientific research is only an entertaining amusement! It does not matter to them that basic science is diminishing and research quality is being subverted. Thus, the public is very unlikely to become active about the current dreadful problems in university science.
Is there no hope at all for the future?
Wrong! One very wonderful change has occurred recently! Several billionaire philanthropists (see: “James E. Stowers” , “Paul G. Allen” , and “Yuri Milner” ) recently and separately established dedicated research institutes and unusual support programs that remodel how researchers work and are funded. By removing most causes of the problems with university science, academic scientists are liberated. For setting up a new model for conducting and funding scientific research, see my recent reports on “Stowers-2” ,“Allen-2 “, and “Milner-2” . Changes made by these visionaries are revolutionary and dramatically oppose the present misguided practices at universities and the federal research grant system.
These changes should enable more strong research breakthroughs by freeing some research scientists from the shackles imposed on most of their counterparts in universities. With that new freedom, these fortunate researchers will prove that the badly needed changes work in practice; this new model illustrates what is right or wrong with current university science.
In 2016, there now is some hope that scientific research at universities could be rescued from total decay and death! Saving university science won’t be easy, but certainly will be worth the effort!
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
The total science enterprise in the U.S. is humongous! (http://dr-monsrs.net)
Although many are aware that science and technology are extensive, few people realize just how very large they are. Everything from the number of scientists and engineers currently working, to the amount of money spent for research activities, are gigantic! This article brings the latest official figures into view so that all of us can grasp the present size of the current science enterprise in the United States (U.S.); of course, the corresponding figures for global science are even larger.
How many scientists and engineers work here? What do they work on?
For 2012, there were 6.2 million scientists and engineers employed in the U.S., accounting for 4.8% of the total workforce . 56% worked in occupations involving computers, 25% worked in engineering, and the remaining 19% were employed for many other categories of research (e.g., 2% worked in mathematical occupations) .
For which kind of employers do doctoral scientists work?
Science and Engineering Indicators 2016 (see: “National Science Foundation issues new report on status of science, engineering, and research!” ) documents that 70.1% of all employed doctoral scientists and engineers in 2013 worked in industries, and only 15.6% worked in academia/education; another 12.5% worked in governmental facilities .
How much money was spent by the federal government to support all the different research studies and activities in the U.S.?
A total of $132.5 billion was useds by the federal government to support all aspects and different activities for non-commercial research in Fiscal Year (FY) 2014 .
Which branches of research receive the most federal funding support?
For FY2014, research in life sciences, which includes biological, medical, and hospital studies, as well as agricultural investigations, received federal support of $30.7 billion . Research with engineering received $11.9 billion, research in all physical sciences received $6.5 billion, and, research in computer science and mathematics received $3.9 billion in FY2014 . In the same period, $65.0 billion was used to support all military research and development (R&D) activities by the Department of Defense .
How much money is spent by the government versus by industries to support research studies?
In FY2013, U.S. commercial industries spent a grand total of over $322.5 billion to support all R&D activities by their scientists and engineers ; for the same period, agencies and programs of the U.S. federal government spent over $132.5 billion to support all the different aspects of non-business R&D .
An extensive load of statistics for research support by the federal government is gathered and analyzed every year by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, and subsequently published by the National Science Foundation. These yearly data listings are invaluable and used widely to analyze changes, identify imbalances, and reveal needs for intervention.
Using just the figures cited above [1-5], some interesting and surprising conclusions can be made. (1) An enormous number of scientists and engineers work in the U.S. (2) Over half of all scientists and engineers in the U.S. now are employed to work with computer science. (3) The federal government spent $132.5 billion to support research studies in all the different branches of science during FY2014. (4) Almost half of the total support funds from the U.S. government in modern years is used for biomedical, hospital, and agricultural research studies. (5) Commercial concerns spend more for their R&D activities than the federal government expends to support non-commercial R&D. (6) The grand total funding support for all R&D from both industrial and governmental sources was almost $0.5 trillion in FY2013.
My grand conclusion is that the size of the total budget and all activities for research and development in the U.S. during any recent year is nothing less than humongous! Most funding to support this immense R&D effort comes from U.S. citizens via their tax payments to the federal government, and from the profits spent by large and small commercial businesses.
 Sargent, Jr., J.F., for the Congressional Research Service, 2014. The U.S. science and engineering workforce: recent, current, and projected employment, wages, and unemployment. Available on the internet at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43061.pdf.
 National Science Foundation, 2016. Table 4-17. In: Science and Engineering Indicators 2016. Available on the internet at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/report .
 Yamaner, M., for the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2016a. TABLE 1. Federal obligations for research and development and R&D plant, by type of R&D: FYs 2012-16. Available on the internet at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16311/ .
 Yamaner, M., for the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2016b. TABLE 4. Federal obligations for research, by broad field of science and engineering and agency in rank order: FY2014. Available on the internet at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16311/ .
 Yamaner, M., for the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics, 2016c. TABLE 2. Federal obligations for research, by agency and type of research in FY 2014, rank order: FYs .2012-2016. Available on the internet at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsf16311/ .
 National Science Foundation, 2016. Table 4-7. U.S. business R&D. Funds spent for business R&D performed in the United States: 2008-2013. In: Science and Engineering Indicators 2016. Available on the internet at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/report/chapter-4/u-s-business-r-d .
Yuri Milner can be called “The Breakthrough Man”! He is a very active individual dividing his time into 80% for business and finances, and 20% for science projects. Most recently Milner donated $100 million to sponsor a dramatic large new research project aiming to take close-up images and data from planets circling another star (see “Can Research Travel Out to the Stars? Yuri Milner says “Yes, Let’s Go!”). Today’s article presents Milner’s personal background, gives his many activities in the Breakthrough Group, and, discusses the important role Yuri Milner and other billionaire philanthropists have for making a big difference in modern science.
Some background about Yuri Milner! 
Yuri Milner was born in Russia and now is 54 years old. After early schooling in Russia, he went on to study theoretical physics at Moscow State University and graduated in 1985; after working as a doctoral candidate in particle physics, he decided that he was “disappointed in myself as a physicist” . In 1990, he enrolled in the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, and graduated with a MBA degree. Returning to Russia, he was active in banking, international investing, and internet businesses; he founded Digital Sky Technologies (DST) in 2005. Successful early investments in internet companies led to his immense personal fortune.
Today, Yuri Milner is the CEO of DST Global, an international company headquartered in Russia. This entrepreneur is married, has 2 children, and resides both in Russia and California. He has received dozens of awards and is widely recognized for his several major philanthropic contributions to science . Milner’spersonality features being very determined, dynamic, and focused. He always is a leader, but also works well with others. He delights in innovation and is not afraid to follow his ideas or to take chances. As an enthusiastic patron of science, he still utilizes his previous training in physics.
To see Yuri Milner in action as “The Breakthrough Man”, you can watch 2 internet videos. The first is an interview session conducted by a hostile questioner, which Milner handles nicely (see: “This Billionaire Wants to Build Spaceships to Look for Earth-like Planets” ). A longer video shows Milner recently announcing the latest Breakthrough project (see: “LIVE: Stephen Hawking and Yuri Milner to announce space exploration Starshot” ). Thirdly, an excellent new interview lets Milner explain his interests in space science, but this is published only in written form (see: “Shooting for the Stars” ).
Activities of the Breakthrough Group!
In 2012, Yuri Milner joined with several other billionaires to found the Breakthrough Prizes for significant accomplishments in science and research. These award several million dollars to each winner, thereby exceeding the Nobel Prizes; some of their features are designed to fill several well-known policy gaps in operation of the Nobel Prize. The annual awards ceremony for the Breakthrough Prizes includes a large gala celebration of science with full internet coverage for public viewing (see recent short video: “2016 Breakthrough Prize highlights” ).
Several other projects supported by Milner’s large philanthropies are parts of theBreakthrough Initiatives (see: “Breakthrough Initiatives” ). Breakthrough Listen is an intense research study looking much more widely for signal emissions indicating the existence of intelligent life on planets of other stars (see: “The hunt for extraterrestrial life just got a groundbreaking $100 million investment” ). Breakthrough Message is a competition aimed to identify a good digital depiction of Earth and humanity that is suitable for reception elsewhere in the universe (see: “Yuri Milner and Stephen Hawking announce $100 million Breakthrough Initiative to Dramatically Accelerate Search for Intelligent Life in the Universe” ). Breakthrough Junior Challenge is an annual public competition for young researchers (see: “Breakthrough Junior Challenge” ). The latest Breakthrough Initiative isBreakthrough Starshot, a dramatic attempt to propel ultraminiature space probes out to our nearest star, Alpha Centauri, to see if its planets show signs of life (see:“Can research travel out to the stars? Yuri Milner says “Yes, let’s go!” ); he is working on this with the cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, engineers, and other scientists.
Without the notable financial sponsorship by Milner and his philanthropic colleagues, none of these initiatives and activities for scientific research would be possible in today’s world.
How is the Major Philanthropy by Yuri Milner and Other Billionaires Especially Significant for Science and Research?
The answer is that this philanthropy avoids the many restrictions and mistakes made by the standard system for supporting scientific research (see: “All About Today’s Hyper-Competition for Research Grants” , and, “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?” ). The end results of such philanthropy are that: (1) some important projects which would never get funded by research grants or by industries now will get conducted, (2) the door is opened for more freedom, creativity, and new ideas in science (i.e., they will be much less disfavored as subjects for research studies (e.g., basic science) or restricted by bureaucratic and commercial involvements (e.g., low-profit pharmaceuticals), and, (3) the usual detructive fighting for research grant awards or patents is bypassed. A significant secondary result is that the general public will become much more familiar with the importance of science for their daily life, instead of being totally estranged from research and scientists.
Several other billionaires besides Yuri Milner have made giant donations to push new efforts and new directions in scientific research. I already have highlighted the wonderful philanthropy supporting innovative research projects and new research sites by James E. Stowers (see: “A Jackpot for Scientific Research is Created by James E. and Virginia Stowers! Part I.” ), and, by Paul G. Allen (see: “A Dramatic Individualist, Paul G. Allen, is a Major Benefactor of Scientific Research!” ). It is interesting to note that all these individuals share certain characteristics (e.g., personal fascination with research, willingness to take chances instead of only seeking some guaranteed results, seeing their own life as an extensive exploration, enthusiasm for innovation and new ideas, working with organized teams of scientists and engineers, and, never taking ‘no’ for an answer!). I have no doubt that all 3 clearly understand exactly what is right and wrong in modern scientific research.
Yuri Milner and other major philanthropists are making revolutionary new scientific research studies possible. He and other large philanthropists see the beauty and value of research, and should be applauded by all people!
 Wikipedia, 2016. (Biography of) Yuri Milner. Available on the internet at: https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Milner .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
The Breakthrough Starshot is a most fantastic research project! (http://dr-monsrs.net)
One of the 3 largest general problems in modern science is “money” (see: “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research” ). Some individual philanthropists with billions of dollars recently are greatly advancing science and benefiting society via substantial donations to start new research institutes, research support programs, science initiatives, and science megaprizes. By providing the very large funding needed for projects in big science, they enable doing what others only can dream about; some of their new ideas are daring and creative explorations, while others try to leap over the normal slow pace of scientific research.
This article looks at a very new and dramatic space project, the Breakthrough Starshot, just announced as an intensive attempt to develop and test new mechanisms for interstellar travel (see 2 short videos at: http://www.space.com/32546-interstellar-spaceflight-stephen-hawking-project-starshot.html ). Its ultimate goal is to investigate whether life exists on planets outside our solar system. This novel exploratory project is part of the Breakthrough Initiatives  featuring new ideas for scientific research.
Background on the 3 directors of Breakthrough Starshot! [1-5]
Yuri Milner is a financial investor, internet entrepreneur, physicist, and science philanthropist, who has homes both in Russia and California. He acquired his very large fortune by working and investing in international internet ventures, and is one of the founders of the Breakthrough Prizes (see: “New Multimillion Megaprizes for Science, Part II” ). His generous sponsorship is the basis for the Breakthrough Starshot project.
Stephen Hawking is a world-renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist, who is a Professor and Director of Research at the University of Cambridge in the U.K. He provides expert insight into the many challenges faced by the Breakthrough Starshot research project.
Mark Zuckerberg is well-known as the founder and CEO of the social media website, Facebook. He is one of the several major donors supporting the Breakthrough Prizes.
What exactly is the goal of the Breakthrough Starshot research project? [1-5]
This new research effort was developed by a small working group of individuals experienced with new technology, innovative designs for research, and creative ideas for advancing space science. Its ultimate purpose is to learn if some sort of life exists on planets circling nearby stars; Hawking and other scientists postulate that many of the hundreds of newly discovered exoplanets must harbor some forms of life.
This project specifically aims to investigate whether new technologies can propel extremely small spacecraft to nearby stars using power transmitted by very high energy laser arrays on Earth. Initially, he minute light-weight space probes will look at unknown planets circling the star closest to our own Sun, Alpha Centauri. As part of the engineering and testing, subsidiary probes will be launched to study planets and their moons within our solar system.
How will this challenging project be conducted? [1-5]
A host of gigantic technological and engineering problems must be solved in order to accomplish the goals of Breakthrough Starshot. Alpha Centauri is 4.37 light years (i.e., 41 trillion kilometers) away from Earth. Launching the novel spacecraft is expected to be ready about 30 years from now; during this time, 3 phases of work will be conducted: (1) all aspects of design and engineering, (2) construction and testing of prototypes for the system of laser arrays and the minute spacecraft, and (3) final assembly and launching of fleets of these mass-produced space probes (e.g., hundreds or thousands). Each spacecraft will be the size of a large postage stamp, weigh about one gram, and carry no fuel or crew. By traveling at 20% of the speed of light, their journey to Alpha Centauri will take some 20 years!
Electronics and instrumentation in the nanoscale will be used to construct the nanospacecraft. Each will have a special “space sail” that unfolds in space to collect energy beamed by arrays of very high power lasers on Earth; the transmitted energy pushes their propulsion. Close-up images and data will be transmitted back to Earth for analysis. The new research data acquired will exceed what can be gathered by advanced telescopes located on Earth.
Are any big problems foreseen for this new research project? [1-5]
Yuri Milner is donating $100,000,000 to cover expenses for the first 5-10 years of initial research and development (R&D) work. By providing this private funding, Milner forcefully gets everything started and immediately neutralizes the usual objections to spending oodles of taxpayers’ money to conduct this science-fiction-type research project! He foresees that collaborative international sources will provide the many billions of dollars needed for later completion of the project; that gigantic sum equals the multibillion dollars from multiple international sources already used to establish new synchrotron facilities, construct very large new telescopes, and launch a new space telescope (see: “The New James Webb Space Telescope: Big Science Requires Big Money and Big Time, But Should Produce Big Results!” ). Global Industry is another possible source of the many billions needed.
Individual scientists already have been proposing and speculating about possible means for interstellar travel. The many hundreds of research workers (i.e., scientists, engineers, industrial producers, managers, technicians, etc.) needed to conduct the extensive R&D effort for the Starshot project certainly are available. This enterprise could take place within some organization similar to NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration), but kept outside of governmental operations.
Many design features for the Breakthrough Starshot are both novel and untested, but seem to be within the present range of engineering and developing technology. The high power laser systems do not yet exist, but military development of laser weapons already is progressing. The ultraminiature spacecraft also do not yet exist, but science and engineering now are expanding development of nano-cameras, nano-computers, nano-electronics, etc., so their innovative design should be doable. Milner, Hawking, and other scientists see this amazing conceptual framework as being realistically possible.
To be sure, as with all truly innovative ideas, many problems will arise. At present, none of those seem to be insurmountable. The possibility of reaching the project goal is truly exciting, and the results will be utterly meaningful for our own planet.
 Breakthrough Initiatives, 2016a. About Breakthrough Initiatives. Available on the internet at: http://breakthroughinitiatives.org/About .
 Breakthrough Initiatives, 2016b. Internet investor and science philanthropist Yuri Milner physicist Stephen Hawking announce Breakthrough Starshot project to develop 100 million mile per hour mission to the stars within a generation. Available on the internet at: http://breakthroughinitiatives.org/News/4 .
 Merali, Z., 2016. Q&A: Web billionaire describes his plan to shoot for the stars. Science. Available on the internet at: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/05/qa-web-billionaire-describes-his-plan-shoot-stars .
 Overbye, D., 2016. Reaching for the stars, across 4.37 light-years. The New York Times, April 13, 2016, page A12. Available on the internet at: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/science/alpha-centauri-breakthrough-starshot-yuri-milner-stephen-hawking.html?_r=1 .
 Choi, C.Q., 2016. Three questions about Breakthrough Starshot. The enormously ambitious mission faces a few challenges. Popular Science, April 27, 2016. Available on the internet at: http://www.popsci.com/three-questions-for-breakthrough-starshot .
Why are good new research ideas so often repressed? (http://dr-monsrs.net)
For scientists researching and teaching at a university, medical school, or research institute, part of their traditional mission is to dream up new ideas. Good ideas help with many activities, including designing new experiments, modifying research instruments and methods, composing research reports for publication in science journals, developing new concepts, deciding how to present complex topics in course lectures, etc.
Despite the curiosity-driven output of new ideas originated by professional scientists, almost all are discarded by faculty researchers at modern universities. This dispatch discusses the difficult conditions leading to a decision about what will be done when a really stimulating new research idea magically arises.
How do scientists deal with their new research ideas?
New ideas can pop up all the time! Some are good, some are awful, and some are funny! All scientists have curiosity, but some researchers come up with so many new ideas that they are known as “idea people”. The first task to deal with new ideas is essential: write down everything so it can be recalled later. Unless promptly recorded, new ideas are rapidly forgotten and disappear forever.
The second task is to evaluate if the new idea has sufficient merit to be put into practice. Since grant-supported faculty scientists have already decided to work mainly or only on their funded research project, this evaluation looks at whether the new idea has enough relevance to be added to the research activities underway for the current research grant. If it does not, then it must either be discarded or dumped onto an ever-growing pile of ideas that are stored for some future time that never seems to come; fortunately a few of the many new ideas recorded in a log book can be used later when constructing an application for renewal of the present research grant. If it does have good relevance, the scientist advances to ultimate questions of exactly how, when, and where can the idea be inserted and used in the ongoing laboratory efforts; most new ideas never reach this stage.
What usually happens to good new ideas?
The previous paragraph gives some idea of the usual lack of freedom for faculty scientists to undertake any new research work not directly connected to their funded project. This restriction is very strong due to the immense pressures from 2 related issues that all inventive faculty scientists must face. First, there is the time problem (see: “Why is the Daily Life of Modern University Scientists so Very Hectic?” ); most academic scientists now have almost zero free time since they are so busy running experiments for their grant-supported project, writing applications to acquire more research grants, teaching in courses, publishing research reports, starting a family, etc. In theory, if a new idea is really super-promising for research, the funded scientist could try to acquire an additional (second) research grant for a new project using that idea. This maneuver is not so easy due to the second problem, the hyper-competition to acquire research grants (see: “All About Today’s Hyper-Competition for Research Grants” ). Yes, good new ideas are sought by the federal granting agencies, but the intense hyper-competition means that most will never get funded. Thus, almost all good new ideas for research are basically dead-on-arrival and are discarded!
Another possibility for initiating research using a new idea is to use a small portion of the current financial support to conduct some pilot studies. That work costs the scientist both money and time, and it can be done only when there actually is some extra money and extra time available; both conditions often are very questionable. If the pilot data are very promising, then attention is given to composing a strong application for an additional research grant; that takes many months, meaning that this promising new project with a second grant could be started only at least one year later. More realistically, an application for a small exploratory research grant can be submitted to dedicated funding sources (e.g., American Cancer Society); the preliminary data obtained then are used to compose a strong application for a new standard research grant.
New ideas are not repressed by innovative models for funding research studies!
To be able to more freely explore and use new ideas for research, a Principal Investigator must have some free time, supplemental funds, and a working atmosphere that encourages trying new research approaches and new studies. Those are strong features of the very innovative research support programs and special institutes recently established by James E. Stowers (see: “A Jackpot for Scientific Research is Created by James E, and Virginia Stowers! Part II: The Stowers Institute is a Terrific New Model for Funding Scientific Research!” ) and Paul G. Allen (see: “Getting Rid of Research Grants: How Paul G. Allen is Doing It!” ). The unusual features of these support programs will result in research breakthroughs that were not otherwise possible when the same investigators were previously working with regular research grant support.
General discussion about new ideas in science!
The main message here is that faculty scientists do come up with many good ideas, but these are not easily put into practice unless they are closely related to their present research grant. If a determined scientist would somehow move their current grant into supporting a new project, that decision almost guarantees non-renewal. With the multiple restrictions now prevailing, only a very few new research ideas ever will be pursued; thus, the practical conditions generated by the research grant system and modern universities repress the creation of research ideas that are new, creative, and significant. It seems totally pointless to faculty scientists to try to work on anything not directly related to their funded project!
Grant-supported faculty scientists today have little choice in dealing with new ideas because they are slaves to their research grant! The system discourages creativity and questioning, so new ideas are simply discarded! When all the restrictions are realistically considered, the best possibility for activating a new research idea is to make such into part of an application for renewal of a funded grant.
Yes, research freedom is very important for science! Having new ideas for research is essential to all scientists, but putting the good ideas into practice is not very easy due to restrictions imposed by the research grant system, the time problem, and the commercialism now rampant at modern universities (see: “What is the Very Biggest Problem for Science Today?”). Fortunately for the progress of science, some new research ideas do manage to be activated despite all the restrictive difficulties!
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
GETTING RID OF RESEARCH GRANTS: HOW PAUL G. ALLEN IS DOING IT!
The co-founder of Microsoft (1975), Paul G. Allen, has just made a large donation to start a dramatic new research program in biomedical science, the Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group. My recent dispatch about this dynamic man briefly summarized his life interests, global activities, and accomplishments with supporting science and research (see: “A Dramatic Individualist, Paul G. Allen, is a Major Benefactor of Scientific Research!”). The present article presents how Allen’s newest philanthropy for science is organized, explains what he is aiming for, and applauds his insight into what is wrong in science at modern universities.
The Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group [1-3]!
The new Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group has 2 mechanisms for sponsoring research. The Allen Discovery Centers provide $30 million to support productive research groups where ground-breaking investigations going into the future of science are underway. The first 2 awards will go to Tufts University (Boston) for fundamental investigations on the genesis of organ and tissue structures, and to Stanford University (Palo Alto) for systems-level computational modeling of immune cell interactions with bacteria. This portion of the Frontiers Group will fund up to 10 Discovery Centers.
The new Allen Distinguished Investigators are professional scientists working at various institutions around the world, and can be either junior or senior researchers showing the potential to dramatically reinvent entire areas of science. The awards of 1-1.5 million dollars for up to 25 selected scientists enable each to initiate unrestricted new directions for research in their respective fields. The Distinguished Investigators receive 10 years of support, thereby encouraging studies of very large previously unapproachable research questions. The freedom provided allows the Distinguished Investigators to study unusual subjects and use unconventional approaches. These possibilities are particularly needed for breakthrough studies into the complexities of biomedical science. Initial selection of 4 research scientists has just been announced; for details about their investigations, see “Video: Launch press conference: The Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group” .
What will be the influence of the Allen Frontiers Group on science [1-3]?
The Allen Frontiers Group is revolutionary because it has several very distinctive features. (1) The new awardees all are located outside the several large research institutes founded by Paul Allen in Seattle; thus, the influence of his philosophy for high quality science now will spread more widely. (2) Awards in the Allen Frontiers Group all supersede the traditional approaches used to support science with research grants; the awardees can jump over the usual step-by-step progress made by individual scientists via using new and unconventional ideas for research that are too risky to be funded by research grants. (3) The large amount of time university faculty scientists now need to waste dealing with research grants (see “What is the New Main Job of Faculty Scientists Today?” ) will become available for actual experimental work in their laboratory; federal grants will not be needed by the Distinguished Investigators. (4) The awardees have a very unusual amount of unrestricted freedom for creativity and innovation; this encourages making advances in knowledge for topics and questions that are complex, difficult, and important.
The changed atmosphere provided by these factors should act to return university scientists toward finding important new knowledge through basic research, instead of chasing money from research grants. Thus, research by investigators in the Allen Frontiers Group will have a large impact by greatly advancing their fields in bioscience. Paul Allen is liberating faculty scientists to do better science, to investigate very difficult research questions, and, to once again have fun with their work (see: “Why are University Scientists Increasingly Upset with Their Job? Part II” )!
Paul Allen must perceive exactly what is wrong with today’s university research!
