"Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one's living at it." - Albert Einstein

What is wrong with science research today? I could mention George Bush and list the standard grievances of his stem cell research policy and money drain from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to fund his war in Iraq. But instead I will focus on the main problem faced by every academic scientist (i.e. the principal investigator of an independent lab): How do I fund my research?

The quick answer is by writing a grant using data from previous research, then receiving money for a specified number of years. But it's never that simple. Since grants only get funded if past research sounds really exciting and robust, savvy principal investigators will pump up the relevance of their data in all sorts of underhanded ways. I don't mean they actually lie (unlike Eric Poehlman, the first academic researcher in the country to be sentenced to prison time for fabricating data in scientific studies). However, principal investigators will sometimes throw out perfectly good data that doesn't fit their expectations, and they will also use different types of statistical tests to make their data give the answer they want. Principal investigators know that if their data doesn't completely support their proposed hypotheses, then their next grant won't even get looked at. Their next grant - which they desperately need to keep their jobs - will get 'triaged' or rejected since who wants to support scientists whose experiments don't work out like they were supposed to?

Meanwhile, other labs with "big shot" investigators who are well-known in their field, barely even have to try when they write their grants since their "name brand" will ensure grant approval. Since the people reviewing these grants are peers - other scientists in the field - it makes it a difference if someone is well-known and well-liked, almost as much as what they actually write in their grants.

Thus, a good amount of science research in America is an exercise in deceit and futility. Not blatant deceit, but a very fine, subtle deceit. I'm a postdoctoral fellow at a prestigious university and I have seen firsthand how science has fallen in practice and reputation.

I wanted to be a scientist because I wanted to know the truth: the how and why of the natural world. Now I spend my days trying to think of a glitzy yet meaningless hook that will sell my grant to the jaded NIH reviewers, "cleaning up" my data so it will look better when I submit it to a journal, and surfing the internet trying to figure out if I trust any of the papers coming out on my topic.

Because of all the budget cuts to science research, now only the top 10% of grants will get funded when they are sent to NIH. I recently attended a talk by Elias Zerhouni, NIH director, who tried to sooth worried, disgruntled scientist whose careers and livelihoods are riding on their next grant approval. Here's the story he gave to assuage us: NIH has not had a budget increase since 2002, due to all the military spending from the Iraqi and Afghan conflicts. Thus, the last "good year" (i.e. a year with a better than 30% success rate for getting a grant) was back in 2002.

NIH grants are usually given for five-year periods, and each year's budget must include money for grants currently being funded (i.e. those grants given in 2002 and afterwards). So, for the past five years there has been very little money to pay for new projects and thus the low success rate. Elias assured us that, during 2007 there will be more money for new grants and that we should all rejoice since the success rate will be much higher than 10% of the past few years. However, I was not rejoicing since I realized that all the scientists whose five-year grants just ran out would also be applying for a new one and thus we'd have a higher amount of grant proposals than previous years. So the success rate would probably turn out to be the same. More scientists will lose their labs or their jobs. And once that happens it's almost impossible to get another grant again.

I ran into my graduate advisor at a recent science meeting. She had just lost her lab since she had been unable to get a grant in the last five years. However, she felt lucky compared to her husband since she would be able to keep her job, only now instead of being a principal investigator she'd be a glorified technician. Her husband had also been unable to hit above the 10% success rate in his recent grant submissions and thus was not only losing his lab, but losing his job.

Scientists who have been in the field for a long time are feeling pretty despondent. But what of the scientists who are just starting their careers, like me? I've been a postdoctoral fellow for three years and my fellowship is running out with no chance of renewal. I'm currently applying for jobs, academic positions (assistant professor) and industrial, research positions at companies like Merck and Eli Lilly. Yet the sad fact is I'll probably never get an academic position since each notice of an opening will generate 500+ applications. Increasingly universities will only hire someone who has obtained their own funding, in other words someone who wrote a grant for a big chunk of money.

However, there are very few types of grants that post-docs can apply for. Thus the rate of recent PhD recipients who obtain an academic position is less than 20%. Where do all the other PhDs go? Industry can only absorb so many of the leftovers. Since many advertised industry positions are also receiving hundreds of applications large numbers of PhDs just leave the field entirely: start law school, go into consulting, or teach high school. And if you're a woman there's an even higher chance that you will drop out of the job market altogether.

Since the furor of Larry Summers' proclamation that women are not as academically competitive as men in science fields, many studies have come out showing female PhDs getting paid less and promoted less. Even though women receive 50% of the PhD degrees in the biological sciences, only 15% of academic positions are filled by women.

It's scary to note that many women drop out of science right at the beginning of their careers.

It's scary to realize that I might have to drop out of science if I don't find a position in the next nine months.

I hope I can give a more uplifting update in the coming months.

« Previous Next »