Letter: NIH Research Grants

The article "NIH Institute's Plan Will Favor Researchers Dependent On Single Grants" (The Scientist, April 16, 1990, page 1), conveys the impression that the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) has introduced a fiendish new policy favoring "smaller laboratories," at the expense of investigators with more than $500,000 in grants. A few paragraphs into the story, it becomes clear that the policy described is not really new; some similar discretionary practices have been exercised informally by most, if not all, categorical NIH Institutes for many years. As one who is fortunate to have enjoyed NIH research grant support since 1949, and who has served on peer review, advisory, and task force committees for an aggregate of 25 years or so, I feel qualified to view the issues raised with some informed perspective that I find missing in the article. It is misleading to suggest that "the policy lets NIGMS edge further away from scientific merit in funding and [lets it] ration support so that smaller laboratories can survive." First of all, "smaller laboratories" should really be changed to something like "proj-ects of relatively low cost but high scientific merit"; second, ultimate decisions regarding funding have never been made by study sections, but rather by National Advisory Councils of the individual institutes, taking into account reviewers' comments, priority scores, and program relevance or uniqueness, as viewed by institute staff and Council itself; third, who could presume to judge a relatively small, but original and unique project, scoring five points below the pay line, as less "meritorious" than one that just makes it "under the line," but has the dubious virtues of costing 10 times more and having a P.I. who rates as being possessed of the proper "entrepreneurial spirit"? Among the hyperbolic reactions ascribed to some of our fellow scientists are: "outraged," ". . . one more step in the dismantling of basic biomedical research in the United States," "some scientists fear these policies are part of a trend to `equalize' science; to stretch the research dollar a little further, the federal government is cutting out incentives for enterprising researchers, they argue," and many more testimonials to fear, insecurity, or self-centered arrogance. Yes, I would hope that "equalization" might include cutting some single grants or total grant support to individuals in excess of $500,000 by an extra 10 percent; there would be no danger of such scientists having to close shop! Perhaps a more beneficial gain would be that a few investigators with single, smaller grants of comparable scientific merit might be able to initiate or continue projects. I believe the time has come to revive a "sliding scale" along the lines recommended by Vesell and Mandel, speaking for most members of the Association of Medical School Pharmacology Chairmen (Science, 215:1026, 1982), and by others. Finally, I find it disturbing that the cap on salary support for individuals from research grants has been set as high as $120,000, based on 100 percent effort on the project (NIH Guide 219, No. 3, Jan. 19, 1990); with addition of, say, 25 percent fringe benefits and 60 percent indirect cost, the total would double to $240,000, all at taxpayers' expense and probably more than top salaries available to similarly qualified NIH scientists. The exciting potential of "big science" carries with it the risk that it may be technology that drives and limits the questions asked. That risk is unavoidable and not intrinsically bad, provided it does not invite redundancy and is balanced by recognition that the research enterprise depends on diversity of questions that lead to novel ideas and stimulate new technology needed to obtain answers. Above all, we need diversity within the "scientific community." We should applaud NIGMS and other agencies for seeking and finding ways to encourage creativity of worthy free spirits. R. WALTER SCHLESINGER Emeritus Distinguished Professor Robert Wood Johnson Medical School Piscataway, N.J.

Letter: NIH Research Grants

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of