The classical belief that research scientists should be creative, inventive, fearless, and unhindered is increasingly not evident in modern universities. The current research grant system is destructive and hinders bringing new ideas into basic research. Freedom is missing to take chances on making research breakthroughs by using unconventional experiments. Novel ideas must be repressed due to worries about not getting a grant renewed. These widespread restrictions unfortunately limit research progress for all faculty scientists at universities, medical schools, and research institutes. The improved working atmosphere in Allen’s design for research includes the freedom to think new thoughts and go against the flow, collaborate with teamwork instead of unbridled competition, and, develop unforeseen new concepts .
Other philanthropists also act to free faculty scientists from bad problems with the research grant system!
I recently highlighted another remarkable philanthropic effort to rescue science from its present malaise by James E. Stowers, who established and generously endowed the Stowers Institute for Medical Research (see: “A Jackpot for Scientific Research, Part II” ). His large new research institute has some similar features to the Allen Institutes, including that most financial support is provided internally. At least 2 different billionaires thus perceive the important advantages for science of using philanthropy to substitute for the perverse research grant system (see: “Research Grants Cause Both Joy and Despair for University Scientists!” ). In fact, several other megaphilanthropists recently have initiated support programs which strikingly advance university science [e.g., 1].
Paul Allen clearly recognizes the negative effects the current research grant system has upon scientific research in universities. A key feature for investigators in the new Allen Frontiers Group is their liberation from the restrictions and distortions imposed by grant-supported research; they now have the freedom to make important research advances using creativity, innovation, and initiative while daring to take chances!
After reading my previous reports about the Stowers Medical Research Institute, many concluded that sponsorship of high quality scientific research by private philanthropy is NOT realistic because nobody else would donate the large sums of money needed. Several other big donors show that they all are very wrong!
It is easy to predict that the outcome of the new Frontiers Group generously sponsored by Paul G. Allen will be nothing short of wonderful! He should be praised by all research scientists for recharging and improving scientific research at universities! He truly is a hero in sience! Hooray for Paul Allen!
 Allen Institute, 2016. “Press Release: Paul G. Allen Announces $100 million to Launch The Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group” . Available on the internet at: https://www.alleninstitute.org/what-we-do/frontiers-group/news-press/press-resources/press-releases/paul-g-allen-announces-100-million-launch-paul-g-allen-frontiers-group .
 Cha, A. E., 2016. Philanthropist Paul Allen announces $100 million gift to expand ‘frontiers of bioscience’. The Washington Post, March 24, Section A, page A2. Available on the internet at: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/doc/1775298386.html?FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Mar+24%2C+2016&author=Ariana+Eunjung+Cha&desc=%24100+million+to+fund+exploration+of+biosciences&free=1&pf=1 .
 The Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group, 2016. “Video: Introducing The Paul G. Allen Frontiers Group” is available on the internet at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1bkLKuJigpY .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
The co-founder of Microsoft (1975) , Paul G. Allen, has already given over 2 billion dollars to establish several far-sighted new research institutes. He is a free-thinking man with numerous activities and widespread interests, ranging from music to professional sports and spaceflight. This dispatch briefly summarizes the remarkable scope of Allen’s dynamic activities, and then discusses how his philanthropy is benefiting scientific research in a big way; a following article will discuss the very novel features of his latest innovative program for stimulating the progress of scientific research. (POSTSCRIPT on June 5, 2016: readers should note that there is a followup posting about Paul Allen (see: http://dr-monsrs.net/2016/04/14/replacing-research-grants-how-paul-g-allen-is-doing-it/ )!
Background about a vigorously independent individual: Paul G. Allen [1-3]!
Paul Allen is an author, business owner and investor, entrepreneur and industrialist, explorer of history and geography, founder of several museums, inventor, moviemaker, owner of several professional sports teams, promoter of urban projects in Seattle (his hometown!), rock guitarist, supporter of education and the arts, technological visionary, yachtsman, and, one of the world’s leading philanthropists. In addition to working with his sister, Jody Allen, on many of those activities, he has utilized his Allen Family Foundation to greatly benefit several universities in the state of Washington, start the Allen Distinguished Educators program that rewards particularly creative and effective education developments by teachers in primary and secondary schools, support a non-governmental organization, Elephants Without Borders, to further the conservation of wild elephants in Africa, establish the Paul G. Allen Ocean Challenge as a public contest for improving the health of our oceans, along with stimulating a variety of other programs, projects, and personal explorations. Most of this is carried out by his company, Vulcan, Inc.; one of its many activities is Vulcan Aerospace, a division including a collaborative space exploration project with the noted engineer, Burt Rutan (see: “Stratolaunch Systems, A Paul G. Allen Project” ).
Tying all these many explorations together is Paul Allen’s extensive curiosity, diverse personal interests, determination to make ideas flow into new knowledge, affection for going where no-one has tread before, and, his optimistic belief that anything is possible. For him, the future can be opened right now! In 2005, Paul Allen published an autobiographical book, Idea Man, A Memoir by the Cofounder of Microsoft, recounting his experiences in co-originating Microsoft; 10 short videos based on this book graphically illustrate his youth and development of operating systems in the early days of personal computing (see “Idea Man Part One: Roots” ).
Paul G. Allen has advanced scientific research in revolutionary ways [1-3]!
For trying to push science and research beyond all their usual goals and practices, Paul Allen founded and funded the Allen Institute for Brain Research in 2003, the Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence in 2013, and, the Allen Institute for Cell Science in 2014. These research centers in Seattle feature technologically advanced experimental research by scientists and engineers, and involve such very large and complex research questions as how does the brain work (i.e., how do some 86 billion neurons interact to furnish memory and reasoning?), what can artificial intelligence do for humans (i.e., as individuals and as society?), and how do our cells conduct their varied functions (i.e., in health, disease, and regeneration?). These giant research investigations at these Institutes all are in the realm of “big science”.
The goals of Paul Allen are nothing less than to revolutionize science and speed up the progress of research. To do that, he brought the practices of industrial research to bear at the Allen Institutes; these feature numerous doctoral specialists working as teams supported by a large staff and advanced research instrumentation facilities. At the Institutes, there is little of the problems characterizing science at universities (i.e., massive individual competition, constant worries about continued research grant funding, and, doing niche studies needing only shorter periods of time). Jumps of discovery are encouraged by creativity, innovation, and interactive teamwork. Output of these large-scale science projects is made available as internet resources for use by other researchers throughout the world; examples include several Allen Atlases for the mouse and human brains in adulthood and during embryonic growth, the Allen Brain Cell Types Database, the Mouse Neural Connectivity Atlas, and The Animated Cell, a multiscale virtual model that integrates all knowledge about cells and can predict changes in their behavior.
The vision, organization, and goals of these research institutes mostly come from Paul himself. He sees that science and technology can make dreams become real; he values unconventional new ideas that stimulate groundbreaking findings and jump into the future. All this aims to benefit the entire world and all people.
Paul G. Allen is a most dynamic individual! He deserves admiration for using his own money to benefit science and engineering, the arts, Seattle, Africa, oceans, wildlife, museums, and people everywhere. He clearly is making a big difference in the conduct of scientific research, by promoting a new design for research on very fundamental large-scale questions. It is easy to predict that the outcome of his vision of what science and research should be doing will be nothing short of wonderful!
VIDEOS: Many videos about Paul G. Allen both inside and outside science are available on the internet! For a glimpse of the man himself, I recommend the following 3!
(1) “Paul Allen on Gates, Microsoft” by CBS (2011); this presentation involves a hostile interviewer!
(2) “Stratolaunch Systems: A Paul G. Allen Project” by Vulcan, Inc. (2011); turning ideas into reality!
(3) “Paul G. Allen on Art” by Vulcan, Inc. (2015); presents Allen’s many activities to make good art available to the public!
 @PaulGAllen, 2016. “Home page” . Available on the internet at: http://www.paulallen.com/ . NOTE: explore the different headings!
 Allen Institute for Brain Science, 2013. “Allen Institute for Brain Science: Fueling Discovery” . Available on the internet at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HclD7T9KFg .
 Allen Institutes, 2016. “About” . Available on the internet at: http://www.alleninstitute.org/about/ . NOTE: explore the variety of headings indicating the diversity of Paul Allen’s many activities!
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
THE NEW JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE: BIG SCIENCE REQUIRES BIG MONEY AND BIG TIME, BUT SHOULD PRODUCE BIG RESULTS!
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) and its many partners now are building a giant new space telescope, with launch scheduled for October, 2018 (see:“James Webb Space Telescope” at the NASA website). The construction phase of theWebb space telescope involves efforts by over 1,000 special workers in 14 nations, a total cost of 80 billion dollars, and, many industrial and academic organizations. This huge science project is being conducted during about 10 years of time; it involves use of new technologies and building several special new research instruments. Once the complex assembly is completed and fully tested, it will be transported by ship to the rocket launch site in South America, where it will be sent far into space. This new mission for science will provide important new research data for astronomy, astrophysics, and space science; its research results will go far beyond the amazing images and data obtained by the orbiting Hubble space telescope launched in 1990.
What is the Webb space telescope [1-3]?
The new space telescope will be as large as a moving van and will be placed into a specific region of space located about one million miles away from Earth. It contains small rockets to provide for final adjustment of its position. Data collected from its newly constructed high-tech mirror systems provide very high sensitivity, increased optical resolution, and longer wavelength coverage. This space instrument is specialized to detect and measure near- and mid-infrared wavelengths, since those come from the oldest stars. Data will be transmitted back to the Webb Science and Operations Center at the NASA Space Telescope Science Institute in Baltimore, Maryland, for analysis and distribution to research scientists and groups. The new Webb space telescope is planned to operate in the cold vacuum of space for 5-10 years, starting in 2018.
What will the new space telescope do for scientific research [1-3]?
At present, the Webb mission has 4 goals: (1) search for the first galaxies or luminous objects formed after the Big Bang, (2) determine how galaxies evolved from their formation until now, (3) observe the formation of stars and their planetary systems, and (4) examine the physical and chemical properties of extraterrestrial planetary systems, including investigations of their potential for life. The Webb extends the capabilities of the Hubble space telescope by having much better detection sensitivity (10-100x), optical resolution, and telescopic spectroscopy. By being able to look out to the far edges of the universe, the Webb can view and measure the very oldest stars and galaxies.
What are the chief worries about the new space telescope [1-3]?
As with any very complex and multiyear building project, unforeseen problems can arise later. The Hubble space telescope had an unanticipated problem that fortunately was able to be nicely repaired by visiting astronauts. Since the new Webb telescope will be much further away from Earth than is Hubble, it will be impossible for astronauts to fix problems. Thus, the preflight testing must be much more rigorous and extensive. However, it is never certain that everything will work and last exactly as expected; extremely unusual events could occur (e.g., collision with a large meteorite, very high bursts of different radiations from our Sun, malfunction of communication systems, etc.) and might be beyond the capabilities of adjustments during its operation in space.
Many people will ask a very natural question, “Why do we humans need a new space telescope?”. Technical answers that it will give results beyond those provided by the Hubble space telescope, will have a hollow ring to non-scientists asking this question. A better answer is that all of us, whether scientists or ordinary people, deserve to have extended knowledge and understanding about our universe; dramatic new data provided by the Webb space telescope will do just that.
Will the new findings of this space telescope justify its immense cost [1-3]?
This huge research project raises an interesting general question about scientific research. Although the 80 billion dollar budget for the Webb is cut back from the initial plans, just about everyone must admit that this cost figure is gigantic. It is reasonable to expect that the research by space scientists using data from the Webb will produce significant advances in understanding the formation and evolution of the oldest stars in our universe, the life cycles of stars, the environmental composition of different exoplanets, and possibilities for living systems on planets circling other stars.
Although accepting that answer, some scientists will ask the logical question, “How many research grants of ordinary cost and size could be made with the same 80 billion dollars?”. Their follow-up question will be, “What would be the value of the new research results collected by all those numerous small projects?”. Clearly, such questions are simply the latest in the ongoing controversy about the value of Big Science versus Small Science. Answers cannot be provided at present because so much is unknown or theoretical.
Where can good information be found about the new Webb space telescope?
There is an abundance of information available about the design, construction, and objectives of the Webb space telescope! For starters, see websites about the Webb byNASA , the Canadian Space Agency , and, the European Space Agency . These have loads of information, diagrams, videos, and the latest news about this giant research project; they are designed to be suitable and understandable for adults, students, teachers, children, and parents, as well as for scientists.
You also even can sign-up with NASA to receive e-mail newsletters with the latest updates for the Webb space research project !
For those curious about the efforts of all the numerous engineers, scientists, and technologists working with this space project, I recommend the truly outstanding article by Daniel Clery, “The Next Big Eye”, within the February 19, 2016, issue of the journal,Science. This well-illustrated piece includes a very good discussion about how these individuals are subject to increasingly large pressures as the assembly and testing advances.
The work of designing, fabricating, assembly, and testing the different components used for the Webb space telescope is an utterly fascinating story showing what humans are capable of doing! After the final assembly is completed, its testing under conditions of space while still here on Earth also will be a wondrous story. Much credit must go to the managers who coordinate all the different small and large groups working on this complex assembly project at diverse locations; they must ensure that everything fits together and functions reliably just as planned. The Webb mission should produce much exciting new understanding about our Sun, our universe, and conditions on the planets of other stars!
 “Explore James Webb New Space Telescope” is available on the internet at: http://www.jwst.nasa.gov .
 “FAQ: General Questions About Webb” is available on the internet at: http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/faq.html .
 “Webb Telescope Science Themes” is available on the internet at: http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/science.html .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
SEI 2016 shows current status of scientific research and engineering developments in the US and other countries! (http://dr-monsrs.net)
The 2016 edition of the extensive and impressive serial report from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Science and Engineering Indicators 2016 (SEI 2016), has just appeared (see: “National Science Foundation Issues New Report on Status of Science, Engineering, and Research” ). This large document purposely does not directly comment or interpret its figures; however, provision of these data by SEI 2016 leaves their interpretation open. In this essay I will briefly examine what the new data in SEI 2016 say about several controversial topics and modern problems for science.
The SEI 2016 is available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report , and its brief commentary, The Digest 2016, is available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/digest . An excellent search page for SEI 2016 is provided at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/topics/ . Citations in the following text all refer to SEI 2016, unless noted.
What is the present status of science and engineering in mainland China? Could China surpass the US in science and engineering?
Mainland China now is an extensive political and economic competitor with the US. Many have the impression that the quality of Chinese science and engineering formerly was deficient, but now has improved and is nearing the level prevailing in other countries, including the US. SEI 2016 shows that in 2013 the US workforce produced 27% of worldwide research and discovery, while China produced 20% [The Digest 2016, page 4]. Much research and development in China now aims to advance their military, technical, and industrial capabilities; these efforts strongly depend on Chinese engineering. Their increasing number of engineers is expected to start producing more science and engineering articles than will the US in 2014 [The Digest 2016, Figure A on page 13]. Since 2005, China already has produced more engineering publications than any other country [The Digest 2016, Figure B2 on page 13]. It seems likely that China’s efforts to advance education and training of their scientists and engineers will stimulate achieving equivalence and then soon will surpass the US output. Hence, SEI 2016 shows that the US is likely to soon lose its premier status for science and engineering!
What does SEI 2016 say about the funding for basic research, which necessarily precedes what is done later by applied research and engineering developments?
Data in SEI 2016 deals with both the basic and the applied aspects of research and development. Excluding money for the Department of Defense, federal support of research in 2013 is given as 45% for basic studies, 41% for applied studies, and 14% for development [Figure 4-12]. I must disagree with their assumption that the many studies funded by the National Institutes of Health all are basic research; thus, I cannot accept the total for basic research given in SEI 2016 as being valid (i.e., definitions of basic versus applied are not provided). I and many academic scientists are convinced that federal support for basic research has been diminishing, while federal grants for applied research are increasing in number.
What do the figures in SEI 2016 say about the pervasive problem of hyper-competition for research grants between university scientists?
Acquiring and maintaining an external research grant now is the major goal for faculty scientists. At present, there is a vicious hyper-competition between all academic scientists for research grant awards (see: “All About Today’s Hyper-competition for Research Grants” ). University scientists cannot be blamed for this very problematic situation because if they do not acquire and hold research grants then they are basically dead. The SEI 2016 does not directly address the destructive effects of hyper-competition on academic science. However, the published data do show that only 19% of all applications for research grants from the National Institutes of Health, the largest federal agency making grants for biomedical research, were funded in 2014, and the trend for such funding is decreasing [Table 5-22]. Furthermore, SEI 2016 shows that the total number of doctoral scientist holders working in academic institutions continues to increase [Appendix Table 5-13], meaning that the numbers of applicants and applications also are rising. Thus, SEI 2016 documents that the hyper-competition for research grants keeps getting even more severe every year!
What do the new figures in SEI 2016 say about the predicted demise of science and research in modern US universities?
My earlier controversial proposal that university science now is dying (see: “Could Science and Research Now Be Dying?” ) was based upon my impressions of a declining quality of modern science, large wastage of time by researchers struggling to get more and more research grants, conversion of university research into a business entity where money is everything, de-emphasis on basic research and corresponding increased emphasis on applied research, and, increasing corruption by professional scientists. That situation is being caused by bad policies and priorities from both modern universities and the current research grant system.
SEI 2106 shows oodles of data that almost everyone will conclude is very solid evidence denying my prediction (i.e., since academic science in the US is doing such a productive job and provides so much of value to the public, then all must be excellent!). I disagree, because the quality of research studies and publications seems to be decreasing! The data in SEI 2016 almost entirely are measuring research quantity and largely ignore quality. The Digest 2016 emphasizes that innovation is very important, and I agree; however, innovation is not measured or estimated for basic versus applied research, which is very necessary in order to evaluate their value.
If everything actually is so very wonderful with modern science in academia, then why are an increasing number of faculty scientists, postdocs, and prospective domestic graduate students so dismayed and dissatisfied? Why have the number of doctoral scientists and engineers working as full-time faculty members been progressively declining? Why did only 15.6% of all employed doctoral scientists and engineers work in academia/education in 2013 [Table 3-6]? Why did 28.1% of all doctoral scientists and engineers now work outside business/industry in 2013 [Table 3-6]? Why did 20% of all US doctoral scientists and engineers report that they were working out-of-field because of a change in career or professional interests in 2013 [page of text following Table 3-14]? All of the above data from SEI 2016 support my controversial proposal!
It is fair to conclude that SEI 2016 indeed is very useful, but will not answer all the important questions about modern science!
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has just released an extensive report, Science and Engineering Indicators 2016 (SEI 2016). It presents the latest figures and trends about the status of scientific research and engineering development in the United States (US) and elsewhere in the modern world; the complete data presently extend through 2013 or 2014. This very large document is available to all on the internet at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/report . Its accompanying short commentary, The 2016 Digest, is available at:http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/digest .
In this article, I will first describe what SEI 2016 is and how it is important. Then, I will briefly discuss a few important aspects of the newest data from SEI 2016. These topics are selected because they have widespread general interest, and are very essential starting points for understanding today’s science in the US. Citations in the following text all refer to SEI 2016, unless noted.
What is SEI 2016?
New editions of this documentation are prepared every 2 years by the NSF National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics under guidance of the NSF National Science Board. SEI 2016 presents many quantitative data, tables, and charts about science, engineering, and research in the US and the world. The new volume is the 22nd in this series and so readily enables good comparisons with past figures. Its chapters deal with: (1) elementary and secondary mathematics and science education, (2) higher education in science and engineering, (3) science and engineering labor force, (4) national trends and international comparisons for research and development, (5) academic research and development, (6) industry, technology and the global marketplace, and, (7) public attitudes and understanding of science and engineering.
The contents of SEI 2016 are presented for other people to use! This avoids any need to guess about quantities, comparative figures, or trends. Mostly it does not include interpretations, discussions of policy issues, or opinions about the data given. Copies of this biennial report are distributed to the President, Congress, and many high officials involved with science and engineering.
Neither members of the public, nor scientists and engineers, are likely to try to read through all the numbers in tables and charts of SEI 2016! Instead, they can either (1) read through the short commentary version offered as “The 2016 Digest” (see URL given above), whose PDF version contains only 14 pages of text and 7 pages of figures, or (2) look up specific sections having information about topics of personal interest (see “Search by Topic or Keyword” at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/topics/); for the general reader, I believe the best approach is to use this excellent search page.
Some important basic questions are answered in SEI 2016!
(1) How many scientists and engineers now are working in the US? How many are unemployed? SEI 2016 lists a total of 23,557,000 persons working on some aspect of science and engineering who were employed in the US during 2013 [Table 3-6]. For 2013, 6.7% of all scientists and engineers were working involuntarily on something out of their field [Table 3-14], and less than 4% were unemployed [Appendix Table 3-18]. For all graduate students in science during 2013, 25% study engineering [Table 5-19].
(2) How many doctoral scientists and engineers are working in industry, and how many work in academia? What is the trend for academic employment of scientists and engineers? In 2013, 70.1% of all employed doctoral scientists and engineers were working in business/industry, 15.6% were working in academia/education, and 12.5% were working for federal, state, and local governments [Table 3-6]. Holders of a doctoral degree in science or engineering who worked as full-time faculty members declined to 70% in 2013.
(3) What were the salaries for doctoral scientists and engineers working as postdoctoral fellows, members of a science faculty 5 years after graduating, or staffing industries 5 years after graduating? The median salary for all postdoctoral fellows working on research or development in the US was $45,000 in 2014 [Table 3-18]. Excluding physicians and dentists, the median salary for all doctoral scientists and engineers working at academic institutions (at 4-5 years after graduating) was $85,530 in 2014; the corresponding figure for all engineers in academia was $94,250 [Table 3-13]. Median salaries for doctoral scientists and engineers working in the business sector during 2014 generally are higher than those working in academia.
(4) What portion of doctoral scientists and engineers working on research or development in the US were born in foreign lands? What portion of postdoctoral research fellows currently researching in the US were born in foreign lands? How are these figures changing? SEI 2016 shows that science and engineering in the US continue to have a large input of workers born in foreign lands. For postdocs in 2013, this figure was almost 50% [Figure 5-19]; for these foreign-born postdocs, Asians and Pacific Islanders were nearly 70% of the total [text following Table 5-19]. All these figures are trending somewhat higher; in 2013, the number of total scientists and engineers born in foreign lands has grown to 27% [Figure 5-19].
(5) What portion of faculty scientists and engineers applying for a federal research grant currently get funded? How is this figure changing from earlier years? SEI 2016shows that only 19% of all applications for research support from the National Institutes of Health, the largest federal granting agency for biomedical research, were funded in 2014 [Table 5-22]. The trend for funding in the period from 2001 through 2013 shows a progressive decrease [Table 5-22].
(6) How does the US compare with other nations for the total amount of money invested to support science and engineering activities performed in the US? In 2014, the US government spent over $132 billion to support all research and development by scientists and engineers [Figure 4-17]. Defense expenses for research and development accounted for 52.7% of that total [Table 4-17]. For the same period, US industries spent over $322 million for business research and development [Table 4-7].
SEI 2016 is a most valuable and extensive documentation for anyone seeking facts and figures about modern science and engineering. It furnishes a very useful means to evaluate the present status of scientific research and engineering development in the US and other nations, and to recognize current trends. Clearly, it shows that both the US government and US industries spend lots of money on science and engineering activities; most of these billions of dollars come from US taxpayers, who then receive both new knowledge and new commercial products!
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
RESEARCH GRANTS CAUSE BOTH JOY AND DESPAIR IN UNIVERSITY SCIENTISTS!
The public often forgets that scientists are people, too! Your neighbor that you never say more than a “hello” to might even be a scientist! Most readers have no idea what emotions arise in professional scientists working on research at modern universities. So that you will learn more about scientists as people, this article looks at the strong emotions commonly caused by the research grant system.
Officially, research grants pay for all the many different expenses of conducting experiments, and thus provide the essential financial sponsorship all scientists at universities need to obtain in order to (1) conduct research, and (2) keep their employment. Without a grant, university scientists lose their laboratory, have their salary lowered, reduce their status, and are not promoted. Research grants now are the difference between life and death for a faculty scientist’s career! When scientists at universities cannot renew their research grant(s), this typically causes a career crisis that can necessitate either a major shift in job activities (e.g., into full-time teaching and/or administration) or relocation to a new employment. Getting and maintaining research grants is the very largest goal for any faculty scientist; that target now far overshadows making breakthrough discoveries, publishing in the very best journals, and receiving a prize for meritorious teaching.
Feeling the rewards and problems of funding science with research grants!
Receipt of official notice that a research grant application will be funded causes great joy and excitement for any faculty scientist. All of a sudden, the 6-24 months of planning, writing, and revising the proposal seem worthwhile, rather than being burdensome and wearying! Graduate students and research technicians now can be kept employed in the lab, and there will be time to finish some long experiment! Sometimes a new piece of research equipment can be purchased, or a postdoctoral fellow can be added to the laboratory team! A big celebration of this bountiful feast of happiness and satisfaction clearly is in order!
