Life Sciences 100,1987-1988 Pt. 2: Surveying The Payers

Last issue’s Special Report focused on the research institutions and nations that contributed in greatest measure to the 100 life sciences articles that have been listed during the past year in The Scientist’s ‘Hot Papers” column (See “Life Sciences 100, 1987-1988. Pt. 1: Surveying the Players,” The Scientist, May 1, 1989, page 12). These 100 research reports, originally published in 1987 and 1988, were identified as hot because they were so frequently cited by the scientific community—at levels much greater than for other papers of the same type and vintage. In this issue, we turn from the “players” to analyze the “payers” and ask, "Which government agencies, private foundations, industrial firms, and universities paid, both through grants and institutional support, for this body of recent, significant research?” Such questions are increasingly common among science policymakers, especially in the United States. These planners are faced with steady-state or even shrinking science budgets, and they want to know how to get the biggest science bang for their science bucks. "Grant Support: The pie chart at right illustrates the sources of grant support for the Life Sciences 100. A total of 269 grants were explicitly acknowledged on 74 of the papers. Grants from government agencies, both U.S. and non-U.S., were listed 158 times, for about 59% of all grants acknowledged. Private foundations were mentioned 100 times, for about 37% of grants listed. These two sectors alone represent 96% of all grants acknowledged. Financial support from industrial firms accounted for 3% of grants listed, while grant support from universities accounted for only 1%. The remaining 26 articles listed no grant whatsoever; most of the work represented by these articles was supported by the research team’s sponsoring institution rather than by outside grants (see Institutional Support, below). This is, of course, typical for those articles by scientists at industrial firms. The accompanying table lists the top government agencies acknowledged by the Life Sciences 100. By far the most frequently acknowledged government granting agency was the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). With 105 grants acknowledged, it accounted for two-thirds of all grants from the government sector. The most frequently cited individual institute was the National Cancer Institute (30 grants), followed by General Medical Sciences (16); Allergy and Infectious Diseases (9); and Heart, Lung, and Blood (7); and Neurological and Communicative Diseases and Stroke (7). In about a quarter (28) of NIH grants acknowledged, there was no specification of an institute, either by name or grant code. The Medical Research Council (MRC) of Canada ranked second in government grants, with eight of the 158, or about a 5% share. France’s CNRS and INSERM were men- tioned on five articles, for a 3% share, and third place. Tied for fourth place, each with a 2% share, are the U.S. National Science Foundation, West Germany’s Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, France’s Ministere de la Recherche et de 1’Enseignement Superieur, and Australia’s National Health and Medical Research. Council. The 22 other government agencies mentioned by the 74 papers accounted for the remaining 15% of government grants. Among the 100 private foundation grants mentioned, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) of the United States ranked first, and was listed 21 times (see accompanying table). Second was the American Cancer Society (13), followed by the U.S. Muscular Dystrophy Association (6); the American Heart Association and the French Association pour la Recherche contre le Cancer (4 each). The 41 other private foundations mentioned by the 74 papers accounted for the remaining 52% of foundation grants. "Institutional Support: Plainly, not all scientific research in the life sciences is financed by grants from government agencies or private foundations. Industrial scientists are supported by R&D budgets of their own firms. Also, government labs, such as those at the NIH, are supported by intramural funds, which are not acknowledged as grants. Institutional support might include salaries, administration, equipment, and facilities. Of the 26 papers in the Life Sciences 100 that made no mention of grant support, seven were from industrial firms (DNAX, Genentech, Wellcome), and five from government labs (NIH, MRC Centre, Cambridge, U.K.). A total of 149 institutions were listed on the papers making up the Life Sciences 100. Universities accounted for over half (53%) of the institutional support for these papers (see accompanying table). Government labs ranked second, at 17%, industrial firms third, at 16%, and independent research labs fourth, at 14%: Other forms of support were also mentioned by the authors of these 100 papers. Naturally, colleagues who read and criticized manuscripts were acknowledged, as were those who provided cell lines or who helped with synthesis and sequencing techniques. Even typists and librarians who performed literature searches got their due. But without question the most unusual expression of thanks came from Tony Hunter of the Salk Institute in San Diego, Calif., who appended the following to his review on protein kinases (Cell, 50, 823-9, 11 September 1987): “Finally, I wish to acknowledge the Grand Canyon for inspiring me to meet my deadline.” Surely that qualifies as the deepest debt of gratitude mentioned in the Life Sciences 100.

Life Sciences 100,1987-1988 Pt. 2: Surveying The Payers

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of