Proposed cut to publicly-funded research (NIH)

[Dembadon]

Dr. Steven Novella contributes to a couple blogs I frequent:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/

A recent post addresses proposed budget cuts¹ and the need for publicly-funded research:

http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/the-need-for-publicly-funded-science/

A sudden and dramatic cut in funding, such as an 18% decrease for the NIH, is a disaster for our biomedical research infrastructure. Some analysts say that this cut will essentially mean no new grants awarded in 2018, as the remaining budget is already earmarked for funding existing grants. This means that a lot of plates will start to fall.

Scientists cannot easily reduce their costs by 20%, or survive through a year without new NIH grants. New scientists may not be able to start their career, and are likely to disproportionately suffer from such a decrease. Labs may have to fire technicians, abandon ongoing research, or even close completely.

For those members of PF who rely on public funding for their research, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on this. Do you believe private funding will be an option? If not, will you be able to continue your research?

Will the private sector be able to make up for the proposed cuts? I have no doubts the money is there, but I feel like private-funding might not be an option for those doing research that doesn't align with the funder's interests.

¹ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/trumps-first-budget-analysis-and-reaction

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Will the private sector be able to make up for the proposed cuts? I have no doubts the money is there, but I feel like private-funding might not be an option for those doing research that doesn't align with the funder's interests.

Business idea, kickstarter for science research?

 

[John Morrell]

I don't think that's likely; the sheer scale of the funds required is beyond what crowdsourcing could really provide, and often there is no real predictable monetary benefit.

"NOVEL USE OF POTASSIUM NITRATE FOR MRI IMAGING:
Novel research in the use of potassium nitrate as a contrast agent in MRI for the detection of breast cancer.

$150 pledged of $3,560,000 goal

2 Backers

Support?"

would you?

 

[Andy Resnick]

Will the private sector be able to make up for the proposed cuts? I have no doubts the money is there, but I feel like private-funding might not be an option for those doing research that doesn't align with the funder's interests.

My research is dependent on external funding, and competition for funding has steadily gotten more difficult over time. I know lots of people who are in more precarious positions than I- soft-money 'research faculty' positions for example. Private funding (either through non-profits or for-profits) cannot replace federal funding- insufficient funds. In addition to submitting more collaborative proposals (to increase the 'relevance'), I expect to submit more proposals for research funding to other government agencies, typically military agencies.

 

[StatGuy2000]

My research is dependent on external funding, and competition for funding has steadily gotten more difficult over time. I know lots of people who are in more precarious positions than I- soft-money 'research faculty' positions for example. Private funding (either through non-profits or for-profits) cannot replace federal funding- insufficient funds. In addition to submitting more collaborative proposals (to increase the 'relevance'), I expect to submit more proposals for research funding to other government agencies, typically military agencies.

From what I've read, at least some of the cuts in NIH funding and other similar cuts in federal funding for scientific research will be redirected toward military/defense spending. Would the increase in the military or defense budget lead to more money available for the military to fund scientific research? (I know, it sounds circular, but then again I wonder if there is much logic involved in terms of decisions made regarding government budgets).

 

[Andy Resnick]

From what I've read, at least some of the cuts in NIH funding and other similar cuts in federal funding for scientific research will be redirected toward military/defense spending. Would the increase in the military or defense budget lead to more money available for the military to fund scientific research? (I know, it sounds circular, but then again I wonder if there is much logic involved in terms of decisions made regarding government budgets).

It's unclear. In any case, the different agencies have different goals for funded projects. To be sure, 'grantsmanship' comes into play when translating (say) and NIH proposal into (say) an Army proposal, but the Army and NIH have very different goals and evaluation procedures.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Hi everyone. I also wanted to ask a separate question that is related to this thread. Would any of you on PF think that the proposed cuts to publicly funded research at the NIH (and possibly other agencies) may lead to an "exodus" of scientists leaving the US for other nations (e.g. Canada)?

Does anyone on PF based in the US know of people who have seriously considered, are planning, or have actually moved out of the US due to the potential funding climate that scientists may possibly face?