However, research grants are a double-edged sword for university scientists! Very difficult problems frequently accompany research grant awards and these can cause great distress and anguish. A few weeks or months after receiving a new grant, the euphoria wears off and the same scientist again becomes aware of the big problems all faculty scientists face with time and money. After the initial joy, the second emotion to arise is fear! Fear of what? Fear of the fact that the clock is always ticking, and fear of the future! While one is busy hiring and training a new technician, interviewing candidates for an open postdoctoral position, composing a manuscript, dealing with installation of a large new piece of research equipment, teaching in a class with 3 or 300 students, and, doing bench work in the lab, the clock always is counting down the remaining time before important deadlines occur (e.g., sending an annual report to the granting agency, the remaining time left in year-02, getting a large article published, submitting an application for renewal of the current grant at the best time, completing an application for a new (additional) grant now rather than later, etc.).
With regard to the time problem, each grant demands forms to be filled out, reports to be submitted, hours to be scheduled away from the lab, and deadlines to be met. New lab employees need to be evaluated and then trained. In addition to time needed for paperwork, administration, bench work in the lab, lab meetings, office hours for class students, and teaching work, the main time demand for all faculty scientists today is to submit more and more applications so multiple research grants can be obtained; the enormous pressures generated by this time crunch will have strong effects upon any human. For most university scientists, acquiring multiple grants can result in such a large time shortage that there no longer is so much fun with personally working at their research; that stimulates the emotions of despair and depression!
Receipt of another research grant theoretically should solve the money problem for any university scientist. Instead, the new dollars often have the opposite effect! The university might suddenly raise the official salary levels for all employed technicians or graduate students; since the required increase was not included in the proposed budget, this obligation must be paid by those funds awarded for research supplies. Buying a new research instrument might require changing the electricity supplies and remodeling to create a surrounding barrier zone; the grantee must pay for all that work, meaning more rebudgeting. How then will new supply orders be paid for?
Feasting can be followed by a famine!
Many applications for a research grant are not funded or only partially funded. Sooner or later, even famous university scientists fail to have their research grant renewed. Faculty scientists losing a research grant typically try very hard to get funded again via a revised application or a new application for a different project. All science faculty losing their single research grant are facing the kiss of death, where they can lose everything; the unlucky scientist enters a period of true famine. That university scientist then finally becomes very aware that they only have rented their laboratory space, that their research accomplishments mean little to their university, and that their employer really hired them only to get their grant money (i.e., more profits!). Trying to alternate back and forth between the conditions of feast and famine is an emotional situation which is quite sufficient to cause premature aging! Unfunded, but previously funded, faculty now are labelled as being “worthless” by their academic employer; feelings of anger, tearful sorrow, and dissatisfaction certainly flourish. Emotions with feast-or-famine undergo a roller coaster ride!
Problematic features of the current research grant system for supporting scientific research at universities very clearly have emotional consequences. Both happiness, sorrow, disgust, and endless worrying commonly are produced. Having 2 or even 3 research grants can simply magnify the same emotions. Living and working under the condition of feast-or-famine wears academic scientists down and does not encourage the progress of science.
Science has good involvements with business and commerce, but basic research itself is not supposed to be a business! Research grants or other financial support are necessary to pay for all the expenses of conducting experiments, but obtaining more and more of that money is not the true goal of scientists! For modern universities, science is a business, and faculty scientists are just a terrific means to increase their profits!
There are some other ways besides grants to pay for research expenses (see: “Is More Money for Science Really Needed? Part II” , and, “Basic Versus Applied Science: Are There Alternatives to Funding Basic Research by Grants?” ). It seems to me that new mechanisms for financing science and research at universities in the United States now are badly needed in order to stop the destructive problems caused by the current system (see: “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?” ).
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
LET’S FINISH 2015 WITH A HAPPY NOTE!
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Every year there is a storm of activity in Congress and the public media about how much money should be appropriated for federal support of science. These activities result in a never-ending upward spiral demanding more and more dollars for research grants. My opinion is that there already is plenty of money for science, and additional funding is not needed!
Since almost nobody except all the taxpayers will agree with my position, this essay examines this critical issue. Part I considered arguments about whether increased funding is, or is not, needed (see: “Part I” ). Part II now discusses several possible changes to increase the amount of dollars available for research support without needing to mandate any increased taxes. Yes, that is feasible! Throughout both parts of this essay I am referring specifically to faculty scientists researching in universities. Background can be found at “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research”, and “Money Now is Everything in Scientific Research at Universities”.
It is a simple fact that there is not sufficient money today to fund research by all the science faculty members at universities. Taxpayers should not be asked to pay higher taxes since they already are paying too much! The only solutions considered for this annual financial problem always are centered on increasing the dollars available for research grants. No-one seems to be examining any alternative and unconventional ways to generate more dollars for scientific research! This article examines 2 direct and effective ways to do that.
The amount of money available to support research can be increased by (1) greatly reducing waste in research grants, and (2) progressively reducing the number of new scientists!
Wastage of research grant awards now is solidly built into both the current research grant system and the universities receiving grants. On the surface, all expenses for any grant-supported project are officially scored as fully justified; in practice, many expenditures either are not spent for actually doing research, or are duplicated, excessive, and unnecessary (see: “Wastage of Research Grant Money in Modern University Science” ).
Another large waste of research grant funds is found in the indirect costs. These expenses are very necessary to pay for cleaning, garbage service, painting, etc., but somehow can be more than 100% of the direct costs for buying test-tubes and running experiments. Indirect costs are uniquely paid by science faculty with research grant awards; non-science faculty in the same universities usually are not asked to pay for the indirect costs of doing their scholarly work. Thus, my view is that payment for indirect costs by research grants to university scientists is not warranted and wastes grant funds. Nevertheless, the federal granting agencies and universities both approve of this! This peculiar arrangement arouses suspicion that its real purpose is not research support, and must be some hidden objective (see: “Research Grants: What is Going on With the Indirect Costs of Doing Research?” ).
Although everyone can see that there are too many university scientists to be supported with the funds now available, the production of yet more new science PhD’s every year directly increases the number of applicants for research grants! In my view, this is crazy, and there now are too many faculty scientists (see: “Does the USA Really Need so Many New Science Ph.D.’s?” )! The number of grant applications submitted is further increased by the hyper-competition for research grant awards, causing many faculty scientists to try to acquire 2 or more grants (see: “All About Today’s Hyper-competition for Research Grants” ). Both these increases make the shortage of research money worsen each year!
My position about wastage of grant money is let’s stop this nonsense so the many dollars freed from being wasted can be used to support the direct costs of worthy research. My position about producing more doctoral scientists is let’s decrease the number of new PhD’s, so the supply/demand imbalance between number of applicants and the amount of dollars available is removed; this reduction will later decrease the total number of faculty scientists.
Discussion and conclusions!
The policies of both the research grant system and the universities create and encourage the present mess! Instead of crying out for even more money for science, I sincerely believe it would be much better to increase support funds firstly by stopping the very large wastage of funds awarded by research grants, and secondly by decreasing the number of university scientists applying for research grants. Both these changes can be accomplished now without disruptions! They will directly remedy the seemingly unsolvable Malthusian problem with needing more and more money for research grants every year.
Why aren’t alternative possibilities being evaluated and discussed? The answer to this unasked question is very easy: the universities and the research grant system both love all their current policies and practices, even though these are very destructive for university science. University scientists are silent and afraid to protest because they will do anything to get their research grant(s) renewed. The research grant officials at federal agencies are silent because they are afraid to challenge and try to change the status quo. This financial situation now is locked in place (see: “Three Money Cycles Support Scientific Research” ).
Two effective models to support scientific research without needing external research grants are available. The ongoing success of self-funding of industrial research works well, does not depend on external research grants, and might have some usable practices that would help the financial problems for university science. Whether further commercialization of science at universities would help improve their financial operations remains to be seen. The very successful internal funding system supporting basic and applied research projects at the Stowers Institute for Medical Research (Kansas City, MO.) provides another good alternative model for escaping from the current malaise (see: “Part II: The Stowers Institute is a Terrific New Model for Funding Scientific Research!” ). Yet other systems for funding scientific research at universities also are of interest here, but are not being actively considered.
My conclusions for Part II are that: (1) the present conditions for federal support of scientific research at universities are very destructive and not sustainable without killing science (see: “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?” ), and, (2) alternative and unconventional means for providing the large pool of dollars needed to pay for scientific research should be more closely examined and discussed.
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Every year there is a storm of activity in Congress about how much money should be appropriated for federal support of science and research. These yearly debates in Congress are accompanied by focused media campaigns in the public arena. The total annual appropriation is some billions of dollars (see: “Federal obligations for research and development, by character of work, and for R&D plant: FYs 1951-2015” ). Of course, for all the liberals it is never enough! As long as national taxes are collected, the taxpayers provide this huge pile of dollars. All of these activities result in a never-ending upward spiral of more and more dollars.
My view is that more funding is not needed! Since almost nobody will agree with my position, this essay explains and discusses the issue. For beginners, please first get some background by reading “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research”, and “Money Now is Everything in Scientific Research at Universities”. Throughout this essay I am specifically referring to faculty scientists researching in universities.
Reasons why more money seems to be needed!
There are several well-constructed reasons why many more dollars appear to be needed to adequately support and promote scientific research in universities.
(1) Many good projects now cannot be supported by research grants since there are not enough dollars available in the budget appropriated by Congress (see: “Trends in Federal R&D, FY1976-2016” ), meaning that some good studies proposed by university scientists cannot be conducted. All research by all university scientists needs to be supported!
(2) Some approved projects receive only partial funding since there are not enough dollars available to pay for all portions of the budgets requested; this prevents completion of all the specific aims and limits the progress of scientific research!
(3) Since research grants by their nature are competitive, the present shortage of research grant funding results in the very best applicants being fully funded, but most of the others are out of luck; we need more money in order to support all our dedicated university scientists!
(4) New PhD’s are bestowed upon graduate students in science every year; this annual increase in the number of new scientists must be supported by a corresponding annual increase in funding of research grants just for them! More scientists means more progress!
(5) The United States (US) needs to improve its science education for children so we will be able to compete more successfully with the better education provided in some foreign countries (see: “Asia tops biggest global school rankings” ); it will be a disaster if our students are not adequately educated about science, so much more money is required to improve our math and science education!
(6) The most important questions for scientific research (e.g., cancer, water purification, remediation of pollution, solar power, etc.) need to be solved as quickly as possible, so we must selectively fund investigators in these areas; much more money to fund the very best scientists working on these questions will speed up the progress of science for these targets!
Reasons why more money is not needed!
Although all of the foregoing are well-intentioned and some are based on true facts, each reason listed above is strongly disputed!
(1) Not all doctoral scientists conduct research, not all work at universities, and, not all proposed projects are worthy of being funded and conducted; thus, the wish that all should be funded by research grants is just a utopian dream!
(2) The handicap of partial funding is very real, but is an inherent consequence of the competitive nature of the research grant system; some partial support undoubtedly is an attempt by the federal granting agencies to spread their awards to more applicants, thereby keeping them quieter than those receiving no research funds at all.
(3) Competition for research grant awards no longer is a valid term; instead, this must be termed a hyper-competition (see: “All About Today’s Hyper-competition for Research Grants” ). It is a vicious and destructive arrangement, which distorts and disrupts the true aims of science and research. Fully funding all applicants with research grants is impossible, unless and until the streets will become paved with gold!
(4) Increasing money for research support in proportion to the ongoing annual increase in the number of applicants and applications for research grants is another impractical dream; its proponents never state where funds for all the new awards will come from. Generally, more dollars means more taxes!
(5) More money will not necessarily improve science education (i.e., look at what all the money already spent has not accomplished!); instead, what is needed are better teaching, improved students, less memorization and more learning to increase understanding, instruction about problem solving, instruction to counter the false Hollywood message that science and research are entertainments, teaching children and adults how scientific research is very important in the daily life of all people, etc.
(6) Progress in research is always chancy! There is no guarantee whether and when an important research question will be answered. Research grants can be targeted, but it is not predictable which faculty scientist will make the most outstanding discovery. It is unrealistic to throw tons of money at a few scientists, since it is very unclear whether those faculty scientists acquiring large piles of grant money by virtue of their non-science business skills also are the best researchers. Instead, reducing the present emphasis on applied research, and increasing the training of student scientists to investigate basic research within the large areas related to the most important research questions, will increase progress towards these goals.
Brief discussion for Part I.
Examination of the arguments listed above denies the validity of the traditional annual proposal that more and more money is need to support scientific research. In utopia, funding all university scientists certainly would be nice; in the real world, there is not enough money to do that! Also needed are major rearrangements in the priorities and operations of the present system for science in US universities. What is particularly needed are new ideas and changes in the status quo for interactions between research grant agencies and universities; this will be examined in detail by Part II!
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Science in the United States (US) directly interacts with people, small and large businesses, education, the health system, engineers, students, media, etc. One of the very largest and most extensive interactions of science is with the US national government. This 2-part essay takes a critical look at the many involvements of our government with science, research,, and scientists. Part I introduced the means and purposes of the government’s interactions with science (see: “Part I” ); this Part II will examine the positive and negative features resulting from governmental policies and actions for science and research.
What are government research grants doing to university scientists and to the conduct of their research studies in 2015?
Billions of dollars are spent each year by our national government to fund research grants to university scientists for their investigations in all branches of science [1,2]. In 2013, over 5 billion dollars were awarded by the National Science Foundation to support research and education ; the National Institutes of Health dispenses even more money for health-related research and clinical studies Since everyone benefits from progress in science, the US federal government should be praised for financially supporting so many university researchers and research projects.
Unfortunately, it also is true that there are some very serious negative features and counterproductive outcomes of the present research grant system in the US:
(1) there is huge wastage of grant funds for university research (see: “Wastage of Research Grant Money in Modern University Science” );
(2) basic research is less emphasized and funded than is applied research, thereby decreasing generation of new concepts, technologies, and research directions;
(3) the chief goals for becoming a university scientist have changed from discovering new knowledge, conducting innovative experimental investigations to answer important research questions, and developing new technologies, to acquiring more dollars from more research grants;
(4) due to the enormous number of scientists and applications for research grants, many approved studies only receive partial funding, thereby preventing full completi0n of their specific aims;
(5) the extensive current hyper-competition for research grant awards directly causes and stimulates corruption and dishonesty in science;
(6) composing many new research grant applications now takes up more time for many university science faculty than does doing research experiments in their laboratories;
(7) the present hyper-competition for research grant awards means that postdoctoral research fellows increasingly are expected to obtain research grants, instead of doing advanced experiments under the support from their mentor’s grant(s);
(8) the epitome of becoming a famous scientist has been changed from a researcher who makes major discoveries, establishes new directions via breakthrough experiments, achieves new understanding, and innovates new technology, into a scientist-managerwho sits at a desk, rarely (if ever!) enters their laboratory rooms, and acquires some gigantic amount of research funding that enables employment of over a hundred research associates working inside a new research building;
(9) money is absolutely everything for US universities in 2015, and their science departments are only business entities to generate increased profits (see: “Money Now is Everything in Scientific Research at Universities” ); and,
(10) items 1-9 produce degradation and decay of science and research in US universities, which explains why fewer college graduates now enter a career in science; their places in graduate schools now are filled by numerous foreign students, most of whom later find employment as science faculty and researchers in the US.
Some governmental interactions with science are good, but others are very bad!
Among the good results, we can include that scientific research in the US continues to produce new discoveries, issues many publications in science journals, creates some new directions, and makes some important progress. US scientists continue to win the Nobel, Kavli, Lasker, or Breakthrough Prizes, and certainly are very deserving of being honored for their outstanding research achievements. It is good that governmental agencies regulate medical and laboratory research activities for reasons of safety, economy of expenses, and accountability, but this also can restrict creativity, innovation, and research freedom. The US government should continue to support scientific research because that advances science and technology, and thereby leads to benefits for everyone in our society.
On the other hand, the quality of science and of the too numerous modern research publications both are going down. The entire purpose of becoming a doctoral scientist working in universities has changed, and it is not surprising that this has resulted in the decrease of quality! University science now is only a business where money and profits are everything, and faculty research scientists now are businessmen and businesswomen (see: “What’s the New Main Job of Faculty Scientists Today?” ). The federal research grant system fully supports all of this! Obvious wastage of research funds continues to be accepted as an endemic problem in the research grant system (see: “Research Grants: What is Going on with the Indirect Costs of Doing Research?” ), making a mockery of the annual crying for more money to support science. All these changes are obvious to most doctoral science faculty!
Hyper-competition for research grants could be the very worst feature of the status quo!
The vicious and destructive hyper-competition for research grant awards degrades, distorts, and perverts scientific research at universities (see: “All About Today’s Hyper-competition for Research Grants” ). This situation is directly caused by policies of both the funding agencies and the universities. Both organizations approve and like the financial effects of the hyper-competition, and neither seems to understand how this diverts and undermines scientific research. Corruption and dishonesty in science are increasing every year, due in large part to the enormous pressures generated by this hyper-competition for research dollars (see: “Why Would Any Scientist Ever Cheat?” ). Hyper-competition now causes many university scientists to spend more time composing grant applications than they do working on research in their lab.
Why don’t the science faculty at universities speak out and take action?
An obvious question is why faculty scientists tolerate the current degeneration in science and research at universities? Several answers can be given. First, university scientists in general are increasingly dissatisfied with their employment (see: “Why are University Scientists Increasingly Upset with their Job? Part I” , and, “Part II” ); every year some university scientists do move out of academia (of necessity, or by choice), and find a better job in industrial research, science-related companies, or non-science employments. Second, most university scientists holding research grants do recognize the problems caused by the present system, but are too frightened to complain or criticize the research grant system since that could reduce their chances for renewal of their research funding; it seems safer and easier to simply keep quiet. Third, US college students increasingly reject studying to get a PhD for a career in academia; increasing attention by graduate schools now is given to better preparing their science students for employment outside of universities or even outside of research. Fourth, postdoctoral research fellows are organizing and announcing their misgivings about academic science in general and about abuses of their position as researchers in training.
My sad conclusion!
Many of the problems I have described and discussed here are widely known to science faculty, but these issues are only rarely discussed in public or addressed by science societies at their annual meetings. It thus appears to me that universities and the research grant system will have to get even worse before they can change to become better!
My foremost conclusion, based upon having personally seen how things used to be before the hyper-competition for research grants started and expanded, and, before the ongoing conversion of faculty scientists and postdoctoral research trainees into slaves, is thatuniversity science now is dying (see: “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?” ). I am not the only one to come to this sad conclusion (e.g., see: “Science has been Murdered in the US, as Proclaimed by Kevin Ryan and Paul Craig Roberts!” ).
 National Science Foundation, 2015. Table 1. Federal obligations for research and development, by character of work, and for R&D plant: FYs 1951-2016. Available on the internet at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15324/pdf/tab1.pdf .
 American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2015. Trends in federal R&D, FY 1976-2016. Available o the internet at: http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/DefNon_1.jpg .
 National Science Foundation, 2015. TABLE 4. Federal obligations and outlays for research and development by agency: FYs 2013-2015. Available on the internet at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15324/pdf/tab4.pdf .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
SCIENCE AND THE GOVERNMENT: WHAT’S RIGHT AND WHAT’S WRONG? PART I.
Science in the United States (US) directly interacts with people,businesses, educational institutions, the health system, engineers, students, media, etc. One of the very largest and most extensive interactions of science is with the US national government. This 2-part essay takes a critical look at the many involvements of our government with science, research,, and scientists; Part I introduces the different means and purposes of government’s interactions with science.
Overview of official interactions of US government with science.
Very many different agencies of the federal government act upon all branches of science with administrative oversight, numerous regulations, money and contracts to support research projects, new initiatives, policy directives, provision of information, public education, etc. The larger agencies specialized for science include the National Science Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Agricultural Research Service, Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, National Academy of Sciences, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Library of Medicine, etc. All these have large administrative staffs, large budgets, and large areas of action. In addition, many branches and agencies of the military also deal with science. Official representative scientists are appointed as advisers to the President, Congress, and other governmental bodies. One can only conclude that the national government is authorized to actively interact with science, technology, and scientists, at many different levels.
Money is at the center of all government interactions with science!
Money in science is required for all the expenses of conducting research studies (see:“Introduction to money in modern scientific research” ). For science at universities, several government agencies support research expenditures by awarding competitive grants to faculty scientists proposing important projects. Thus, external money is at the heart of all interactions between the government and university scientists; many rules and regulations follow the acceptance of any research grant award. Government uses this dependence upon federal research grants to control university science and direct faculty research into certain directions.
Governmental control of science and research.
US government administrators make policy directives and issue numerous regulations for science, research, education, and medical activities. As specific examples of this network for extensive control of science at universities via policies, programs, and regulations, we can now consider: (1) the Congress, which legislates the number of H1b visas issued each year for foreign scientists to be employed in the US, (2) the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which enforces safety requirements for use of radioactive materials in scientific research, (3) the Occupational Safety and Health Agency (OSHA), that mandates what special features must be present in refrigerators for their use within research labs, (4) the Food and Drug Administration, which is supposed to determine whether pharmaceutical products are safe and effective for patient care by physicians, and (5) the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which mandates salary levels for Postdocs researching in grant-supported labs. These are only a few examples from the many available!
How does the government actually use science and scientists?
Scientists often are used to provide “expert opinions and evaluations” for dealing with big problems facing the government. Those frequently involve testimonial input that is used to justify policy decisions and positions about controversial issues (e.g., global warming, mandated use of vaccines, approval or disapproval of new drugs and public health regulations, responses to foreign epidemics, international disputes, etc.). In response to such usage, opponents of the government’s position bring forth their own expert scientists! Readers should note that these controversies usually are about politics, economics, and power, rather than about science (see: “What Happens When Scientists Disagree? Part II: Why is There Such a Long Controversy About Global Warming and Climate Change?” ). It would be much better if the government sought recommendations of expert scientists before policies are made, rather than after they are finalized!
People give enormous amounts of money for scientific research, via their taxes!
Scientific research costs a lot of money (see: “Why is Science so Very Expensive? Why do Research Experiments Cost so Much?” ). This clearly is in the national interest and deserves to be supported. The US government pays giant amounts of dollars for: science education at schools and universities; research grants for universities, hospitals, and small businesses; clinical research trials; large special facilities for research usage; science meetings; public education about health and science; etc. The annual budget for sponsoring all these science-related activities is many billions of dollars [1,2]. Most funding comes from taxpayers; thus, all taxpayers deserve many thanks from university scientists for supporting their research activities!
In addition to basic and applied research investigations at universities, medical schools, and hospitals, a very large amount of research and development also takes place at industrial laboratories. All the research investigations in industries costs a huge number of dollars in total, and are internally paid by individual companies.
The forthcoming Part II will present both the good and bad consequences of governmental interactions with science, research, and scientists. Special attention will be given to how the present research grant system is hurting scientific research, rather than helping it!
 National Science Foundation, 2015. Table 1. Federal obligations for research and development, by character of work, and for R&D plant: FYs 1951-2015. Available on the internet at: http://nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15324/pdf/tab1.pdf .
 American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), 2015. Trends in federal R&D, FY 1976-2016. Available on the internet at: http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/DefNon_1.jpg .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Cover of the 2007 autobiography by James E. Stowers with Jack Jonathan. Published by Andrews McMeel Publishing, and available from many booksellers on the internet. (http://dr-monsrs.net)
The life of a major benefactor to biomedical research, James E. Stowers, Jr. (1924-2014), was briefly introduced in the previous article (see: “Part I” ). I have conjectured there that Jim Stowers must have understood exactly what are the very biggest problems and impediments for research in modern universities. The Stowers Institute for Medical Research (see: http://www.stowers.org/ ) precludes those destructive problems and represents a new model to better organize the funding and operations of scientific research at universities. Part II now examines in more detail the differences between research centers at universities and the Stowers Institute. I particularly hope that science faculty and administrators at universities will learn about and discuss this new model.
Major differences for science operations between universities and the Stowers Institute.
The organization of financial support for scientific research at the Stowers Institute differs dramatically from that at universities in the US. Universities now view science and research only as a business enterprise that is a good means to increase their financial income (i.e., from research grant awards). This very widespread policy is so counterproductive for research progress that some even have concluded that university science must be dying (e.g., see: “Could Science and Research now be Dying?” and“Science has been Murdered in the United States, as Proclaimed by Kevin Ryan and Paul Craig Roberts” ). Below are given the chief reasons why universities are so extensively different from the Stowers Institute.
The number one reason why science in academia is so very unlike that at the Stowers Institute is that universities directly insist that faculty scientists rent laboratory space and support all expenses for their investigations by acquiring research grants. For universities, faculty scientists now are only a means to the end of increasing their profits (see: “Money now is Everything in Scientific Research at Universities” ); the science faculty presently is forced to spend too much time and emotional energy on trying to acquire more research grant awards, instead of actually doing experiments to produce more new results. The Stowers Institute replaces research grants by the very large endowment from Jim Stowers and his wife, Virginia; this endowment is purposefully arranged to continue generating new funds that will be used for future research expenses.
The second reason is that advances in basic research now are downplayed by the funding agencies and by universities, due to its greater distance from generating new products and financial rewards. Universities and the research grant system give much emphasis toapplied research and commercial involvements, since those produce income more readily. The Stowers Institute specifically targets basic research, which is the forerunner for all applied research.
A third reason is that the research grant system does not provide much direct support forexperimental projects needing 10-20 years to complete. The most significant questions for research are very large and complex, so answering them simply cannot be accomplished with only the usual 3-5 years of supported research study; getting a research grant renewed always is uncertain, even for famous faculty scientists. This time limitation discourages scientists from studying the most important research questions. At the Stowers Institute, projects on large research questions are able to be undertaken.
The fourth reason is that the Stowers Institute employs research scientists using contract renewals instead of the traditional tenure system found in universities. Nowadays, the main way to get tenured in university science departments is to be successful at acquiring research grants; the tenure system mostly counts dollars and differs greatly from the ongoing evaluation of research quality utilized at the Stowers Institute. Thus, universities actually are rewarding their science faculty for business skills rather than rewarding them for research breakthroughs and science progress.
A fifth reason is that the intellectual atmosphere at the Stowers Institute is much freer and more encouraging of creativity, curiosity, innovation, and interdisciplinary studies than is found at modern universities. Business is not the endpoint of science; at the Stowers Institute, the openly sought endpoint is research excellence.
What are the effects of these differences upon science and research?
For today’s universities, science is just a business and their faculty scientists are businessmen and businesswomen. Their pursuit of money fundamentally changes and distorts the true aim of scientific research. The chief target of science faculty is no longer to discover new knowledge and increase understanding. Instead, daily life for many university scientists involves the hyper-competition for research grants, which wastes both time and money, and, makes it very difficult to trust any fellow faculty scientists for advice and collaborations (see: “All about Today’s Hyper-competition for Research Grants” ). Accordingly, science at universities now is distorted, degenerated, and perverted; this extensive decay subverts science and research at universities.
Turning university research into a commercial activity distorts the traditional aims of science, and increases the corruption of scientists there (see: “Why is It so very Hard to Eliminate Fraud and Corruption in Scientists?” ). Basic research remains as important as it always has been, and should not be repressed in favor of applied research. The Stowers Institute recognizes these values and succeeds in pursuing excellence in biomedical science; its success seems to be directly due to the philosophy and organization instituted by its founder and directors.
The policies and organization that Jim Stowers initiated clearly go against all the serious problems for science at universities. His distinctive design emphasizes using and encouraging creativity, exploration of new ideas by innovative research, vigorous collaborations, and much hard work; this atmosphere aims to result in research breakthroughs and encourages new concepts in basic science. Jim Stowers and co-organizers clearly have shown how this idealistic atmosphere can be accomplished in today’s world. It is noteworthy that some large pharmaceutical firms endow their own research institutes quite similarly to what has been done for the Stowers Institute.
Is this huge difference only a question of money?
Of course, many will say that the donation of a billion dollars would let their university activate enlightened policies for its science. I disagree, and believe that money alone willnot remedy the negative aspects of current university science! Also needed are wholesale changes in administrative policies, independent leadership, organization, philosophy, working atmosphere, and, much less dedication to commercialization. All of these are essential! Although making these changes would rescue university science from its present debilitation, it seems unlikely that such will be undertaken.
Any excuse by universities that they do not have such large funds does not explain why thehuge endowments already in-hand at some universities are not spent for the support of scientific research and researchers in a manner analogous to the Stowers Institute. Instead, these very large funds are used to try to further increase the financial income and profits of academic institutions (e.g., all sorts of entertaining amusements on and off campus, flashy brochures and other publicity, programs for visiting prospective students and parents, public courses and lectures, travel programs, solicitation of donations, sports activities and athletic contests, television specials, etc.).
Why cannot university science departments mimic the model of the Stowers Institute, and thereby free themselves from their major problems?
If it is not only a question of money, then there must be something else that impedes adopting the Stowers Institute as a model for conducting good scientific research. Opinions for identifying this hidden factor will differ, but I see the actual cause as being the commercialization of science at universities (see: “What is the Very Biggest Problem for Science Today?” ). This commercialization changes the whole nature of academic science and research. The research grant system was intended to enable scientific research, not to change and distort it. Universities were supposed to produce new knowledge and concepts, to teach, and to investigate the truth, not to become financial centers. All these ideals have changed so greatly at universities that good scientific research now is hindered and foundering. The actual priorities are quite different from the needed priorities; until these are changed, faculty scientists cannot hope to escape from their enslavement by the research grant system.
The Stowers Institute for Medical Research stands as a very successful new model for promoting research advances and science progress. The big difference to science that Jim and Virginia Stowers have made in the US can and should be copied by universities to reorganize and better foster their high quality research. This large change in priorities and operations need not be done all at once (i.e., simultaneously for all science departments); it could start with one science department and then expand to others over a 10-year period. The payoff to universities for removing the restrictions and distortions imposed by viewing scientific research only as a commercial business enterprise, will be a substantial elevation of the quality and vigor of their science activities, and, a more reliable future input of income.
The success of the Stowers Institute dramatically proves that science does not need to be harnessed and hobbled by the research grant system! Bypassing the grave current problems at universities stemming from the research grant system will reduce or remove the vicious hyper-competition for research grant awards that badly distorts their science, and will increase job satisfaction for the science faculty. The benefits shown by this new model give some hope that university science need not continue to decay and degenerate until it actually dies (see: “Could Science and Research now be Dying?” ).
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
James E Stowers, Jr. (1924-12014) must have understood exactly what are the very biggest problems and impediments for modern science before he and his wife founded and generously financed a wonderful new research institute. This large research center provides a dramatic new model for the funding of scientific research that avoids the dreadful problems now damaging science at universities. Part I will briefly relate his interesting history and the unusual organization of the Stowers Institute for Medical Research. Part II will explain in detail why this new direction for supporting scientific research is so unusual, very worthy of emulation, and giving hope that the dying science in modern universities can be rescued.
What sort of person was Jim Stowers?
Jim Stowers was born, raised, and educated in Missouri. Since he recently passed away at age 90, many publications describe his life story [e.g., 1-3]. With his father and grandfather being physicians, he first studied for some years at the University of Missouri Medical School before entering the US Army Air Force where he served as a fighter pilot in WW2. When back home, young Stowers became a business entrepreneur. In 1958 he set up Twentieth Century Mutual Funds, which concentrated on serving individual people; this private company grew under his leadership to later be renamed American Century Investments. That financial business was very successful and his personal fortune grew substantially as the firm became one of the largest mutual fund companies in the US.
Jim Stowers has co-authored several popular books including an autobiography (see image above under the title). He and his wife, Virginia, a professional nurse, have several children and grandchildren. Jim and Virginia Stowers each were stricken with cancer, but both fortunately became cancer survivors and dedicated philanthropists for science. In 1994, they targeted high quality science by founding the Stowers Institute for Medical Research in their hometown, Kansas City, Missouri. Their personal donations and endowment (Hope Shares Endowment) total around 2 billion dollars! Jim Stowers is quoted as saying, “My wife and I wanted to give back something more valuable than money to the millions of people who made our success possible, and we think that through science is the best way we can do it” .
A good recent video nicely illustrates the life and activities of Jim Stowers; “James E. Stowers, Jr. Tribute Video” is from American Century Investments, and is available on the internet at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3g531Fwi64&feature=youtu.be .
The Stowers Institute for Medical Research [1-3].
Since its opening in 2000, the Stowers Institute has grown to now have 22 research programs and over 500 research workers. Over 150 research projects by in-house scientists currently involve 75 postdocs, 58 graduate students, 80 research technicians, and 73 support scientists. In 2012, The Scientist magazine announced that their annual survey had found the Stowers Institute to rank in the top 3 places for scientists to work worldwide. Dr.M encourages everyone to take a look at the fascinating website of the Stowers Institute at: http://www.stowers.org/ .
The mission of the Stowers Institute is to conduct the highest quality scientific research in order to find and understand the secrets of life. By focusing innovative research on genes and proteins it aims to contribute to the betterment of people by its discoveries relating to the causes, treatments, and prevention of diseases. The Stowers Institute has a number of unusual features distinguishing it from other biomedical research centers. Unlike all universities, it is self-supported from the very large endowment from Jim and Virginia Stowers; this means that its faculty-level scientists do not need to spend time worrying about the vagaries of research grants, and instead can concentrate on vigorously doing significant research work. The size and purposeful organization of the endowment funds will generate ongoing income for the future expenses of this major research center.
Another unusual characteristic of the Stowers Institute is that its multidisciplinary teamwork-based approach is directed onto pure basic research (i.e., to be able to advance detection and clinical treatment of cancer and other difficult diseases, it is necessary to first understand very much more about the activities of genes and proteins in normal and pathological cells). The Stowers Institute is physically organized to facilitate internal collaborative interactions, and provides the many support services and facilities needed for research operations by its principal investigators (e.g., core labs, shared research equipment, technology centers, etc., with each staffed by technical experts).
Two good recent videos show the Stowers Institute and its activities for science. “NBC features the Stowers Institute for Medical Researh” is from American Century Investments, and is available on the internet at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dMRIrk9nW8k . “The Stowers Institute for Medical Research – The Local Show” from station KCPT shows some research scientists in action at the Stowers Institute; it is available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1quFJfeuG0o&spfreload=10 .
The BioMed Valley Discoveries organization.
The Stowers Institute, which features non-clinical basic research, is affiliated with the nearby BioMed Valley Discoveries, Inc., also funded by the Stowers endowment. This company (see: https://biomed-valley.com ) features applied pre-clinical and clinical research, by conducting new drug trials and clinical research investigations stemming from the basic findings at the Stowers Institute. Emphasis is given to translating advances from pure basic research into new and better clinical practices at the bedside of patients. It does not hesitate to work on disease-related projects considered unprofitable by the large pharmaceutical companies. Success in its ventures presumably will lead to later commercial developments that will add more funds to the Stowers endowment.
Everyone must admit that Jim and Virginia Stowers have made a big difference to biomedical science in the US. The Stowers Institute for Medical Research stands as a successful and inspiring new model for promoting research advances and science progress; this will be discussed in more detail in Part II. The payoff for the public will come later when new findings generated from innovative basic research at the Stowers Institute result in development of more effective clinical treatments for human diseases.
 The Stowers Institute for Medical Research, 2014. James E. Stowers, Jr. Available on the internet at: http://www.stowers.org/James-E-Stowers .
 American Century Investments, 2014. Innovator and philanthropist dedicated life to helping others. Available on the internet at:https://corporate.americancentury.com/content/americancentury/corporate/en/press/news-releases/2014/stowers-tribute.html .
 E. A. Harris, The New York Times, 2014. James E. Stowers, Jr., benefactor of medical research, dies at 90. Available on the internet at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/19/business/james-e-stowers-jr-benefactor-of-medical-research-dies-at-90.html .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Answers are badly needed for the many questions about research grants in science! (http://dr-monsrs.net)
Research grants pay for all the many expenses of doing scientific research in universities, and now are the primary focus for faculty scientists. Size and number of grants determines salary level, promotions, amount of assigned laboratory space, teaching duties required, professional status and reputation, and, ability to have graduate students working in a given lab. Research grants typically are awarded to science faculty for 3-5 years; grant renewals are not always successful, or can be funded only partially. Without continuing to acquire and maintain this external funding, it is basically impossible to be employed or doing research as a university scientist in the United States.
This condition causes many secondary problems, all of which impede research progress. In my opinion, the very worst of these is the hyper-competition for research grants (see:“All About Today’s Hyper-competition for Research Grants” ). Every scientist is competing with every other scientist for an award from a limited pool of money. For university scientists, this activity consumes giant amounts of time that would and should be spent on research experiments, burns up large amounts of personal energy, distorts emotions and disturbs sleep, causes and encourages dishonesty, and, is very frustrating whenever applications are not successful. I previously discussed how all this causes so many university scientists to be dissatisfied with their career (see: “Why are University Scientists Increasingly Upset with their Job? Part I” , and, “Part II” ).
This essay gives questions about the present research grant system that usually are notasked, and my best answers to them no matter how disturbing that might be. I have phrased these questions just as they would be given by non-scientist readers of this website. Everyone should know that I have reviewed grant applications as a member of several special review panels, held several research grants (for which I am very thankful!), and, also had several of my applications rejected. Hence, my responses to these questions are based upon my own personal experiences as a faculty scientist.
Maybe the hyper-competition actually is good! Isn’t it true that the very best research scientists always will be funded?
Not always! Sometimes the “best research scientists” also get rejected, or are only partially funded; despite their status, they can get careless, arrogant, or too aged. Nevertheless, leading scientists are favored to stay funded because they understand exactly how the grant system works, and have easier interactions with officials at the granting agencies. In my opinion, only indirect correlations exist between success in acquiring very many research dollars, and production of many breakthrough research results. Excelling in either one says little about results in the other.
Do scientists doing very good research always get funded?
Not always! Getting a grant or a renewal always is chancy and never is certain, since this decision involves strategy, governmental budgets, contacts with officials at the granting agencies, which side of the bed reviewers get up from, and many other non-sciencefactors. Young scientists spend very many years with their research training and early work as a member of some science faculty, but then can be abruptly discharged for having trouble or failing at this business task; remember that these scientists are trained to be researchers, and are not graduates of a business school!
Don’t university scientists mainly need to get good research publications?
The main job of university scientists today is no longer to get good publications, but rather is to acquire more research grant funds! I doubt that science graduate students ever intend to work for over a decade to become a faculty scientist just so they can spend their professional life chasing money (see: “What is the New Main Job of Faculty Scientists Today?” ). But, that is exactly what the hyper-competition forces them to do! For most researchers, the hyper-competition for grants in universities badly distorts what it means to be a scientist; hence, I believe it is very bad for science.
Aren’t scientists trained about how to deal with this research grant problem when they were graduate students or postdocs?
There certainly are no organized sessions or courses in finance, commerce, or business given to graduate students in science, even though university science now certainly is a big business (see: “Money Now is Everything in Scientific Research at Universities” .
Isn’t there some way faculty scientists can avoid this situation?
Yes indeed, but it ain’t so easy! Switching to a research job in industry or to a non-research job outside universities will resolve this problem situation. The main way university scientists try to preclude this problem is to acquire 2 (or more!) research grants; then, if one award later is not renewed, the other one then will keep the faculty scientist’s career intact. Of course, this strategy of seeking to acquire multiple research grants has its own costs and directly serves to make the hyper-competition even more intense.
Why not simply require all faculty scientists to get 2 research grants?
This idea ignores the fact that running a productive research lab in academia takes up a huge bunch of precious time. Faculty scientists with 2 research grants usually become so short of time that they must switch gears so as to function as a research manager, rather than continue as a research scientist. Some managers even reserve one half-day per week where they are not to be interrupted for any reason by anyone while they work in their own lab. Another fact to be recognized is that most university scientists today do not ever hold 2 concurrent research grants.
Isn’t there counselling and help given to faculty members who lose their grant?
At some universities this now is done, thank goodness! However, at many others, the affected professionals must try to get funded again all by themselves. It is a sign of the vicious nature of the hyper-competition for research grants that any scientists who try to help a fellow faculty colleague (i.e., a competitor) necessarily are also hurting themselves.
Cannot some research experiments be done without a grant?
This could be done, but it is not permitted! Upon rejection of an application for renewal, faculty scientists soon lose their assigned laboratory space, thus precluding any more experiments; at some institutions, each then is viewed as a “loser” and is suspected of being a “failed scientist”. I consider this system of “feast or famine” to be horribly ridiculous; nevertheless, it does show loud and clear what is the true end of scientific research in modern universities (see: “What is the New Main Job of Faculty Scientists Today?”).
Is there some other way to support science without causing such difficult problems?
This is theoretically possible, but in practice it is nearly impossible because the present research grant system is so deeply entrenched. There is a very large activation barrier to making any changes since universities and leaders at the granting agencies both are very happy with the status quo (i.e., universities get good profits from the research grants of their science faculty, and research grant agencies receive an increasing number of applications for financial support). Although this question is discussed in private by university scientists, I am not aware of any open general discussions about trying out some alternative approaches to support research activities in science.
If the research grant system really is so troubled and has such awful effects, why don’t all the university scientists protest?
Every university scientist holding a research grant knows better than to complain about being a slave in the modern research grant system, because they want to continue being funded. As the saying goes, “Do not bite the hand that feeds you”!
My comments and conclusions.
I see the present problems with the research grant system as being very unfortunate for science. The current situation has bad effects on research progress and clearly is very vicious to some scientists. This system is strongly supported by both all universities and the granting agencies. Any proposals to make any changes will be strongly opposed by all the beneficiaries of this system, including funded scientists working at universities.
My main conclusions are that (1) business and money now rule science, and (2) everything about scientific research at universities now is money (see: “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research” , and, “3 Money Cycles Support Scientific Research” ). I certainly am not the only one to reach these conclusions (i.e., search for “money in science” on any internet browser, and you will see what I mean!).
Quality of experimental research, creative ideas for experiments, derivation of innovative concepts, and working hard with a difficult project are no longer very important. All that matters now is to get the money! All these negatives form a strong basis for why I regretfully believe that science now is dying (see: “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?” ).
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
- It’s Not so Easy to Decide Where to Apply for a New Research Grant!! (http://dr-monsrs.net)
- Many university researchers wish that new directions and new support programs would be initiated so as to remove or at least decrease the negative aspects of modern university science and of the current research grant system. This short series of essays puts forth proposals for some really new and different kinds of research grants, as an attempt to insert new ideas for funding mechanisms. Part I proposed the establishment of a new grant program to specifically support “pilot studies” in all branches of science (see “New Kinds of Research Grants for Science, Part I” ). Part II now proposes a new research grant mechanism designed to finally resolve some long-standing controversies having big consequences for science and society.
Giant controversies in science arise despite lots of good research. Certain research disputes have become so controversial that they are deadlocked. Traditional grant-supported research only increases the stalemated dispute and does not succeed in resolving the controversy. The federal granting agencies do not seem to recognize that the best answer to these large controversies is to not fund more of the usual limited investigations, but instead to sponsor better research! Definitive additional experimental data and analysis will permit expert scientists to reach a consensus about what really is known or not known, and what is true or false.
What causes research controversies to become long-standing?
Controversies in science are good except when disputes become stalemated and further ordinary research can make little or no progress. Some disputes involve big disagreements about opposing interpretations of research results. Others involve directed interpretations of scientific data coming from commercial manufacturers. Occasionally, the scientists employed by national regulatory agencies are alleged to hide data or purposely misinterpret some test results so as to give a falsely positive evaluation (e.g., U.S. Food and Drug Agency). A different type of dispute arises when ordinary people personally observe effects and activities that are quite different from the conclusions drawn by research scientists. Big disputes are not just academic activities, but even can involve public health and safety.
Some examples of big controversies in current science.
All very large controversies are long-standing stalemated disputes, and often have big importance for society and science. Examples of topics where research conclusions in both basic and applied science currently are widely disputed and very controversial include: (1) glyphosate (e.g., Is widespread use of this commercial chemical in modern agriculture poisoning all of us?), (2) white LED light bulbs (e.g., Do they truly pay for themselves in common household usage versus the cost of modern incandescent light bulbs?), (3) various vaccines (e.g., Do influenza vaccines also cause new flu infections? Do they cause autism or other health problems?), (4) cold fusion (e.g., Is cold fusion possible or not?), (5) post-Fukushima radiocontamination of oceans with uranium derivatives (e.g., Can entire oceans be decontaminated? How can that be done? What improved or new measures can reliably prevent any repetitions of a Fukushima-type disaster at nuclear power plants?), and, (6) global warming (e.g., How much do environmental temperatures naturally vary over shorter or longer periods of time? Have temperatures recently increased more than natural variations? Have humans and industries caused any increase in prevailing temperatures?). Research results from all the many previous ordinary scientific studies on these questions have failed to permit a consensus to be reached; therefore, new kinds of research studies are needed in order to specifically break each stalemate and result in a new consensus view being accepted.
Details about proposed new research grants to resolve big controversies in science.
I propose a new research grant program to support research studies on very large controversial questions in science. This new kind of support program aims to finally resolve stalemates in giant controversies, so that basic and applied research then can proceed and progress without being tied down for more decades with endless controversy about the same disputes. All proposed new projects must be realistically able to fully resolve a giant controversy in 10 or less years of experimental research studies. Awards will range up to 10 years of support. Awardees with a 5 year award can apply for one renewal of 5 more years; awardees for 10 years of support cannot be renewed.
Who can apply? Applications will be accepted from scientists and engineers holding a doctoral degree, and being employed in universities or industrial research labs. At least a 50% effort by the Principal Investigator (P.I.) is required. Both individual scientists and small groups (i.e., up to a maximum of 12 doctoral co-investigators) can apply for research support from this new program.
Proposals: Key questions to be answered and criitically evaluated in all proposals are: (1) exactly how can the selected controversy be fully resolved within a 10 year period of work, and, (2) how will the new results obtained cause a consensus to finally be reached?
Applications must give: (1) detailed description of the experimental data to be collected and analyzed, (2) different conclusions that could arise from full completion of the proposed new studies, and, (3) what will happen when the controversy finally is resolved. All research facilities to be used must be desribed in detail. Additionally, all applications must explain: (1) where the P.I. and all co-investigators initially stand with regard to the selected controversy, (2) how the expected new results will be able to finally resolve the controversy, rather than simply leading to further disputes, and, (3) exactly what will be known and what will remain unknown after the new studies are completed. Applications should carefully justify percentage efforts of all participants, and, explain how the proposed studies relate to research projects supported by current awards to the P.I. and all co-investigators.
Due to the nature and size of the research questions involved in big controversies, small groups using highly coordinated experiments and bringing a good range of specific expertise to the project will receive preference; however, proposals from especially well-qualified individual investigators also will be welcomed. The P.I. must have had at least one regular external research grant awarded (on any subject) within the past 6 years. Applicants can request support funds for all usual kinds of research expenses, except that no funding for purchase of new research equipment is permitted; however, funds can be requested for the required construction of special research instruments enabling production of new data that will resolve the controversy.
How will proposals be evaluated? Priority for funding will be evaluated by peer review primarily on the basis of: (1) quality of the planned new experiments and data analysis, (2) likelihood that completion of the proposed definitive studies will be fully completed within a 10-year period of support, and, (3) plans for finally reaching a general consensus amidst the ongoing disputes.
How will science benefit from resolving giant controversies? Resolving big controversies will dramatically advance science by helping to invigorate the weak status of experimental research studies in U.S. universities (see: “Could Science and Research now be Dying?” ). Resolving a big controversy will: (1) preclude spending more research time and funding that leads nowhere; instead, later research will involve practical applications via new applied research and engineering developments, without distractions from commercial and political interests; and, (2) permit future research studies to be based on the new consensus conclusions, rather than on the same old controversial positions. After each large controversy is resolved, smaller research questions following from the newly-accepted consensus conclusions can be supported through regular research grant mechanisms.
Everone should be able to recognize the negative effects of stalemated giant controversies in modern science. These not only cause wastage of time and money, but result in decreased public esteem for science, research, and scientists. Resolution of these controversies will finally enable future research studies to investigate new details and specific questions, without being forced to be involved in the former dispute itself; continuing these controversies is pointless. Science then will be able to free itself from the politics and emotions behind these controversies. Future productive new research studies in science and engineering will be based upon the new consensus. After the giant controversies finally are resolved, the progress of today’s science will be improved, and the public will benefit much from new practical advances.
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
- It’s Not so Easy to Decide Where to Submit a New Research Grant!! (http://dr-monsrs.net)
Almost all scientists agree that the modern research grant system has both good and bad effects upon the science enterprise. Periodic efforts by the largest granting agencies of the federal government create additional support opportunities for research scientists, but unfortunately these only seem to provide small improvements. Scientific research costs billions of dollars annually in the United States (U.S.) (see: “Why is Science so very Expensive? Why do Research Experiments Cost so Much?”); financial support comes from government agencies (via taxpayers) and from industrial companies. Background materials about the multibillion-dollars in research support funds currently awarded by the largest agencies are readily available on the internet for the National Science Foundation (NSF) (see: “About the National Science Foundation” ) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (see: “About National Institutes of Health” ).
Many university researchers wish that new directions and new support programs would be initiated so as to remove or decrease the negative aspects of the current research grant system. This short series of essays puts forth proposals for some really new and different kinds of research grants, as an attempt to insert some new ideas for funding mechanisms. The proposed initiatives will help invigorate the decayed status of experimental research studies in U.S. universities (see: “Could Science and Research now be Dying?” ). My proposals will function nicely within the present research grant system.
What are Pilot Studies, and Why are they Important?
Pilot studies are short-term experimental research efforts seeking to find which subjects, approaches, and methods are best suited to produce good results for a possible new research investigation. Ideally, these initial studies result in identification of which designs for experiments will work, what experimental subjects can be used effectively, which research questions or hypotheses can be answered or tested by the proposed experiments, and what types of results will be obtained. Pilot studies produce preliminary results confirming that a planned approach actually will answer a research question.
Only a limited time and effort usually can be expended on evaluating and devloping a potential new research project. In modern universities, pilot studies now often are: (1) conducted as minor side efforts during the investigations funded by a research grant, (2) assigned to a graduate student or a research technician, or, (3) done during a sabbatical leave. Pilot studies are important because they show how raw theoretical ideas can be converted into practical reality (i.e., sometimes a very clever idea just will not work in the research laboratory).
The current research grant system requires preliminary data for all applications, but unofficially discourages pilot studies. The grant system seeks solid new knowledge based on known approaches and building on already accomplished research results; this goal is inherently different from the exploratory nature of pilot studies. Although most pilot studies are more or less supported by current research grant award(s), there is not much room in funded research projects for really creative experimentation, trying out unconventional new ideas, or starting new work in some different area of science; pilot studies focus on exactly these aspects of research, and are much less restricted than ongoing regular studies. Additionally, use of research grant funds to conduct pilot studies is extremely difficult for the increasing number of good scientists now receiving awards with only partial funding.
The hidden value of pilot studies for science is that they often are individual expressions of creative and innovative ideas. Once a research grant is awarded, most activities are set in place and scheduled, with little necessity to think any new thoughts. Most scientists in universities stick to what they can get funded readily, and rarely switch projects or start work in other fields of science. Pilot studies often include creative designs, new approaches, and very innovative ideas. Hence, the most important role of pilot studies for science is that they stimulate new thoughts, new questions, and new experiments. Thus,pilot studies represent initial inputs of new ideas into science.
Support for pilot studies at present.
Current mechanisms for obtaining the necessary funds to conduct pilot studies are too limited. I have not found any general supportive programs at the NSF or NIH that fund only pilot study research. Actual lab work in pilot studies more frequently is a short subsidiary effort funded by an ongoing research grant; there is little push to conduct creative or unconventional studies with really new research questions and ideas. Some science organizations do make awards for pilot studies, and some medical schools do have special programs internally supporting pilot studies for their faculty researchers.
The only other general funding source for pilot studies appears to be crowdfunding. This new type of public-supported and -donated funding usually features limited amounts of money and time, but that is exactly what is needed for pilot research. Most applicants already have a well-equipped research lab. However, the chief problem with crowdfunding is that the general public often cannot readily comprehend what is involved in pilot studies and how that is used by science; therefore, proposals by scientists to support new pilot studies cannot readily compete with proposals for conducting creative projects in the arts. Accordingly, grant support for pilot studies is quite limited, and a new kind of support program for pilot studies now is needed!
Details of the proposed new research grants for pilot studies.
I propose a new type of research grant, dedicated to enabling the conduct of more new pilot studies. This new award program will support worthy pilot studies at universities for a duration of 1-4 months. At least a 25-50% effort by the Principal Investigator (P.I.) is required. No expenses for salary of the P.I. and no indirect costs will be supported. Direct costs for supplies, lab personnel, and research travel (e.g., to conduct studies at an off-campus location) will be supported. All awards are limited to a maximum total of $40,000. Successful outcome to a pilot study supported by this new granting program is expected to lead to a new proposal for funding by a regular research grant mechanism.
Who can apply? Applications for pilot study grants can be submitted by any scientist or engineer with a doctoral degree, and having access to adequate laboratory space and instrumentation facilities. Applicants holding a faculty status are preferred. Graduate students and Postdocs cannot apply for these grants. Any individual scientist can have only one pilot study award for any calendar year.
Proposals: Applications for new pilot studies can involve any area of modern science. Proposals must fully describe the new experimental investigations to be conducted, examine all possible results, explain what research project could follow if the pilot studies are successful, and, give reasons how and why both this pilot study and the anticipated subsequent research work are important for science and society. Available research facilities to be used must be described in detail. All anticipated costs must be justified. Pilot study grants are not supplements to currently awarded research grants; applications must make clear how the proposed pilot study relates to any and all current awards. This new granting program has no renewals. Awards can permit new pilot studies by science faculty currently without a research grant, or, by those wishing to begin research on a new and different subject or branch of acience. Proposals with innovative and unconventional new approaches are welcomed.
How will proposaals be evaluated? Priority for funding will be evaluated by peer review on the primary basis of: (1) quality of the planned new experiments, (2) likelihood that completion of the proposed pilot study will result in submission of a new meritorious research grant application, and (3) potential contributions to the progress of science.
How will science benefit from new grants for pilot studies? The proposed new granting program will provide funds that: (1) increase the number of pilot studies being conducted, (2) enable preliminary studies to be made where simultaneous regular grant awards do not provide sufficient “extra funds” for pilot studies, and (3) provide opportunities for established university scientists to switch their research into new subjects or new areas of science. This new kind of research grant will increase creative research ideas and investigations, enlarge the scope of innovative research activities at universities, and, encourage new ventures in scientific research by professional scientists and engineers.
There still are too many barriers to making important new research discoveries and advances. In my opinion, the biggest problem in modern laboratory science is not insufficient support money, but that there are restrictions for developing new ideas, thinking new thoughts about research, using new designs for experiments, and, devising unconventional approaches to solve difficult or controversial research questions. The new grants for pilot studies will be instrumental in overcoming some current restrictions limiting the progress of scientific research. If support is given to pilot studies that investigate controversies, use creative designs with unconventional approaches, and start or switch research work onto very new projects, then significant research advances and science progress will follow.
By increasing the number of pilot studies, the number of really new scientific investigations will be fostered. This new support mechanism provides a good answer to the increasingly frequent question from university scientists, “How can I test my new idea for research and get the required preliminary data when I do not now have a research grant?” Former faculty grantees who have been hung up to dry or die will have a new opportunity to return to active research. By fostering new developments, new ideas, and new activity in experimental research, the new pilot study grants will stimulate the improvement and progress of today’s science.
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
- Quotes (2015) from Kevin R. Ryan and Paul Craig Roberts, about the murder of science (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/02/17/guest-column-kevin-ryan-science-died-911/)
Kevin R. Ryan was discharged from working at the Underwriters Laboratories after he began inquiring about test results for construction materials used for building the World Trade Center. After their targeted destruction in 2001, he and others actively continue to investigate and question the validity of the government’s examinations and official explanation for that signal event in our country. He has published several books about 9/11, and now co-edits several journals focused on that dramatic day (see: http://digwithin.net/about/ ).
Paul Craig Roberts is a very sharp and outspoken writer covering many topics about the economy, politics, history, and modern society, both in the United States (U.S.) and the world. He acquired much inside knowledge about how our national government works during his earlier service as Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy (1981-82). Dr. Roberts holds a Ph.D. in Economics (University of Virginia), and has published many incisive books. His website, “Institute for Political Economy” (see: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org ), issues his perceptive examinations and forthright conclusions for many current events and the difficult problems we all face.
A very recent essay by Kevin Ryan, entitled “How Science Died on 9/11” (see: http://digwithin.net ), forms the core for Dr. Roberts’ thoughts about the viability of science in the modern U.S. (see: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/02/17/guest-column-kevin-ryan-science-died-911/ ). Both authors feel that science in America died after the 9/11 catastrophe when it was murdered by the numerous research scientists remaining silent about the many contradictions and false evidence for what really did occur and what couldnot have happened on that tragic day. If research scientists fail to stay 100% honest then they have forsaken the main ideal of science (i.e., a search for the truth); there can be no such thing as partial or part-time honesty for scientists. Ryan characterizes the government’s evidence and conclusions as involving “pseudo-science”, rather than real science.
For several years, a slowly increasing number of engineers, architects, and physical scientists have joined together to dispute the truth of the official explanations proposed for 9/11 by the U.S. federal government (see: “Science at 9/11” at: http://www.ae911truth.org ). Ryan and Roverts believe that some or many of the other American scientists must have: (1) foresaken their search for the truth, (2) knowingly espoused false conclusions, or (3) remained silent about the scientific and engineering evidence supporting demolition as the true cause for the collapse of the 3 buildings on 9/11.
Roberts then goes even further, by ascribing the unexpected silence of many scientists to the facts that: (1) science today can be bought, (2) money now can determine results in science, and. (3) university research scientists all are totally dependent during their career upon the continued flow of research grant money from the governmental science agencies, and therefore they dare not dispute the methods or conclusions of the official governmental investigation of 9/11.
Both authors conclude that science now is dead in the U.S. Ryan and Roberts use their own analysis and critical reasoning to come to many of the same conclusions about the dismal health of modern science that I described earlier (see: “Could Science and Research now be Dying?” ). Although I do believe that science now is dying, I must reject their all-encompassing conclusion that science is dead, because some good researchers do continue their productive search for new truth and thereby are making important new advances in science and technology. Thus, I feel that science is in a morbid state, but is not yet dead. Nevertheless, I must agree with their contention that most or all otherwise good scientists have not protested or spoken out about the falsity of research and the trashing of standards for total honesty in science, with regard to finding the true causes of the events on 9/11. Truth no longer matters for modern science as much as does money; it is indeed very sad that today money is supreme at modern universities (see “Money now is Everything in Scientific Research at Universities” ), thereby badly undercutting the integrity of university science.
Kevin Ryan should be complimented for his courageous questioning about the many scientific and engineering findings that contradict the official conclusions for what happened on 9/11. Paul Craig Roberts emphasizes exactly what is wrong with today’s university science in the U.S. Clearly, the misuse of money has made traditional science so hard to pursue with honestly that it has either murdered or mortally wounded scientific research. These 2 authors should be praised for realizing the bad consequences of money upon being totally honest in science, and for forcefully bringing public attention to the vigorous dispute about what is true and what is false concerning 9/11. Eventually, everyone else will recognize both the unpleasant truth about 9/11, and the bad consequences of the current morbid decay in science.
Dr.M most heartily recommends that everyone should read and think about this very stimulating and provocative essay by Kevin Ryan and Paul Craig Roberts (see:http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/02/17/guest-column-kevin-ryan-science-died-911/ ).
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Why does the United States now have so very many Foreign Graduate Students? (http://dr-monsrs.net)
The first part of this essay (see: “Part I” ) described the growing number of foreign graduate students now immigrating into the United States (U.S.). They first study for a doctoral degree in science, followed by postdoctoral training, and then obtain a professional science job in U.S. universities and industries. Part II will (1) examine what this situation means for U.S. science now and in the future, (2) identify the ultimate cause of this worrisome development, and, (3) explain how this problematic condition can best be resolved.
What does this situation mean for the future of science in the U.S.?
Judgments of the balance between the positive and negative aspects of this new situation (see: “Part I” ) are quite uncertain. Discussions about the quality and results of these immigrants always are difficult. Nevertheless, important questions must be discussed! My views here will be given about the following prominent questions. (1) How does this situation affect the quality of science and scientists in the U.S.? (2) To what extent does this situation decrease the number of graduates from U.S. colleges choosing to pursue advanced studies in science? (3) What does this mean for the future of science in the U.S.?
Regarding the effects upon science of the numerous foreign graduate students immigrating into the U.S., problems with intellectual maturity, skills with independent design of experiments and research manipulations, and, misguided practices in professional ethics, all seem to me to be rather equivalent between the foreign and domestic populations. Thus, there is not much negative influence on the quality of scientists resulting from the added population of foreign students studying science in U.S. graduate schools.
The question about whether the many foreign graduate students now here is influencing the decision of native-born college graduates not to enter a career in science is paralleled by another open question about whether the entrance of new foreign doctoral scientists into faculty positions in U.S. universities and high positions in U.S. industries makes native college graduates less likely to want to work with their foreign-born associates in science. I feel that the answer to both these questions is “probably not yet”, because this situation is still at a fairly early stage of development. Such questions currently are more a worry for the future, and are not so acute at present. However, when there will be more research positions and science jobs having mostly or even exclusively foreign-born U.S.-trained scientists, then these questions will rise to the top of the pile.
The future of science in the U.S. seems likely to be badly impacted as soon as the present situation matures and evolves with even greater numbers of foreign graduate students. Many unpleasant questions about hidden policies and confused practices then will arise for the 2 populations of young scientists (e.g., should either population ever be favored, who is in charge, should some number of research grants be reserved for awarding to either population, is there really equal opportunity for acquiring research grants, is there really equal opportunity for advancement in industry, who exactly is foreign, how do foreigners differ from native citizens, should members of any ethnic group be forbidden to review research grant applications submitted by others in the same group, do all university faculty have to give lectures and to teach in undergraduate and graduate courses, etc.). All of these queries deserve to be fully discussed.
In my opinion, the very biggest and most important problem with the enlarging population of young foreign graduate students is are they now causing a decrease in the already weak interest of young Americans to enter a career in science? If carried to extreme, some aspects of science in the U.S. then could become the exclusive domain of certain foreigners. Nobody knows to what extent this already is happening now, due to the lack of surveys and data. However, I believe that if such an imbalanced arrangement causes fewer American college students to want to study science, then that will have really bad effects upon the future of U.S. science
What exactly might happen?
Part I only indicated in a rather gentle way the present degree to which this worrisome new trend has taken hold within the U.S. Let us now look more closely at just how this peculiar situation could enlarge and mature in the near future. I have seen some science labs in U.S. universities where there were outstanding graduate students and Postdocs, originating both from abroad and from the U.S. I also actually have observed with my own eyes an active faculty laboratory with numerous foreign graduate students and postdocs, where there was not even one individual science worker born in the U.S. These young foreign workers all were from the same country, and were working under a full professor originating from that same land. This scenario is a notable situation that could become more frequent in the U.S.; I regard this to be both unhealthy and inappropriate. All readers should be able to perceive that U.S.-born college graduates might not feel very comfortable working within such a research laboratory; that feeling is not due to racism, but comes from normal human nature for not wanting to be the “odd man out”.
The most extreme extent for this worrisome development is best illustrated by the amazing story of a certain School of Engineering and Technology in the U.S. which I myself have personally observed. I was told that over 75% of their graduate students are from the same foreign country, and that this School is much better known inside that country than is the very prestigious Massachusetts Institute of Technology! Everyone suspects that before any doctoral candidate graduates, they must make arrangements for a new young student from their foreign undergraduate school or home town to send in an application for admission to this graduate program. This unofficial policy is the basis for an especially successful business operation! It results in that institution always getting lots of tuition since it never has the problem with decreasing enrollments now found in many other U.S. university schools, and always is able to produce many theses, patents, and professional research publications. The level of success and its momentum in this very real example are so great that there would be no bad effects stemming from any future changes in economic or political conditions.
I do not doubt that this special mechanism for ensuring the continuing success of a graduate school will be emulated and adopted by other universities. This same educational institution now has been publicly noted to have over 90% of its graduate students in Electrical Engineering coming from foreign lands in 2013 ! Even more shocking is the fact that there were 6 other universities and technology institutes in the U.S. with a similar very high percentage for this discipline ! Thus, the prediction given in the first sentence of this paragraph now has come true! Yes, the future already is here!
Who or what should be blamed for this problematic situation?
Foreign graduate students are not to be blamed for this new situation, since they are simply taking advantage of the available opportunity to get educated and find a good job in science here. Foreign postdocs appointed to new a professional position in U.S. universities or industries also are not to be blamed, since they are winning an open competition for these jobs. Foreign governments should not be blamed for facilitating the movement of their young students into U.S. graduate schools and jobs, since that helps young scientists from their country gain valuable education and income not otherwise available.
Some feel that blame should be given to the federal and state governments in the U.S., because these are approving the expenditure of money collected from American taxpayers to support the education of foreign graduate students. It is not clear to me why these government offices award money to support foreign graduate students in science. I have no doubt that many US taxpayers disapprove of any such use of their contributions. Why don’t foreign governments pay for their students to come here for advanced education?
Who then should be blamed? To determine that we must look back to find the primary cause of this entire situation. It is very clear to me that the ultimate cause of this condition is the rejection of entering a career in science by current American college students. In turn, that creates the gap in graduate school enrollments. The numerous unfilled slots for training domestic graduate students in science then are filled by eager young foreign college-level students because Nature abhors a vacuum! We must blame whatever is inducing American college students to reject a career in science.
Many undergraduates now choose not to enter graduate schools for advanced training in science. Students indeed are clever, and many now in U.S. colleges are easily able to perceive some of the serious reasons why so many university science faculty are very upset with their current job condition. That stems from the misguided policies of U.S. universities and the research grant system. Hence, I believe that it is those 2 entities, (1) modern universities, and (2) agencies in the research grant system, which must be blamed for the secondary problems arising from there being so many new foreign graduate students studying and doing science in the U.S..
What is the best approach to solve this problem?
Identification of the primary cause means that the best solution to this entire problem now is obvious: American students need to be much better attracted to enter a career in science. The best way to accomplish that is to reform the several major job problems making many faculty scientists conducting research in U.S. universities being so distressed, dissatisfied, and dismayed (see: “Why are University Scientists Increasingly Upset with their Job, Part I” , and also “Part II” ). If science and universities in the U.S. can be repaired and renewed from their present degenerated and decayed condition (see: “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?” ), then many college undergraduates in the US will no longer be so repulsed from entering a career in science. In turn, with more domestic college graduates entering graduate schools to study science, there then will result in many fewer openings needing to be filled by foreign graduate students.
Concluding remarks for Parts I and II.
The population of numerous foreign graduate students now immigrating into the U.S. has both positive and negative effects on American science. Much more attention must be given to fully understanding all the different aspects of this modern situation.
Foreign graduate students studying in the U.S. for a doctoral degree in science now function very usefully to maintain ongoing university operations by substituting for the decreasing numbers of American students entering science studies. Of course, these immigrants later compete directly with their domestic counterparts for science jobs in U.S. universities and industries.
The ultimate cause of the large increase in foreign graduate students moving into the U.S. to study for a Ph.D. in science is the decreasing number of U.S. undergraduates now choosing not to enter graduate school for starting a career in science. The best and most effective solution to this problematic situation will be to make careers in scientific research much more attractive to young American college students.
 Redden, E., 2013. Foreign student dependence. Article in Inside Higher Education is available on the internet at: http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2013/07/12/new-report-shows-dependence-us-graduate-programs-foreign-students .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Why does the United States now have so very many Foreign Graduate Students?? (http://dr-monsrs.net)
Modern science certainly is a very international activity. The worldwide interactions of scientists, science educators, and science students produce many beneficial outcomes for everyone, but some recent aspects must be considered problematic. Let’s now take a closer look at those.
Many foreign students now are studying here at graduate schools to earn their Ph.D. in science. They are following a very long global tradition in science and education. Most of them are not able to get good research training for a science Ph.D. in their native land, so they undertake to do that in other countries having strong activity in scientific research, such as Australia, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, U.K., and the United States (U.S.). Postdoctoral research associates also frequently come to these countries for advanced training in scientific research. Through these educational programs, the U.S. or other host countries have been seen to substantially help other nations to expand and develop their own activities for science. Previously, these foreign students and postdocs were either expected or required to return to their native land for subsequent employment. The young foreign scientists returning to their native country usually found good jobs at universities, research institutes, industries, or government; this arrangement helped the home countries greatly, and even has led some of them to set up scholarship programs to sponsor and facilitate such studies abroad.
The traditional situation with foreign graduate students in science recently has changed in the U.S. There now is a general pattern that after young foreign graduate scientists earn their Ph.D. in science here, they then stay on for postdoctoral training and subsequently work in a good science job in the U.S. for the remainder of their life. Currently, most foreign-born graduate students and postdocs now come here with little intention to ever return to their native country, except for vacations. Instead, they aim to stay here and have access to more and better jobs, along with more and bigger research grants supporting their scientific investigations; both of these are not so available in their native country. Many foreign students entering with some sort of student visa now openly are immigrants, since they strive to elevate their visa status or to change their citizenship very soon after arriving here.
In 2013, there were reported to be 71,418 foreign graduate students enrolled in U.S. graduate schools . That represents a 10% increase in this population over the previous academic year . Of course, not all of these graduate students are studying science, and some are only working for a Masters Degree.
Although there is no question at all that most of these science students and researchers from abroad work hard and do good work here, this modern change raises several disturbing questions. I purposely will ignore some common complaints about foreigners not speaking English very well, and not understanding how to design good experiments, since those qualities vary greatly among the many different individuals. Instead, I will deal here with important questions about whole populations (i.e., we will mostly be looking at forests, and not so much at individual trees); these important questions are not frequently discussed in terms of general trends.
Part I of this essay describes this new condition with numerous foreign science students immigrating into the U.S., examines its consequences, and discusses questions that are not asked openly. Part II then will take a closer look at what this new situation could lead to, what it means for American science, what is its ultimate cause, and how this modern problem can best be resolved. Readers should note that both Parts focus on graduate students, and not on undergraduate students.
What are the consequences of having so many foreign graduate students in the U.S.?
The situation just described certainly has both good and bad consequences. Most foreign graduate students are successful with their pre-doctoral research work, thereby helping their mentor, their host institution, and science in the U.S. The large inflow of foreign graduate students into universities in the U.S. fills a vacuum created by the diminishing number of young Americans now choosing to study for a career in science; modern universities now have become very dependent upon the growing population of entering foreign graduate students to maintain their full enrollments. The vigor of the grant-supported research enterprise in the U.S. strongly needs more foreign postdoctoral research associates, since the supply of new domestic Ph.D.s in science is not large enough for the demand; the research success of foreign postdocs greatly contributes to U.S. science, and prepares them for subsequent productive employment. These immigrants later gain employment here, and many continue as successful professional researchers in universities and industries. Some achieve such exemplary success with doing high quality innovative scientific research that they even very deservedly win a Nobel Prize (e.g., Prof. Ahmed H. Zewail (California Institute of Technology), Nobel Laureate in Chemistry (1999) ; also see: “Scientists Tell us About their Life and Work, Part 3, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar” ).
For science in the U.S., this modern situation is very positive since it increases both the number of practicing professional researchers and the total output of published research works. In addition, it ensures full enrollments for most graduate schools in the U.S. However, certain other consequences of this condition seem to be both negative and worrisome. The effects of this situation upon native-born graduate students and holders of science faculty jobs in U.S. universities are quite controversial. Discussions already have debated whether foreign-born graduate students crowd out and displace their native-born counterparts when seeking a postdoctoral position or a full-time science job. In the future, the effects of the growing large immigrant population probably will become increasingly negative. Since a greater number of foreigners now competes with their domestic counterparts for the same job openings, the foreign population of applicants thereby will have some advantage if all else is equal. When applying for a faculty job opening in a university science department where there already are many foreign-born members of the science faculty, the new graduates from certain lands undoubtedly will be favored over those born in the U.S. It also is likely that some American college students now are less enthusiastic about entering certain university graduate schools because they feel they would not fit in readily with all the foreign professors and foreign students there.
Questions that need to be discussed.
Asking polite or impolite questions about the policies, problems, and peculiarities involving young foreign scientists in U.S. university graduate schools is made very difficult by 3 different factors. (1) Faculty scientists at some very prestigious U.S. universities now openly visit certain other countries every year to recruit new graduate students; thus, this new system is being promoted and progressively locked into the status quo, just as has been done already for undergraduate students in colleges. (2) Cheating on applications for admission to graduate schools, and during long-distance telephone interviews, not only occurs, but is well-accepted in some foreign cultures; this corruption is not always uncovered, and then increases the level of dishonesty within American science (see: “Why would Any Scientist ever Cheat?” ). (3) Modern precepts for political correctness try to preclude any discussion of different characteristics for national origin and intelligence, such that any and all questions now are deemed to be very impolite and improper; I believe everything needs to be discussed more, and do not recognize any such restrictions.
The most important key questions about this entire situation can be phrased as follows. Are young American students being denied participation in U.S. graduate schools and postdoctoral positions because the slots for admission already are filled by their foreign counterparts? Are new American doctoral scientists being denied employment at universities because faculty job openings already are filled by newly-degreed and newly-hired young foreign scientists? Are funds from US taxpayers collected and issued by the federal and state governments being used to support foreign graduate students and postdocs for their education and research training here?
I regret that I cannot answer the first 2 questions because there appears to be no adequate data or surveys with which to analyze all possibilities for this situation. For the third question, I know that some private and public schools do provide financial support for graduate students in science, regardless of their national origin; it is likely that some or even all of these funds come from American taxpayers and donors. That ongoing practice seems very questionable.
Why am I addressing these questions now?
Many readers undoubtedly will jump to the conclusion that I must be very prejudiced against all foreigners and especially against young foreign scientists in training. That just ain’t so! Two of my own postdoctoral associates were born in foreign countries (Japan, and Italy). They both worked hard and produced outstanding research work in my laboratory; it was very satisfying to see them succeed at research, and was fun to work with them. Both returned to their native land to start professional employment with a new job opportunity in science. My actual general prejudice always is to seek higher quality regardless of national origin or irrelevant individual characteristics. Some foreign-born students and postdocs most certainly have a very high quality; since I know that some American students and young scientists also have a very high quality, I am looking at the questions given above only to make certain that the domestic young scientists are not being put at some disadvantage by this new situation.
I raise these questions because they are very important. The large number of foreign graduate students now moving into the U.S. is rarely discussed, clearly is increasing, and needs to have its negative implications challenged. If no questions are asked, then this situation will only expand to become more troubling. The best place to start getting the negative effects of this situation analyzed will be in collecting numerical data for each branch of science in the entire U.S.; to the best of my knowledge adequate data are not yet available. Nobody can hope to draw solid conclusions or recommendations until the extent of this situation and its effects are much better known.
The cause, consequences, and best solution for this problematic new situation in U.S. science will be further examined in the forthcoming second portion of this essay.
 Porter, C., and Belkin, D., 2013. Record number of foreign students flocking to U.S. Wall Street Journal article is available on the internet at: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304868404579190062164404756 .
 Zewail, A., 2015. Ahmed Zewail at a glance. Available on the internet at: http://www.zewail.caltech.edu .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
- Please Tell Me, Mirror, Mirror on the Wall, Who is the Very Best Scientist of Them All ?? (http://dr-monsrs.net)
Part I of this 2-part series presented the origins, characteristics, and benefits of the several new megaprizes for outstanding scientific research (see “New Multimillion Megaprizes for Science, Part I” at: http://dr-monsrs.net/2014/11/20/new-megaprizes-for-science-part-i/ ). Part II now examines and discusses several unintended effects that these programs are likely to produce, all of which will hurt science, research, and scientists.
What will be the Effects of the New Giant Cash Prizes on Science and Scientists?
Nobody anticipated that new rewards for outstanding scientific research would arise with cash rewards of several million dollars to each honoree, but this now is history! In addition to the several good features of the new award programs by the Breakthrough Prize and the Tang Prize for Biopharmaceutical Science, several major unintended consequences of instituting these multimillion megaprizes will arise.
The first negative effect is to set off an ongoing competition to establish additional new awards having even larger cash prizes. This is caused by a mentality that mistakenly regards the very largest pot of gold as being the most significant way to honor the very best scientists.
A second negative effect will be to induce some university scientists to shift their ongoing career from trying to make important discoveries through experimental research into working to get rich by winning one or more science megaprizes. The traditional idealism in scientists then goes out the window! These effects move along nicely to solidify the increasing commercialization and rising significance of money in modern university science (see “Money Now is Everything in Scientific Research at Universities” ). I already have presented my view that such a financial situation has very destructive consequences for science and research (see essays on “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research”and “What is the Very Biggest Problem for Science Today?” ).
A third negative effect involves public perceptions of science. Since some of the new megaprizes are presented at an ostentatious extravaganza, the whole spectrum of public opinions is encouraged to shift from having interest and curiosity for research and technology, to viewing science as an entertainment and research as an amusement. That will merge with the very common mistaken belief that science has no real importance for daily life (see essay “On the Public Disregard for Science and Research” ). Scientists then will become part of the entertainment industry, and will be competing for public attention and acclaim with professional athletes, movie stars, opera singers, rock musicians, political celebrities, new billionaires, etc. The directors of the new megaprizes evidently do not see the inherent contradiction between trying to increase public appreciation for scientific research, and putting the award ceremonies on global display as some new sort of Hollywood amusement. Substituting movie stars for royalty just does not do the job!
These misguided features will change the very nature of a research career, solidify the conversion of university science into a business activity, and encourage the public to view science as some kind of nonsense. These unintended effects will be strongly negative and destructive for science and research, as I have already explained (see my essay on “Could Science and Research Now be Dying?” ).
Some Predicted Bizarre Developments have Become Past History!
When I first composed this essay, I wrote that this whole new scenario could later become equivalent to the Academy Award ceremonies in the movie industry. I now read that the 2014/2015 Breakthrough megaprizes just had an Oscar-style private gala for the presentation of its awards by popular celebrities [e.g., 1-3]; my first prediction has happened already! It seems likely that some new science megaprize soon might replace the traditional medal given to the winners of a Nobel  or Kavli  Prize with a special very expensive artwork; that could be a bronze bust or an engraved portrait, to be permanently displayed in some science museum. Further escalation could include an additional part in the award ceremonies featuring a bejewelled crown bestowed onto the head of each winner while they are seated on a throne with lots of flashing lights. Any of this is ridiculous and inappropriate, sends the wrong message, and demeans science, research, and scientists!
My Suggestions for a New Direction in Science Megaprizes
The money problem that most university scientists worry about is not the size of their bank account. Rather, it is the size and continuation of their research grant support. The new megaprizes do not directly address this very prominent feature of modern science (see“What is the New Main Job of Faculty Scientists Today?” and “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research” ). It is possible, and even likely, that winners of these megaprizes will spend some portion of their large financial reward to support their own research efforts; that might be used to either supplement their current research grant funds, or to start a new research project that they always wanted to work on, but could not get funded. My suggestion here is that additional new megaprize programs should directly reward both the personal activities and the science ambitions of the most outstanding research scientists; the new Tang Ptize in Biopharmaceutical Science does exactly that .
Why not go even farther? If some new science prize would offer 3-5 million dollars to be spent exclusively for unrestricted research expenses over an 8-10 year period, then that would be truly meaningful! Not only would any university scientist be extremely overjoyed and utterly excited to receive that amazing reward, but it also would strongly encourage the progress of science.
Concluding Remarks for Parts I and II
Some features of the multimillion megaprizes for excellence in science certainly are good, but it remains to be seen if these new programs can consistently result in honoring research achievements to the same high level as do the Nobel and Kavli Prizes [4,5]. Their other features seem to me to be very likely to cause further decay and degeneration in science and research.
New entries in the unannounced contest to be the very biggest prize for science all base their claim on the amount of cash offered as a financial reward. This loud emphasis on dollars is inconsistent with what scientific research is all about. Any new programs with the bigger or biggest pile of money cheapen science, change the nature of university research in undesirable ways, and, present a false view of science to the public (i.e., it is some kind of Hollywood entertainment). The wonderful article by Merali  presents the candid opinions of several other scientists having similar misgivings to my own about unintended negative effects of the new multimillion megaprizes on science (see: http://nature.com/news/science-prizes-Are-new-nobels-1.13168 ).
 Merali, Z., 2013. Science prizes: The new Nobels. Nature 498:152-154. Available on the internet at: http://nature.com/news/science-prizes-Are-new-nobels-1.13168.
 Sample, I., The Guardian, 2012. Biggest science prize takes web tycoon from social networks to string theory. Available on the internet at: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/31/prize-science-yuri-milner-awards .
 BBC News, Science and Environment, 2014. ‘Biggest prize in science’ awarded. Available on the internet at: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29987154 .
 Nobel Prizes, 2014. Nobel Prize facts. Available on the internet at: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/facts/ .
 The Kavli Prize, 2014. About the Kavli Prize. Available on the internet at: http://www.kavliprize.org/about/ .
]6] Tang Prize Foundation, 2014. Introduction, award categories, and 2014 Tang Prize in biopharmaceutical science. Available on the internet at: http://www.tang-prize.org/ENG/Publish.aspx .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
November 14, 2014: SPECIAL NOTICE TO ALL FROM DR.M !
My website now has been active for one year! It is pleasing to note that there have been over 10,000 visitors, and that number still goes up at an increasing rate every week. I hope that all visitors have found something here that is either new, unusual, disconcerting, surprising, provocative, important, or interesting. There is a lot more to come!
I have received over 30,000 comments, but at least 99% obviously are spam. There are always many dozens of identical and very similar comments every single day, coming from several different continents and many different countries; since some messages arrrive within seconds of their duplicates from other addresses, this sounds like a botnet to me.
To solve this problem, I AM HEREBY DISCONTINUING ALL FURTHER COMMENTS. I do regret the necessity for doing this, but I have no other choice.
Are There Too Many New Ph.D.’s in Science Being Produced? (http://dr-monsrs.net)
In 2011-12, there were about 67,200 new doctoral degree’s awarded by universities in the USA . Many of these are for studies in science, medicine, and engineering. In addition, there are numerous new foreign Ph.D.’s in science who come here to work on research. After finally getting an academic job, all new faculty scientists immediately seek to attract as many graduate students as possible to work in their new laboratory. This ongoing scenario thus is a Malthusian progression in the number of new doctoral scientists.
This dynamic immediately runs headlong into the several difficult practical problems involving imbalances of supply and demand. At the top of the list, there is not enough money available to support all the new research projects proposed by the ever-growing number of new research scientists in academia. This same shortage of funding actually impacts on all faculty scientists, whether new or senior. The end result is that this money problem gets worse every year (see earlier article on “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research”). Another large practical problem, the limited number of open science faculty positions in universities, also is made worse by the enlarging number of new doctoral scientists.
I have never heard of any official or unofficial discussions about the wisdom of constantly generating more and more new doctoral scientists than can be supported adequately by the pool of available tax-based research grant funds. In this essay, I will (1) describe the causes and consequences of increasing the number of new science Ph.D.’s, (2) explain how this is bad for science, and (3) then will lay out my view of what could be done to stop this ongoing problem, and discuss why nothing can be changed now.
Causes of this Malthusian problem
One must look closely at the never discussed reasons why this peculiar ongoing generation of more and more new science Ph.D.’s remains in operation, in order to recognize the actual causes of this problematic situation. The ultimate causes are the practices of universities. The graduate schools at universities had been under financial stress for several decades, and so sought to maximize their inflow from tuition payments by enlarging their enrollments. Since tuition can only be increased so much, the tactic utilized is to raise the number of enrollees paying tuition. This fits in nicely with nature of modern universities as businesses where money is everything (see earlier essay on “What is the Very Biggest Problem for Science Today?”).
Consequences of this Malthusian problem
The direct consequences of the yearly production of more and more new science Ph.D.’s now are apparent, and indicate that these are having bad effects on science. The expanding enrollment in university graduate schools means that their standards for admission will continue to get lowered; to increase enrollments they must accept and later graduate more students regardless of their deficient qualifications. I myself have observed 2 graduate students utterly undeserving of a Ph.D. be awarded that hallmark of advanced education; one of them even had a crying spell in the midst of the oral presentation for her thesis defense. Modern university graduate schools feel they must do everything and anything to further increase their enrollment and awarding of degrees in order to help deal with the current financial realities. Pressures to further “modernize” standards for the doctoral degree will increase as the graduate student population continues to be enlarged. In addition, more teaching responsibilities will be shifted onto graduate students. The science faculty usually are reluctant to work in the very large introductory courses, and are happy to be able to reduce their teaching load. The consequences of this problem for university education are obvious.
As the number of unfunded or partially funded academic scientists grows larger every year, federal research granting agencies will need to obtain increased appropriations from the Congress. Generally, this means increased taxation. These agencies additionally will need to increase the size of their support programs for graduate education in science, thereby making the problem with finding support for research activities even worse. Both these needs add to the current negative impact of this Malthusian problem on science.
Are graduate students or scientists to blame for this ongoing problem?
We must note that the graduate students working to earn a Ph.D. in science are innocently entering a career path that is their choice. They mostly are unaware of being used as cash cows in a business, and so are blameless for the resultant problems. Faculty scientists become trapped within the university system for getting promoted and tenured. Foreign students and scientists will continue to move here despite whatever difficulties they encounter since the situations hindering and restricting the conduct of scientific research in their own countries are much greater than exist here. They cannot be blamed for making this choice. The important contributions of foreign professional researchers to the science enterprise in the USA are very widely recognized to be substantial. Blame for the Malthusian problem lies mainly with the universities.
What will result for science if the number of new science Ph.D.’s is decreased?
Directly, a reduced number of new Ph.D.’s in science will significantly decrease the number of applicants for new research grants. That result is equivalent to providing more tax-based dollars to support research investigations, and will be obtained miraculously without any increase in tax rates.
The ultimate results for science of stopping the problematic Malthusian progression will be dramatic, and will include several very good secondary effects. (1) The quality of the new incoming graduate students will be raised, since there will result a more rigorous selection of the capabilities and aptitude of applicants for admission into graduate training programs. (2) In turn, the better graduate students should lead to a general increase in the quality of scientists and of science. (3) The enlarged pool of funds available for research support will enable more good proposals and more scientists to be fully funded than is the case at present. These several positive effects will combine to produce an important derivative benefit: a general increase in the quality of scientific research.
How could this Malthusian cycle be stopped?
In theory, a single step could solve this problem! A reduction in enrollments of new graduate student candidates into Ph.D. programs will stop this Malthusian progression, since that will decrease the output of new science Ph.D.’s!
As one example of how this theoretical solution can be accomplished at graduate schools, each science training program currently accepting 20 new students every year will have a 10% reduction, so that only 18 new students will be accepted for the next (second) year. In the following (third) year, another 10% decrease will occur, so only 16 new students will be enrolled. These annual decreases will continue for at least 5 years, until the number of new students enrolling reaches a level of 50-60% of the original figure; this cutback will produce a corresponding decrease in the number of new doctoral degrees awarded. Use of incremental progressive decreases, rather than trying to do everything all at once, will prevent large disruptive effects and will allow sufficient time for each graduate school to make the needed adjustments to the new system. The graduate students already enrolled will simply continue their course of advanced education just as at present.
This change in size of enrollments in each program must be made for the total number of graduate students, since otherwise the present widespread practice will continue with accepting foreign applicants to officially or unofficially fill the absent places scheduled for occupancy by USA students. Thus, the 10% annual decreases in enrollment must apply to the total number of all students enrolled, and not just to those from the USA.
Can this proposed cure for the Malthusian cycle actually be installed?
The answer to this question seems to me to be “Never!”. Universities as businesses always are happy to obtain more profits, and so will never agree to decrease their number of new Ph.D.’s being graduated. In principle, the federal granting agencies could mandate such decreases based upon their provision of research grants and education grants to many universities. From what I have seen, these agencies like their growing budgets and increasing influence, and so are very unlikely to ever change their present operations. Thus, I am forced to view the problem of too many new science Ph.D.’s as being unsolvable.
The answer to the question proposed in the title clearly is “No!”. Dr. M considers it to be both sheer insanity and very wasteful to ordain more new doctoral research scientists than can be supported adequately during their subsequent careers in academia. The number of new Ph.D.’s in science .should be balanced with the amount of financial support for research. It now seems to be badly imbalanced. The current production of too many new Ph.D.’s is bad for graduate students, bad for science, and bad for research. It is time to put an end to this idiocy! Unfortunately, there appears to be no way at present to prevent this problem from continuing and becoming even worse.
Dr.M welcomes questions about this essay and other opinions about this controversial question, via the Comments!
 Council on Graduate Schools, 2013. U. S. graduate schools report slight growth in new students for Fall 2012. Available on the internet at:
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Hyper-Competition for Research Grants Causes Science to Decay!(http://dr-monsrs.net)
Today, the effort to acquire more research grant funding is first and foremost for university science faculty. This daily struggle goes way beyond the normal useful level of competition, and thus must be termed a hyper-competition. Hyper-competition is vicious because: (1) every research scientist competes against every other scientist for grant funding, (2) an increasing number of academic scientists now are trying to acquire a second or third research grant, (3) absolutely everything in an academic science career now depends upon success in getting a research grant and having that renewed, (4) the multiple penalties for not getting a grant renewal (i.e., loss of laboratory, loss of lab staff, additional teaching assignments, decreased salary, reduced reputation, inability to gain tenured status) often are enough to either kill or greatly change a science faculty career in universities, and, (5) this activity today takes up more time for each faculty scientist than is used to actually work on experiments in their laboratory.
This system of hyper-competition for research grant awards commonly causes destructive effects. I previously have touched on some aspects of hyper-competition within previous articles. In this essay, I try to bring together all parts of this infernal problem so that everyone will be able to clearly perceive its causation and its bad consequences for science, research, and scientists.
How did the hyper-competition for research grants get started?
Hyper-competition first grew and increased as a successful response to the declining inflow of money into universities during recent decades (see my recent article in the Money&Grants category on “Three Money Cycles Support Scientific Research”). The governmental agencies offering grants to support scientific research projects always have tried to encourage participation by more scientists in their support programs, and so were happy to see the resultant increase in the number of applications develop. Hyper-competition continues to grow today from the misguided policies of both universities and the several different federal granting agencies.
Who likes this hyper-competition for research grants?
Universities certainly love hyper-competition because this provides them with more profits. They encourage and try to facilitate its operation in order to obtain even greater profits from their business. Additionally, universities now measure their own level of academic success by counting the size of external research funding received via their employed science faculty.
Federal research grant agencies like this hyper-competition because it increases their regulatory power, facilitates their ability to influence or determine the direction of research, and enhances their importance in science.
Faculty scientists are drawn into this hyper-competition as soon as they find an academic job and receive an initial research grant award. They then are trapped within this system, because their whole subsequent career depends on continued success with getting research grant(s) renewed. Although funded scientists certainly like having research grant(s) and working on experimental research, I know that many university scientists privately are very critical of this problematic situation.
What is causing increases in the level of hyper-competition?
The hyper-competition for research grants, and the resulting great pressure on university scientists, are increased by all of the following activities and conditions.
(1) The number of applications rises due to several different situations: more new Ph.D.s are graduated every year; many foreign doctoral scientists immigrate to the USA each year to pursue their research career here; universities encourage their successful science faculty to acquire multiple grant awards; the faculty are eager to get several research grant awards in order to obtain security in case one of their grants will not be renewed; and, the research grant system is set up to make research support awards for relatively short periods of time, thereby increasing the number of applications submitted for renewed support in each 10 year period.
(2) Hard-money faculty salaries increasingly depend upon the amount of money brought in by research grant awards, and the best way to increase that number is to acquire additional grants.
(3) The number of regular science faculty with soft-money salaries is rising. Since only very few awards will support 100% of the soft-money salary level, this situation necessitates acquiring several different research grants.
(4) Professional status as a member of the science faculty and as a university researcher now depends mainly on how many dollars are acquired from research grant awards. The more, the merrier!
(5) Academic status and reputation of departments and universities now depends mainly on how many dollars are acquired from research grant awards. The more, the merrier!
(6) In periods with decreased economic activity, appropriations of tax money sent to federal granting agencies tend to either decrease or stop increasing. This means that more applicants must compete for fewer available dollars. In turn, this results in a greater number of worthy awardees receiving only partial funding for their research project; the main way out of this frustrating situation is to apply for and win additional research grants.
What effects are produced by the hyper-competition for research grant awards?
It might be thought that greater competition amongst scientists would have the good effect of increasing the quality and significance of new experimental findings, since the scientists succeeding with this system should be better at research. That proposition is theoretically possible, but is countered by all the bad effects produced by this system (see below). I believe the funding success of some scientists only shows that they are better at business, rather than being better at science. I know of no good effects coming from the hyper-competition for research grant awards.
Several different bad effects of hyper-competition on science and research now can be identified as coming from the intense and extensive struggle to win research grant awards.
(1) Science becomes distorted and even perverted. Science and research at academic institutions now are business activities. The chief purpose of hiring university scientists now is to make more financial profits for their employer (see my early article in the Scientists category on “What’s the New Main Job of Faculty Scientists Today?”); finding new knowledge and uncovering the truth via research are only the means towards that end.
(2) The integrity of science is subverted by the hyper-competition for research grants. The consequences of losing research funding are so great that it is very understandable that more and more scientists now eagerly trying to obtain a research grant award become willing to peek sideways, instead of looking straight ahead (see my earlier article in the Big Problems category on “Why would any Scientist ever Cheat?”). There are an increasing number of recent cases known where corruption and cheating arose specifically as a response to the enormous pressures generated on faculty by the hyper-competition for research grant awards (see my article in the Big Problems category on “Important Article by Daniel Cressey in 2013 Nature: “ ‘Rehab’ helps Errant Researchers Return to the Lab”).
(3) Seeking research grant awards now takes up much too much time for research scientists employed at universities. This occupies even more faculty time than is used to conduct research experiments in their lab (see my article in the Scientists category on “Why is the Daily Life of Modern University Scientists so very Hectic?”)!
(4) Because the present research grant system is defective, the identity of successful scientists has changed and degenerated such that several very unpleasant questions now must be asked (e.g., Is the individual champion scientist with the most dollars from research grant awards primarily a businessperson or a research scientist? Should graduate students in science now also be required to take courses in business administration? What happens if someone is a very good researcher, but has no skills or interests in finances and business? Could some scientist be a superstar with getting research grant awards, but almost be a loser with doing experimental research?).
(5) If ethical misbehavior becomes more common because it is stimulated by hyper-competition , then could “minor cheating in science” become “the new normal”? Integrity is essential for research scientists, but the number of miscreants seems to be increasing.
(6) Inevitably, younger science faculty working in this environment with hyper-competition start asking themselves, “Is this really what I wanted to do when I worked to become a professional scientist?” The increasing demoralization of university science faculty is growing to become quite extensive.
Grantspersonship refers to a strong drive in scientists to obtain more research grant awards by using whatever it takes to become successful in accomplishing this goal (see my recent article in the Money&Grants category on “Why is ‘Grantspersonship’ a False Idol for Research Scientists, and Why is it Bad for Science?”). Grantspersonship and hyper-competition both are large drivers of finances at universities. The Research Grant Cycle is based on the simple fact that more grant awards mean greater profits to universities (see my recent article in the Money&Grants category on “Three Money Cycles Support Scientific Research”). The hyper-competition in The Research Grant Cycle is very pernicious, since the primary goal of research scientists becomes to get the money, with doing good research being strictly of secondary importance. Grantspersonship sidetracks good science and good scientists.
What do the effects of hyper-competition lead to?
All the effects of the current hyper-competition for research grant awards are bad and primarily mean that: (1) science at universities is just another business; (2) the goal of scientific research has changed from finding new knowledge and valid truths, into acquiring more money; (3) the best scientist and the best university now are identified as that one which has the largest pile of money; (4) corruption and dishonesty in science are being actively caused and encouraged by the misguided policies of universities and the research grant agencies; and, (5) researchers now are being forced to waste very much time with non-research activities. Hyper-competition thus results in more business and less science, more corruption and less integrity, more wastage of time and money, and, more diversion of science from its true purpose. It is obvious to me that all of these consequences of hyper-competition are very bad for science, bad for research in academia, and, bad for scientists.
Can anything be done to change the present hyper-competition for research grants?
The answer to this obvious question unfortunately seems to be a loud, “No”! The status quo always is hard to change, even when it very obviously is quite defective or counterproductive. Both universities and granting agencies love this hyper-competition for research grant awards, and this destructive system now is very firmly entrenched in modern universities and modern experimental science.
Big changes are needed in the policies of educational institutions and of federal agencies offering research grants. Until masses of faculty scientists and interested non-scientists are willing to stand up and demand these changes, there will only be more hyper-competition, more corruption, more wasted time and money, and, more wasted lives. In other words, science and research will continue to decay.
Hyper-competition for research grant awards in universities now dominates the academic life of all science faculty members doing research. Although it pleases universities and the research grant agencies, this hyper-competition subverts integrity and honesty, changes the goal of scientific research, wastes very much time for faculty scientists, and sidetracks science from its traditional role and importance.
I know that many dedicated scientists on academia accept this perverse condition because they are successful in getting funded and want to stay funded. Winners in the hyper-competition for research grant awards would not dare to ever give a negative opinion about this system, for fear of losing their blessed status. They justify their position by stating that they would never cheat, they are too good at their research to ever be turned down for a grant renewal, and their university employer definitely wants them to continue their good research work. It is sad that many will find out only when it is too late that they are very mistaken and very expendable.
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Are We Spending Too Much Money for Scientific Research? (http://dr-monsrs.net)
Recently, I explained why scientific research costs so very much (see article in the Money&Grants category on “Why is Science so Very Expensive?”) With that understanding we now can wonder whether spending this very large total amount of money to support research studies is worthwhile (i.e., do the results justify the costs)? This is a very natural question for all taxpayers who are forced to support research studies; but, this question is not so easy to answer because there are no objective measures upon which to base the evaluations. The public views scientific research almost totally only on the basis of practical considerations (e.g., will this study cure a disease, will that research produce a much cheaper product, will these investigations help agricultural productivity, etc.). To be fair both to taxpayers and the scientists conducting grant-supported research, we will first look at how to evaluate individual research projects, and then step back to consider the value received from all the total research activity.
Are Individual Research Projects Worth their Costs?
Basic research seeks new knowledge for its own sake. Most people judge the importance of basic research studies as being a total waste of money (e.g., “What difference does it make to me or to society if we know more facts about the nest-building behavior of another tropical fruit-eating bird?”). This type of judgment by non-scientists is based on ignorance; moreover, they do not recognize that many esoteric findings from basic research much later turn out to have a very wide importance and significant practical uses.These thoughts lead me to believe that it is best to look at the critical opinions of experts rather than to use our everyday opinions based on emotions and ignorance. Only experts have the full background and technical experience needed to form valid judgments about the worthiness of research projects in basic science. My conclusion here is that the costs and benefits of basic science research can only be validly evaluated by experts.
For applied research, experimental and engineering studies are used to design a new offering or improve an existing commercial product. Applied research and development efforts all are funded by a commercial business only up to the point that the total expenses must be less than the expected profits coming from future sales of the new or improved product. Judgments by non-scientists about the worthiness of applied research are based only on personal preferences, and therefore commonly differ from one person to another. Again, opinions from experts are better.
How are Official Judgments Made about Worthiness in Proposed Research Studies?
Given that it is difficult for non-scientists to objectively evaluate the worthiness of most basic research studies in modern science, we must look briefly at how the official decisions about funding are made by granting agencies. They are supposed to carefully consider whether the money requested is appropriate to accomplish the stated aims in each project, and how the results will have value for science and society. Both quality and quantity are evaluated for the different aspects of all reviews (e.g., design of experiments, significance of answering the research questions, amount of time and money required, availability of needed laboratory facilities, training of the principal investigator, etc.). With applications for renewal of research support, reviewers then must look both forward (i.e., what will be done?) and backward (i.e., what has been accomplished during the previous period of support?). The expert reviewers also make both official and unofficial examinations about whether the selected research subject needs further study, and if significance of the expected results will justify the budget being requested.
The evaluation mechanism used by granting agencies avoids the ignorance problem by using experts to make these evaluations. Critical judgments of grant applications by expert reviewers (i.e., other scientists) constitute peer review. Expert reviewers often have approved research studies that non-scientists in the public regard as being a waste of money; as explained earlier, this lack of agreement largely is due to the very large difference in knowledge and technical experience. The validity of decisions by the official referees is enlarged by the fact that research grant applications are evaluated and judged by several experts, thereby usually avoiding any one opinion from becoming a mistake. Projects judged to have little conceivable significance for science, poor design, inadequate controls, mundane ideas, technical problems, etc., all usually are eliminated from funding by reviewers for the research grant agencies. The official evaluation of research grant proposals is a filtering mechanism, and this includes evaluation of the costs and benefits.
In principle, all the expert evaluations of applications by scientists for research grants should lead to funding of only those research projects having importance for science and society. Although this usually does happen, due to the very large number of research grant applications and the even larger number of reviewers, some small number of mistakes is made both for what is funded and what is not funded.
The Cost/Benefits Question for the Total Scientific Research
How can we best make a valid judgment about whether spending very large amounts of money on all scientific research is worthwhile? Looking at the evaluations for many thousands of individual research projects and then averaging does not give a very satisfying answer. Accordingly, we must ask here whether a different approach needs to be taken to obtain a more meaningful conclusion? By looking at the totality of all funded research projects, then there is a much more solid basis upon which to make an evaluation of costs versus benefits. I will explain this below, using the well-known examples of transistors and carbon nanotubes.
The invention and development of the transistor was initially only a physical curiosity (see the fascinating personal recollections by one of the leading research participants ). Its discovery exemplifies basic research in action, because its ultimate usefulness was not foreseen. Non-scientists all would have concluded that spending money for its discovery was pointless. After much further research and many engineering developments, electronics and computers using transistors now are found everywhere in the modern world. Once its practical importance was documented, the initial negative judgments rapidly changed to become strongly positive.
Carbon nanotubes were observed by Iijima in 1990-1991 while conducting basic research studies on a different type of carbon specimen with his electron microscope [2,3]. This unexpected observation of carbon nanotubes was a chance event, and is a wonderful example of serendipity in basic research. Iijima was not trying to study carbon nanotubes, because nobody was aware that they existed! Today, after further research investigations both in academia and industry, carbon nanotubes are found in several different important commercial products, and hundreds of scientists and engineers now are working on new uses for these very small materials within innovative products designed for medicine, energy storage, and high technology.
Early judgments about the worthiness of studying transistors and carbon nanotubes were negative and wrong. The money produced from all the present widespread usage of transistors is absolutely gigantic, and probably is, or soon will be, matched by the value of new products and many developing uses for carbon nanotubes. Thereby, the cost/benefits ratio for both are small, and all the money spent for their research studies must be judged to be very, very worthwhile. Moreover, the dollars coming from these 2 research discoveries alone have more than paid for all the numerous other scientific investigations that have had a much less notable outcome. Therefore, I believe that public funding of all worthy research studies is very worthwhile. My positive conclusion about the huge pile of money spent on research is that this is good, because by enabling all the very numerous ordinary research investigations that result in less spectacular or even mundane results, the chances that some really great unanticipated breakthroughs will be produced are notably increased.
Money most certainly is not the only measure for significance of scientific research! Investigations producing a breakthrough in research or a dramatic change in knowledge can have enormous importance for the progress of science. One good example of this is the recent arrival of the new concept of nanoscience; this new branch of physical science deals with materials just slightly bigger than individual atoms and molecules. Nanoscience now has extended into specialized areas of research, such as nanochemistry, nano-engineering, nanomedicine, nanotechnology, and, others [e.g., 4]. Nanoscience really represents a new way of thinking for scientists in these areas.
History is the ultimate judge for the worthiness of funding research studies! From the considerations described above, I draw 3 conclusions.
1. Basic research findings can take many years to develop into spectacular commercial products that are widely utilized. The ultimate success and worthiness of specific grant-supported basic research is almost impossible to predict.
2. For research projects in basic science, worthiness must be judged one at a time, and independently from practical usage. Significance of results from this or that research project only can be judged validly by other expert scientists.
3. The value of spending so much money to support scientific research is best measured by considering the totality of research results acquired by all funded studies. When viewed in this light, the funding of numerous projects that turn out to be only ordinary is seen to be good because this increases the chances that some unanticipated spectacular findings are acquired and thereby greatly benefit both science and society.
 Mullis, K.B., 2012. Conversation with John Bardeen. Available on the internet at:
 Iijima, S., & The Vega Science Trust, 1997. Nanotubes: The materials of the 21st century. Available on the internet at: http://vega.org.uk/video/programme/71 .
 Iijima, S., 2011. The discovery of carbon nanotubes. Available on the internet at: http://nanocarb.meijo-u.ac.jp/jst/english/Iijima/sumioE.html .
 XII International Conference on Nanostructured Materials, Moscow, Russia, 2014. NANO 2014. Available on the internet at: http://www.nano2014.org/ .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Modern scientific research each year costs many billions of dollars in the USA, and over a trillion dollars in the entire globe [1,2]! Research studies are supported by money from taxpayers, industry, and some dedicated group associations. Even a casual look at scientists working on laboratory experiments shows that their activities always have a high cost. Why exactly are science and research so very expensive?
There are many separate reasons why modern research always is costly. First is the cost of salaries. Research scientists deserve a good salary, due to their very long education and advanced training, specialized job skills, and previous lab experience in science. Doctoral scientists have spent at least 4 years working on their graduate thesis, and then usually spend another 1-5 years as a postdoctoral research associate (see recent article in the Basic Introductions category on “All About Postdocs, Part I: What are Postdocs, and What do they Do?”). When academic faculty jobs are scarce, some researchers spend 5-10 years, or even more, working as Postdocs, before they finally land a beginning position in academia or in an industrial laboratory. This means that most scientists really find their first career employment at around 30-40 years of age. Other lab personnel also have special training, and thus must also receive a good salary. All the payments for salaries of the Principal Investigator, Postdocs, research technicians, and graduate students add up to many dollars each year.
Second is the cost of special research supplies and materials. Laboratory experiments frequently involve usage of special supplies for the preparation and analysis of research samples. Even the water used to prepare simple buffers and solutions must first be processed to a very high purity level before it becomes suitable for research usage. Unusual chemical supplies are expensive because they must be custom-synthesized or specially isolated; only after final purity assays do these become suitable for use in research studies. Special materials in high purity are essential for many lab experiments and inevitably cost many dollars.
Third is the cost of special research equipment. Typical lab research at universities requires at least several pieces of expensive research instrumentation (e.g., amino-acid analyzers, automated analytical chromatography systems, facilities for cell culture, light and electron microscopes, mass spectrographs, polymerase chain reaction machines, temperature- and pressure-controlled reaction chambers, ultracentrifuges, etc.). Even after their purchase, there are further expenses for annual service contracts or repairs, adjunctive support facilities, and add-on accessories; in addition, salaries for research technicians trained to operate these special research instruments must be included here. Special research instrumentation always costs lots of money.
Fourth is the cost of time. Good research typically takes much time to be completed. Conducting research is always an exploration of the unknown, and never progresses in an automatic manner. Many non-scientists have heard about the so-called “scientific method for research”, wrongly leading them to view experiments as cut and dried exercises that always work as planned; nothing could be farther from the truth! Not all experiments work, and many of those that do work proceed in a different manner than expected. Acquiring one unanticipated result sometimes necessitates undertaking several new experiments in order to pin down the whys and wherefores of the earlier new data. All research results must be repeated at least once in order to have confidence that they are bonafide and statistically reliable. Modern experimental research studies typically take about 6 months to 2 years to reach the stage of being able to publish the results in a professional journal. The long time needed for conducting research work costs lots of money.
Fifth are the adjunctive costs of conducting research studies. Where certain samples are used for the research studies, a number of special adjunctive costs arise. Use of laboratory animals for experimental research is increasingly costly, due to the rules for animal care regulations and required veterinary oversight/support. For cases where clinical research is conducted in a hospital setting, there are considerable costs for associated patient care, clinical and research chemistry, professional support services, etc. For cases where clinical samples are researched outside hospitals, work in special bio-containment facilities with safety monitoring is required. These required extra costs are in addition to all the many usual research expenses.
Scientific research costs lots of money because all he many different experimental operations require use of special supplies and instruments, salaries for specially trained research workers, specified safety measures for certain specimens, specified measures for use and disposal of radioactive materials and toxic substances, and, many other adjunctive expenses. All these different costs are needed for a time period typically measured in years. As the saying goes, it all sure does add up!
I have tried to give enough details here so that non-scientists will readily see how modern research studies necessitate substantial total expenses in the USA. All of these perfectly usual costs for one individual scientist then must be multiplied by the number of research professionals, in order to arrive at the total national costs being spent annually on research. That is a huge figure, but sometimes one must add the large sums paid for those research projects involving Big Science (e.g., space probes, oceanographic surveys, clinical trials of new pharmacological agents, etc.), and for use of special research facilities at one of the national laboratories (e.g., Brookhaven National Laboratory, Sandia Laboratories, advanced photon source at the Argonne National Laboratory, etc.). The grand total costs for annual research expenses thus become a truly gigantic number of dollars.
This valid realization about the huge costs of doing scientific research in the USA sets the stage for a big follow-up question, asking whether the value obtained for science and society is worth this total cost? I will discuss this difficult question at a later time.
 Hourihan, M., for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2014. R&D in the FY 2014 omnibus: The big picture. Available on the internet at: http://www.aaas.org/news/rd-fy-2014-omnibus-big-picture .
 Battelle, and, R&D Magazine, 2013. 2014 global R&D funding forecast. Available on the internet at: http://www.battelle.org/docs/tpp/2014_global_rd_funding_forecast.pdf?sfvrsn=4 .
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
The Research Grant Cycle at Modern Universities (http://dr-monsrs.net)
Modern research with laboratory experiments is very costly for universities, research institutes, and industrial centers (see my earlier article in the Basic Introductions category on “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research”). Without financial support, research investigations are either impossible or severely limited. Most funding for scientific research in the USA comes from commercial companies and the taxpaying public (via grants from several agencies of the national government). If one steps back and looks at the overall processes whereby funds to support scientific research activities are generated, several different money cycles become apparent.
(1) The Business Profit Cycle provides funds for research and development (R&D) in industrial settings. (2) The Soft Money Cycle supplies funds to support experimental studies at research institutes, and, some large universities and hospitals.
(3) The Research Grant Cycle generates funds for laboratory investigations at modern universities.
All 3 money cycles have the general features that a relatively small input of money starts and maintains the cycle, which later produces an output of research findings (i.e., science) and additional money (i.e., profits). The scientists function in these cycles as a catalyst to make this conversion from input into output. An amazing ability of these 3 cycles is that all grow with time and become self-supporting. I now will briefly describe and explain how each of these 3 cycles operates, so that both the general public and employed scientists will have a greater understanding about how modern laboratory research is being funded.
The Business Profit Cycle
Large industries must develop new and improved products through research and engineering efforts, so as to increase their financial profits. A portion of their total annual profits is designated for R&D work by scientists and engineers, and is used to pay for the needed personnel, instrumentation, and supplies. Marketing of the new or improved commercial products then generates increased sales and additional profits; this output enables both rewards for the private or public owners, and an enlarged pool of money to pay for an increased amount of future R&D. Thus, for a successful company, the profits and the number of investigations both grow bigger with time, and their Business Profit Cycle becomes self-supporting. History clearly shows that money from this ongoing cyclic operation is very successful for enabling industrial R&D activities.
The Soft-Money Cycle
Research institutes, large universities, and some hospital centers have full-time staff scientists who receive a salary exclusively from their research grant(s). This is termed a soft-money salary, and differs from the hard-money salary of most university science faculty (i.e., their salary is guaranteed by some source, such as a state government). Typically, staff scientists with soft-money positions are not eligible to receive academic tenure, and do not have teaching obligations. In general, these scientists work in a circumscribed research area (i.e., as part of a focused group effort), have very specific job duties (e.g., operation of a complex special research instrument that provides data used by other researchers), or are successfully investigating some very hot topic. The input for The Soft Money Cycle is research grant money, and the main output is science (i.e., published research results). Scientists function to convert the input into the output via their research activities. This soft-money cycle works quite well for supporting scientific research activities at some prominent research institutions.
In all cases, scientists with soft-money salaries enter their job with full knowledge that their continued employment directly depends upon their success in obtaining research grant renewals. Due to the present hyper-competition for research grant awards (see my earlier article in the Scientists category on “Why Would any Scientist ever Cheat?”), a certain number of soft-money researchers each year must terminate their employment as a scientist. Not everything in this situation is bad, since soft-money salaries more frequently are not so restricted as hard-money salaries, and even can include some bonuses. The soft-money scientists that continue to produce good research results and high quality publications actually do have some job security without needing to be tenured.
The Research Grant Cycle
Modern universities mostly now have become just another business (see my earlier article in the Big Problems category on “What is the Very Biggest Problem for Science Today?”). University profits are cold hard cash, and traditionally are obtained from several quite different sources: donations by alumni and corporations, income from endowments, ever-increasing tuition fees obtained from enrolled undergraduate and graduate students, and, portions of research grant money brought in by their science faculty. For The Research Grant Cycle, the input is research grant money, and the output is science (i.e., published research reports) plus university profits (i.e., awarded grant money that has not been spent). The Research Grant Cycle is successful because it both supports research by the science faculty and provides universities with profits.
The greater the number and size of research grant awards acquired, the larger are a university’s profits. To fully understand this statement, it is necessary that readers comprehend what is meant here by “profits”. University profits include the total funds entering a university, which are not fully needed and used to pay for salaries and expenses of some designated group of employees (e.g., administrators, housekeeping staff, librarians, police department, secretaries, teachers, etc.), or for some specific activities (e.g., advertising and publicity, bookkeeping, painting, receiving deliveries of new purchases, safety office, etc.). In other words, if total income exceeds actual expenses, then there is a net positive profit.
University profits in any single year include the following typical examples.
(1) The sum of all tuition fees minus the actual expenditures for classroom maintenance, course handouts, faculty instructors, heating and air-conditioning, printing of course examinations, teaching assistants, etc. Any net positive balance here is a profit.
(2) Income from investments of endowed resources, minus all the costs for administration, bookkeeping, brokerage services, financial consultants, money transfers, etc. Any net positive balance here is a profit.
(3) Total research grant awards, minus actual payments for approved expenses with direct and indirect costs, financial bookkeeping, grant administration, purchases, salaries, travel, etc. Any net positive balance here is a profit.
All these profits initially are transferred into some special institutional budgets (e.g., Dean’s slush fund, fund for new building construction, fund for special programs, institutional emergency fund, reserve fund for future usage, unencumbered funds, etc.).
Can the Profit Level of The Research Grant Cycle be Increased?
Operation of the Research Grant Cycle at universities is diagrammed in the figure shown just under the title of this article. This now has been expanded by the incorporation of certain features described above for The Soft Money Cycle. By hiring some science faculty as soft-money appointments instead of into the usual hard-money positions, universities save very much money because they no longer need to provide salaries. The reduced expenses readily enable the generation of greater net profits by The Research Grant Cycle.
I suspect that another new source of additional profits involves that portion of research grants awarded to pay for indirect costs (i.e., expenses for cleaning, heating and air conditioning, painting, safety, etc.). For the necessary background, please see my recent article in the Money & Grants category on “What is Going on With the Indirect Costs of Doing Research?”. Any profits coming from unused indirect cost awards can be used to enlarge the standard operation of The Research Grant Cycle, and/or diverted to pay for other university activities. If I am correct about the use and misuse of indirect cost awards, the amount of extra profits could be quite large. Universities undoubtedly have several responses always ready to counter any inquiries or allegations about whether their actual expenses are much less than the costs in their approved budget: (1) black and white documents giving work schedules and listing the activities performed, (2) entries in official accounting documents showing that all indirect cost funds were spent completely and exactly as planned, and (3) a signed agreement with the funding agencies about approved costs, coming from the earlier negotiations establishing a university’s indirect cost rate. However, a paper document does not necessarily mean that listed work actually was done, or that the actual service activities described really do cost as much as their stated values. Based upon my personal experiences, I simply say “bunk” to such “proofs” for their stated indirect expenses!
How do the Money Cycles Actually Function?
All 3 different money cycles produce profits that support scientific research activities. The 2 money cycles at research institutes and universities can be initiated as soon as the available institutional funds become sufficient to permit hiring only one new scientist on a soft-money salary. This faculty member then wins a new research grant and also gains his or her new salary. After initial success, this faculty researcher then is encouraged to obtain a second grant, publish many research reports, and submit strong applications for competitive renewals. The total profits generated from this initial employee will enlarge the pool of unrestricted university funds, thereby ultimately permitting the hiring of some additional soft-money faculty scientists. With time, this cadre grows further and the Research Grant Cycle becomes self-supporting (i.e., research grants of the employed scientists provide enough income to give a net profit level that more than pays for all the costs of operating this cycle). The use of soft-money salaries also means that the universities never have any worries about what to do if a research grant unexpectedly is not renewed; any time that an annual soft-money contract is completed, the employing university simply can discharge the now unfunded scientist, and then hire a replacement.
Once any of the 3 money cycles starts operating, they then simply go around and around while generating more and more profits. With good administrative management, the number of people generating profits grows each and every year, and the cycle gets bigger and better! In some cases, the speed of cyclic rotation even gets faster! For all 3 money cycles, profits and the size of the cycle become larger and stronger with time!
For modern universities, a self-sustaining and growing new source of money profits has been discovered! Once functioning, only minimal further expenses are needed to maintain this ongoing cycle! The universities surely are overjoyed! Since universities have become just another business, the financially productive Research Grant Cycle now is strongly embedded within modern university operations. The success of The Research Grant Cycle in generating profits explains why medical schools often are the very largest unit at modern large universities; this condition has little directly to do with diseases, new therapeutic treatments, public health, or clinical research, and everything to do with obtaining larger profits.
Does The Research Grant Cycle Actually Operate at Modern Universities?
What is the evidence that this cyclic profit-generating system really exists in universities? Although there are several pieces of suggestive evidence, definitive proof remains lacking because so much is kept hidden and/or is off the record. Recent conditions suggesting this operation at universities include: (1) the number of soft-money science faculty holding positions as non-tenure-track employees in universities is increasing, (2) at any time, there now are quite a few individual doctoral scientists available for hire in the USA as soft-money employees, (3) new very large programs (e.g., clinical genomics research initiatives, participation in extra-terrestrial space science studies, nanoscience research institutes, etc.) now have been developed in universities, and many have received substantial funding support with very large research grant awards, and, (4) even though every year there always seems to be only limited funds available for federal support of science, new government-mandated projects and mission-based research efforts continue to be announced along with special funding programs to support them. Any new initiatives and funding programs all engage The Research Grant Cycle fully, and actually stimulate its functioning.
All 3 of the money cycles do provide the financial support needed for modern scientific investigations in the different employing institutions. The Research Grant Cycle certainly is considered to be totally good by the many parties benefitting from it. After the recent period with declining income due to economic downturns, universities must be especially delighted to have found a new very fruitful profit-generating mechanism to fund their many activities and services.
With all those positive features of The Research Grant Cycle, why then do I have a negative opinion about it? There are 3 main reasons for my viewpoint.
(1) First, my biggest reason is that this type of profit-driven money cycle subverts scientific research by making getting research grant money the chief goal of the science faculty, rather than producing new knowledge and new concepts from their experimental investigations. The money is made to be more important than the science. This shift in values directly stimulates the current abominable hyper-competition for research grant awards.
(2) Second, it forces scientists to become business entities, rather than professional researchers and scholars trying to better the world through their investigations. Basic research especially is affected negatively, since it initially has no obvious commercial importance.
(3) Third, it amplifies the increasing commercialization of university science (see my earlier article in the Big Problems category on “What is the Very Biggest Problem for Science Today?”). The Research Grant Cycle reinforces the new identity of universities as businesses, rather than as centers for academic scholarship, scientific research, teaching, innovation, and public service. That new identity in turn encourages corruption and downgrades the traditional role of universities in society.
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
With research grants now being so all-important for university science faculty conducting experimental research, skills and good tactics with acquiring these awards have become especially valued. For getting research grant awards, there can be no question that some doctoral scientists are very much more successful than many others. The reasons why and how some are more successful are hard to pin down, but it is commonly said that they have more or better understanding about exactly how the research grant system works. Grantspersonship, formerly referred to as grantsmanship or grantswomanship, is the use of applied psychology, business skills, cleverness, manipulations, sophistry, unconventional approaches, and whatever-it-takes to win a research grant award. Tactics for acquiring research grant awards are not explicitly taught during the graduate school education of most professional scientists; instead, they are learned and incorporated by the emulation of those having more successful results in dealing with the current research grant system.
I have already introduced the hyper-competition by university scientists for research grants (see earlier article in the Scientists category on “Why Would Any Scientist Ever Cheat?”). In the present condition, grants are everything, everyone is competing with everyone else, and failure to get a new grant or a renewal easily can be the kiss-of-death for university scientists. Far too many modern faculty scientists have had personal experience with having their research grant applications being turned down or receiving evaluation scores such that they only will receive awards for partial funding. Many grant-supported university scientists now are trying hard to get a second research grant, in order to (1) obtain additional laboratory space, (2) undertake an additional research project, (3) receive some security in case their first research project does not receive a renewal award, and (4) increase their status and salary. Of course, these efforts also greatly increase the hyper-competition. The time and emotional effort needed for this infernal hyper-competition is enormous and detracts from the ability of any scientist to personally conduct research experiments in their lab (see my earlier article in the Scientists category on “What’s the New Main Job of Faculty Scientists Today?”). Accordingly, very many university faculty scientists indeed would love to obtain more success by increasing their level of grantspersonship.
Using grantspersonship to become more successful seems justified to many scientists at modern universities, since obtaining research grant awards is so very important for their career. Increasing one’s grantspersonship indeed can produce more funding success, but also readily results in several bad effects. At its worst, some scientists engage in corrupt and unethical practices (see my recent article in the Big Problems category on “Why is it so Very Hard to Eliminate Fraud and Corruption in Scientists?”). Even if remaining completely honest, researchers using grantspersonship become sidetracked from their aims in being a scientist.
Applications for research grants should be judged on the basis of objective evaluations for merit (i.e., having the best approach to answer an important research question and/or more effectively investigate a needed topic), capabilities of the scientist (i.e., adequate background and previous experience, a record of producing important publications, availability of the necessary facilities and required policies, etc.), compatibility with program objectives of the granting agency, good performance with previous awards, etc. The use of grantspersonship subverts these traditional criteria, and substitutes inappropriate, irrelevant, and subjective considerations into the evaluation of applications for funding (e.g., association with a given institution, ethnicity, personal friendships, personal interactions with agency officials, professional relationships, professional status, publications in a certain journal, etc.). All of this subversion of objective evaluations is bad for science.
What makes Grantspersonship Wrong? How does Grantspersonship have Negative Effects on Science?
Although grantspersonship appears to be universally accepted today, few have ever examined what are its effects upon scientific research. The concept of grantspersonship commonly is seen as the application of business skills to science; it deals with obtaining money, and has only an indirect connection to the production of good research. There is no obvious reason to think that either most very acclaimed great research scientists could simultaneously also be outstandingly adept businesspersons, or, that the presidents of giant multinational corporations could also win a Nobel Prize for their lab research studies. Business is fundamentally different from scientific research! The business world previously has given more emphasis than does science to commercialism, contracts, monetary rewards, personal deals, semi-legal actions and outright deception, trading of favors, etc.; these characteristics are not traditionally prominent in the world of science. Both business and science are useful and needed by society, but they are not the same and they are not interchangeable!
Most university scientists see grantspersonship as a means to the end of getting a research grant award. Anything that will improve the chance for success is viewed as being good and acceptable. If that really is true, then it logically follows that a new breed of non-scientist grant writers will arise and have many customers; in fact, there already are some of these new commercial offerings already. Such “editorial grant advisors” officially will be paid to improve or rework any application so as to be more fundable; some also will be able to write an entire research grant application using only minimal input from the scientist submitting the application. Editorial grant advisors undoubtedly will have a commercial contract with their numerous customers, and might even guarantee at least a certain priority ranking. Of course, it will be highly unlikely that expert reviewers for the granting agencies can recognize this dual authorship when that is not stated on the application form; some applicants will maintain that they alone are the true author since they must supervise and approve of anything composed by the advisors. Many scientists, including myself, will consider such dual authorship to be unethical; on the other hand, the concept of grantspersonship will fully accept this subterfuge.
What makes grantspersonship wrong? Grantspersonship is wrong because it has bad effects on science, and on the objective evaluation of research grant applications. In particular, the concept of grantspersonship: (1) implies that research capabilities mainly relate to construction of a grant application; (2) means that good business skills are somehow equivalent to scientific expertise, even though there is no obvious evidence for that view; this falsity is evidenced by the fact that some pre-eminent Nobel Laureate scientists have had enormous difficulties with business aspects in the modern research grant system (see my earlier article in the Scientists category on “What’s the New Main Job of Faculty Scientists Today?”); (3) confuses and subverts the objective evaluation of grant applications, because it is unknown what comes from the applicant and what comes from some extraneous co-author; (4) sidetracks the essential goal of science (i.e., to find or critically study the truth) and substitutes that with the target of getting research grant funds; in other words, the real goal becomes to get the money, rather than to uncover new knowledge; and, (5) counters integrity of scientific research by making the goal be obtaining a grant award, rather than discovering important new knowledge through experimental investigations.
From all the foregoing, I conclude that grantspersonship is a false idol for modern scientists doing research, andhas bad effects upon science. The true aim of scientific research is not the acquisition of money!
The only way I can see to remove this anti-science mess is (1) to get the granting agencies to adopt much more rigorous standards for objectivity in reviewing research grant applications, and (2) to get the universities to either stop or greatly diminish the hyper-competition for research grant awards, since that underlies the current flourishing of grantspersonship. Regretfully, both of these needed changes seem very unlikely to be instituted.
Whenever I get depressed at realizing that there now is an overwhelming desire for more grantspersonship amongst university scientists, I always begin laughing because I start wondering which will be the very first university to hire some modern Jesse James (i.e., an outlaw and notorious USA bank robber from the second half of the 1800’s) as the newest member of their science faculty, since he would bring much more money into the university than any grant-supported scientist could do!
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Money is required to conduct modern scientific research, and plays a very large role in determining exactly what gets done by scientists (see my earlier article in the Basic Introductions category on “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research”). To construct one new 3-4G synchrotron research facility costs billions of dollars, while a newly-appointed Assistant Professor might need only $150,000 for his or her first research project. Research grant funds routinely are spent by professional scientists for many different kinds of direct costs and for all indirect costs (see my recent article in the Money&Grants category on “Research Grants: What is Going on with the Indirect Costs of Doing Research?”. Without money, no experimental scientific research can be conducted in modern universities.
All granting agencies carefully review the budgets proposed by applicants for a research grant, and seek to remove any unnecessary or excessive items. They also have oversight and accounting controls in place to verify which expenses have been paid validly by the awarded grant funds. Science faculty receiving research grants additionally have university accounting rules and regulations for all expenditures of their grant awards. Faculty grantees do have the option to request rebudgeting of their awarded funds, so as to deal with unexpected contingencies and operational changes in their research plan; large changes must be approved by the granting agency, while smaller changes are reviewed and either approved or disapproved by the university financial office.
Despite all these regulatory mechanisms, some wastage of research grant funds still commonly occurs. Wastage here is defined as any expenditures that are not required for the direct conduct of the experiments and activities within an approved research project. This means that anything not bonafide (e.g., far outside the scope of the research project) or not necessary (e.g., purchase of an excessive number of laptop personal computers, travel to attend a dozen science meetings where no presentation is given, etc.) is a misuse of the awarded funds. Any such expenditure constitutes wastage of the research grant funds.
Different Types of Wastage of Research Grant Funds
For individual grantees at universities, there are at least 5 different major kinds of wastage of research grant awards: (1) unneeded and duplicated ordinary purchases, (2) purchases and expenditures that are made just to use up some unspent awarded funds before a grant period ends, (3) payments for too many measurements and assays to be conducted at external commercial labs, rather than in the home laboratory of the grantee, (4) misuse of research grant awards due to policies of universities, and (5) misuse of research grant awards due to policies of the granting agencies. Examples for each of these 5 are given below.
Some duplicated purchases are needed, but others are not so and must be categorized as being excessive. Most biomedical research labs need to have extra micropipetters as backups for when those in use need to be taken out of service for repair or recalibration; however, there is no need to have several dozen extras. This type of wastage constitutes an error by the individual scientist (i.e., Principal Investigator, Faculty-Co-Investigator, Collaborator, Lab Manager, etc.).
It is well-known amongst grant-holders that all awarded funds must be spent before the grant period ends. Direct banking of any unspent research grant funds beyond the grant duration is not permitted, and there is no encouragement to ever try to save money; it is commonly rumored that unusual individuals who try to return some unspent grant funds to the funding agency have all future proposed budgets significantly reduced in size. For this reason, it is commonplace for faculty researchers who have somehow underspent their award to buy additional research supplies during the last year of a grant just to use up any remaining funds. These purchases really represent wastage of the awarded grant funds.
Small laboratory groups always are tempted to save precious time by purchasing research work from external commercial service labs, thereby permitting their research staff to work on other activities. Typically, this involves payment to conduct data collection and analysis; the alternative is to train a graduate student or a research technician to conduct the needed operations in the home lab. It always seems easier to buy something rather than do it in-house, but when a Principal Investigator lets this approach exceed a certain level, it is wasteful of the awarded grant funds.
Wastage for unnecessary purchases due to university policies can arise from an absence of regulation, as well as from over-regulation. At some universities, old research equipment, ranging from ovens and chromatographs to microscopes and large centrifuges, is not reassigned and recycled for further use, but is simply dumped onto the refuse docks and picked up by garbage collectors, scrap metal dealers, or passersby. The absence of official mechanisms for re-use of expensive research equipment that becomes unused, but still works quite well, causes wastage of funds for new purchases (e.g., why pass along a 5-10 year old research instrument belonging to the late Professor Katsam, when new faculty member Smith can use his first research grant award to buy a new one?).
Another example of university policy-based wastage of grant funds is produced by some of the official rules for laboratory safety. At many institutions, the purchase and use of very expensive explosion-proof refrigerators in laboratories is required; faculty grantees can need several of these and typically try to buy only the much less expensive ordinary household refrigerators, but are not always allowed to do that. To whatever extent the special refrigerators are not actually required, this policy causes unnecessary purchases and represents wastage.
Newly appointed university science faculty members furnish their laboratory by purchasing brand new research equipment. It is not unusual that if there are 3 new Assistant Professors in one science department, that all 3 will mostly buy some of the same items. It is quite unusual that a university will see that much of this duplication is unneeded and wasteful, since these necessities can be provided by establishment of a common service room where each basic item is available for all to use (e.g., a pH meter, a vacuum oven, an ultracold freezer, light microscope, etc.).
A different type of wastage of research grant funds involves misguided policies of the granting agencies. These agencies all make extensive efforts to avoid any duplicate funding or overlapping of grant awards, but almost everyone knows of cases where this has happened anyway; there are so many research grants and so many scientists that it is extremely difficult to prevent this type of error and wastage. As one illustration of the complex nature of this problem, consider the routine formation of a small research group with several other faculty colleagues. The group project involves conducting 30 different experiments, with each of the 5 group members supervising 6 parts of the entire study; in actuality, some of the 5 work on 2-20 of these experiments, and some technicians work under several different supervisors. One large research grant is acquired for the group project, and this provides an equal salary contribution for all 5 faculty co-investigators. Some of these 5 scientists are successful enough to also have merited their own individual research grant(s), supporting projects that are described as being “related, but different” from that in the large grant awarded to the research group. In this example, it often is extremely difficult to determine exactly who does what, what time and effort are spent by each person on each activity, and, which grant should pay for what. In this complex situation there is a definite likelihood that some of the research expenses are being supported by more than one grant; any duplicated research support is redundant and unnecessary, and therefore is wastage.
A second example where policies of a granting agency create waste in their awards involves the fact that research grants often include a salary contribution for the Principal Investigator (e.g., 10-50%). If doctoral scientists are soft-money appointees, they must get their entire salary (i.e., 100%) from research grants; this is perfectly usual and honest. On the other hand, if a university scientist has a hard-money appointment (i.e., their full salary is guaranteed by some source, such as a state government), then any salary contribution by their research grant is unnecessary, makes no sense to me, and should be considered as being wastage. In that situation, the funding agency in effect returns some of the guaranteed salary to the source or to the university; for universities, this transfer or refund can result in all sorts of manipulations involving provision of salary bonuses, raises, and semi-unrestricted private accounts.
How Much Research Grant Money is Wasted?
The wastage problems described above initially might seem to be only minor in size and importance, and could even be thought to be somewhat unavoidable. Many readers then will wonder exactly how much money is being wasted? Since there are no official figures to cite, let us make estimates by considering the following simple and minimal theoretical examples. If the amount of research grant money wasted by any one faculty scientist is given as $500/year, then to obtain the national figure this must be multiplied by the many thousands of scientists doing grant-supported research studies. If the amount of grant funds wasted by any one university science department is given as only $5,000/year, then to get the national total this must be multiplied by the number of science departments at each university. In addition, we can look at the minimal $15,000 spent by each new faculty appointee setting up their new laboratory; this figure must be multiplied first by all the many new science faculty appointees each year, and then by the number of years being considered. From these simple estimates, it is obvious that many millions of research grant dollars could be wasted each and every year. The total amount of research grant dollars wasted must be described as being “substantial”!
Why does Wastage of Research Grant Funds Matter?
Any misuse and wastage of research grant awards necessarily represents taxpayer money that was misspent. Due to the limited amount of dollars available for supporting scientific research via grants, too many faculty scientists with worthy projects now can receive only partial funding or no funding at all. If the substantial amount of dollars in research grants now being wasted would be added to the pool of available funds, then (1) more scientists could get funded fully, and (2) more scientists could be able to have their approved projects funded. This change will result in more research and better research being done, thereby benefitting all of us.
To stop this wastage or at least greatly decrease the amount of wastage of research grant funds, changes must be activated in 3 quite separate locations: (1) funded faculty scientists on hard-money salaries, (2) the universities, and (3) the granting agencies. Like any other attempts to change the status quo, the several parties benefitting from the current substantial wastage of research grant funds will oppose any changes. Nevertheless, I do not doubt that increased efforts both by scientists and by the public will be able to make these needed changes into a reality.
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Money is of key importance for conducting scientific research (see my earlier post in the Basic Introductions category on “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research”). The tax-paying public is familiar with the use of research grant money to pay for the acquisition of chemicals, conduction of assays and measurements, procurement of research samples, purchase and repair of laboratory instruments, purchase of test-tubes and other research supplies, publication of research reports in journals, etc. All these expenses are for the direct costs of doing research. Most people are completely unaware that there is a second and very different type of expense in conducting a research study.
Research grants to universities, technology institutes, and medical schools also pay for the indirect costs of doing research. These include all the adjunctive expenses necessary to support using an active research laboratory to perform experiments (e.g., daily maintenance, distribution of regulated electricity, garbage collection and disposal, heating and cooling, painting, routine administration, safety activities and facilities, water provision and drainage, etc.). There can be no question that these indirect expenses are totally needed for the conduct of experiments in university research laboratories; corresponding expenses also occur for scientists working at industrial research and development labs.
Indirect vs. Direct Costs in Typical Research Grants
The amount of support used for indirect expenses is determined by periodic negotiations between each institution receiving research grant awards and the granting agencies. These negotiations are held behind closed doors, and the Principal Investigators composing and submitting applications for a research grant have no input into this process. The total indirect costs awarded by federal granting agencies are calculated as some agreed percentage of the total direct costs awarded by a research grant (e.g., 35-75%).
The public also is not very aware that the direct costs awarded in support of any research project can be less than half of the total dollars provided by a research grant. For some large very well-respected educational institutions in the USA, the official indirect cost rate is over 100%. In such cases, the total funds awarded to those institutions by any research grant actually is over double the commonly stated figure for the total direct costs. For example, with an approved indirect cost rate of 125%, a grant awarding $500,000 for total direct costs also gives another $625,000 for indirect costs, meaning the total award is $1,125,000. Hence, indirect cost awards can be a very substantial amount of money!
How do Science Faculty View Indirect Costs in Research Grant Awards?
I personally know that many funded faculty research scientists at universities have large doubts about realities in the current system for paying the indirect expenses of their lab research. One area of doubt is the official percentage figure for their institution, which often seems to be much too high. A second common doubt concerns the actual provision of the specified important activities listed in justifications for the approved percentage figure for indirect costs. Usually, funded faculty scientists choose to keep quiet about their misgivings, since these “involve something beyond my influence and control”. A few individual faculty members do occasionally complain about deficiencies in routine services provided by their employing institution (e.g., “My trash has not been picked up for 3 days now!”), but they never go on to ponder the various probable causes and possible misuses of their research grant funds designated for indirect expenses (e.g., diversion into other university accounts).
These common doubts lead to suspicions amongst university science faculty that the provision of research grant funds for indirect expenses is peculiar and really must have some additional unspoken function(s) beyond paying for the adjunct costs of doing laboratory research. This suspicion almost never is openly discussed, since most faculty scientists are much more personally concerned with their own research projects, and not with what their employer might be “receiving on the side”. In forthcoming posts, I will discuss some theoretical possibilities which could explain what might be happening.
The approved rates for indirect cost awards vary considerably between different institutions, as a function of their location, size, labor costs, number of faculty and other employees, type of construction, etc. As a blatant example of the very large variations in indirect expenses between different academic institutions, I once went to work with a faculty collaborator at a large academic institution in Philadelphia on 2 consecutive days. I saw with my own eyes that his laboratory rooms had a daily damp-mopping of the floors. I was totally astounded to see that happening because at my own institution the lab floors were never damp-mopped, and were wet-mopped only a few times each year. The indirect cost rates at these 2 universities certainly differed, but not by such a huge amount!
Who Pays and Who Does Not Pay for the Indirect Costs of Scholarship and Research at Universities?
Usually. only faculty scientists having a research laboratory are required to pay for indirect expenses via their research grants. Faculty members researching in other areas of scholarly endeavor mostly are not required to pay for the indirect costs of their investigations. Those others include nearly all faculty working in art and music, classics, computer science, history, library science, linguistics, literature, and statistics. This also can include some scholars working in astronomy, economics, engineering, environmental science, mathematics, psychology, or social science. In all such cases, their indirect expenses must be paid by some other institutional funds, and presumably are seen as simply representing the routine costs of university business. One should note here that smaller non-federal granting agencies often do not provide any payments for indirect expenses, yet most universities still are happy to receive those awards; the indirect costs for these smaller grant-supported investigations certainly still exist, but are being paid by some other budget.
Indirect expenses for faculty offices, teaching activities in lecture and laboratory classrooms, and small conferences held in a campus room, normally are paid by the university as a normal operating expense. It is only faculty scientists conducting research in laboratories who are required to pay for the indirect costs of their experimental investigations. Senior science faculty members studying education in their science courses are not charged for the indirect costs of these investigations.
Several conclusions now can be drawn: (1) research grants are used to pay for indirect expenses by all science faculty researching in a laboratory, (2) many scholarly investigations by faculty not needing to work in a research laboratory have their indirect expenses paid by some internal budget at the same institutions, (3) research grant awards for indirect expenses at some institutions exceed the amount given for direct expenses, and, (4) direct experience with paying for indirect expenses leads many Principal Investigators to have questions and suspicions that some type of hidden purpose or scam might be going on with the current system for using research grant funds to pay for indirect expenses.
With this brief background, we now must ask several very important questions! Why are only faculty scientists doing laboratory research being asked to obtain external funding to pay for their indirect expemses? Is this done simply because grants are available for scientific research, but funding programs supporting scholarly studies in many other disciplines are smaller and less available? Why are the indirect expenses for scholarly studies by many non-science faculty paid by institutional funds? Why are the indirect costs of faculty scientists doing laboratory research investigations not also being paid by the employing institutions? Where 2 different funded faculty scientists share a large laboratory room, does each grant provide support for only 50% of the indirect costs that would be awarded if there was only one occupant, or does each award pay for 100%? Quite frankly, the more questions one asks about this topic, the more new queries arise; true answers to these never-asked questions probably would be both very interesting and very distressing.
I will close by stating my own sincere conviction that something just does not make sense here! In several later essays, I will try to provide further insights and discussions about indirect costs, especially in the context of the current shortage of funding for research grants. These will include controversial proposals for useful changes in the present policies and practices for the payment of indirect costs.
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE
Scientific research in recent times certainly is very costly (see my earlier post on “Introduction to Money in Modern Scientific Research” in the Money & Grants category). Everything in a university research laboratory is quite expensive and costs keep rising each year. Even such common inexpensive items as paper towels, phone calls, xerographic copies, and keys to lab rooms need to be paid for at many universities. To handle all these expenses, faculty scientists must apply for a research grant, obtain an award, and then work hard to later get it renewed. Unless a faculty member is working at a small undergraduate college, it simply is not possible to conduct research using only internal funds and undergraduate volunteer lab workers. Without having laboratory co-workers, research comes to a screeching halt whenever the faculty member must be out of the lab while teaching, attending a committee meeting, eating lunch in a cafeteria, or going to see the dentist. In addition to paying salaries for postdoctoral fellows, research technicians, and graduate students, faculty scientists must buy research supplies and equipment, get broken instruments repaired, and pay for many other research expenses (e.g., business travel, costs of publication, use of special research facilities on- and off-campus, etc.). Thus, to conduct scientific research in a university, it is fundamentally necessary to obtain and maintain external research funding; without a research grant, laboratory research projects in universities now are nearly impossible.
Although the federal government each year thankfully provides many billions of dollars to support experimental studies, the present research grant system in the US is not able to fund all the good proposals submitted by faculty scientists in universities. Of those overjoyed applicants meriting an award, many receive only part of their requested budget. The U.S. National Science Foundation, a very large federal agency offering research grants in nearly all branches of science and engineering, reports awarding research funds to only around 28% of the many thousands of investigators applying for research support each year .
Today, the professional reputation of individual faculty scientists depends mostly on the total number of dollars brought in by their research grant award(s) each year. It also is true that different universities compare their reputation for quality in education and scholarly prestige primarily on the basis of the annual total amount of external research grant awards generated by their faculty scientists. Many universities seeking to elevate their financial profits from research grants now urge their science faculty to try to obtain a second or third external award (i.e., for a related or unrelated project); universities also can increase their profits from research grant awards simply by hiring more science faculty.
Failure to get a research grant renewed is no longer unusual, due to the ever-increasing large number of doctoral scientists vigorously competing for new and renewal funding. Any such failure means a rapid loss of assigned laboratory space, loss of graduate students working with the faculty member, a diminished professional reputation, and the necessity to henceforth spend all of one’s time trying to get re-funded. Although non-renewed faculty scientists can continue researching and publishing using supplies at hand, such activity usually declines to some small level within about one year of not being funded. This unwelcome failure is a disaster that often causes a midcareer crisis (e.g., denial of promotion to tenured rank); having a second research grant does provide some welcome protection in this distressing situation.
Each and every faculty scientist is competing against each and every other scientist for a cut of the government pie. While ordinary competition generally has good effects upon human activities, this most prominent of all science faculty efforts is so extensive and generates such high pressures that it must be termed a “hyper-competition”. The hyper-competition for research grant awards downgrades collegiality, subverts collaborations, and encourages corruption; each of these has very destructive effects on the research enterprise. Applying for a research grant always is very stressful; for each renewal application (i.e., after 3-5 years of supported research work), one must compete with a larger number of new and renewal applicants than was the case for the previous application. Since the consequences of dealing with the research grant system are so very important for the career progress of any faculty scientist, one might wonder why graduate students in modern science are not being required to also receive an MBA degree, in addition to their Ph.D.?
There is an increasing tendency for faculty scientists to form research groups, ranging from 3 to over 100 individuals. Joining a small research group means that the failure of one group member to get a renewal application funded does not either kill anyone within the group or stop the entire project from continuing. Giant research groups typically are headed by a king or queen scientist, and can have their own building; these giant groups automatically provide more brains, more hands, more research grant money (from awards to multiple associated individuals), and more lab space than any individual scientist or small group can obtain. In the large associations, group-think typically can become the usual condition; in such cases, the role of each individual doctoral scientist in the group often devolves into serving only as a highly educated technician, with little need for individual input, creative new ideas, or self-development. Today’s research scientists who work as individual researchers in academia know they have a fragile status in the hyper-competition for research grants, and usually are extremely careful to select a niche project where there is little likelihood of competing with any giant research group; that mistake would be the kiss-of-death. Although the federal granting agencies do currently endeavor to give initial awards for 3 years to many newly-appointed science faculty, they also seem to favor the funding of very large research groups; this is readily understandable, since such awards usually provide these agencies with a much firmer likelihood that the proposed studies will be completed on time, and, the anticipated research results will be found and published (i.e., because the proposed experiments actually have already been completed!).
Inevitably, the former prominence of individual research scientists becomes diminished by any policies favoring the formation and operation of very large research groups. The acknowledged curiosity and creative initiatives of individual researchers have been the main source for new ideas, new concepts, and new directions in science. Basic research is the necessary progenitor of all the advanced technology arising in the modern world. Both the granting agencies and the academic institutions should change their priorities and policies so as to increase and encourage, rather than decrease and discourage, the vital activity of individuals (i.e., young basic scientists) who contribute so importantly to research progress. When basic research is de-emphasized or disfavored, so too is creativity in science also being diminished.
Another negative aspect of the enlarged importance of money for today’s scientific research is the commercialization of experimental studies in modern universities. Commercialism is widely accepted as the primary driver of research and development within industry; currently, it is being extended and expanded into all university research efforts (see my earlier post on “What is the Very Biggest Problem for Science Today?” in the Big Problems category). Basic science thereby is increasingly diminished, and many efforts are being targeted toward some commercial development or industrial goal. That scenario refuses to recognize the proven history that both applied research and engineering developments almost always follow from one or more preceding very basic experimental studies; those basic investigations typically have no practical usage foreseen at the time of their publication. Many detailed examples, ranging from the transistor [e.g., 2] to paternity testing based on DNA technology with the polymerase chain reaction [e.g., 3,4], show that although some highly imaginative or theoretical idea for a new device or process might have stimulated much interest, very important commercial products only arise much later after the initial basic results are modified and developed by many applied research and engineering efforts.
Scientific research at universities now is only a business activity. I have seen this perverse situation in person during my own career experiences, and believe that these problems and issues with money and university profits now have changed the very nature of being an academic scientist. I can only conclude that money today is just about everything for scientific research at modern universities. This new emphasis creates many secondary problems for science progress and puts many roadblocks in the way of individual research scientists. The traditional goal of scientific research is to find more new knowledge, not to acquire more and more money. Counting the number of dollars in research grants cannot be a valid and meaningful measure of the professional status and value of individual faculty scientists. Readers should know that I am certainly not the only scientist to state all these views with dismay (e.g., A. Kuszewski, 2010. What happened to creativity in science? Available on the internet at: http://www.science20.com/print/72577 ).
 National Science Foundation, 2013. About funding. Available on the internet at:
 Mullis, K.B., 1987. Conversation with John Bardeen. Available on the internet at:
 Universal Genetics DNA Testing Laboratory, 2013. Paternity DNA test. Available on the
internet at: http://www.dnatestingforpaternity.com/paternity-test.html .
 Ingenetix, 2013. Paternity testing. Available on the internet at:
GO BACK TO HOME PAGE OR SCROLL UP TO MENU
UNDER THE WEBSITE TITLE