On Consensus and Funding

Although Nejat Düzgünes' critique summarized the major criticisms, there was one that was omitted: "cronyism." However, I should point out that there was nothing in his critique that had not been said before, especially in the '70s, when life scientists were asked for their comments and from which little emerged to change the system. I respectfully suggest that his suggestion is flawed. His alternative to the current grant system would "provide continuous and stable funding for scientists who have a track record of solid publications." Question: Where do newly minted scientists get this track record? By being indentured servants (postdocs)? What about young scientists with ideas who do not wish to spend years in someone s lab working on someone s ideas--or, who do not wish to put their careers on hold? And when they have finished their period of servitude, they are not even assured of jobs. This situation will only become more severe than it already is as the assault on tenure continues and more institutions of higher education adopt term contracts and the flawed business model for the functioning of a university. I would suggest that block grants to universities or departments are fraught with problems--politics, favoritism, cronyism, and the self-interest of whoever controls the funds--and can lead to further exploitation and frustration of young scientists. I suggest that new biomedical scientists, upon finding a tenure-track position declare that they wish to carry on an active research program as part of their university duties. (Here, the National Institutes of Health and other grant-funding agencies could have a great impact on the future development of the universities as research institutions by insisting that what I am about to propose is only available for tenure-track faculty.) Once this declaration is made, the individuals apply for funding. They are automatically given a certain level of funding ($25,000-$50,000 per year) for a period of five years. Each institution must match an equivalent of 50 percent of such funds either as new equipment or as graduate student assistants or both--but not as administrative or overhead costs--along with the requisite lab and office space. At the end of the five years, there can be an evaluation of the progress being made by the individuals so endowed. The progress should be determined by a panel composed not just of appropriate university personnel but also representatives from the granting organization and experts in the specific field in which the investigator is working. Evaluations should include presentations made at scientific meetings, publications, and a review of the current work to see what can be expected in the way of future output. The review would also include the progress of the graduate students assigned to the investigator. The results of such a review could also be used by the scientist's home institution in making tenure decisions. In questionable cases, the individual would have the sixth year to improve before another research review and before a tenure decision is to be made. Investigators who pass the review could then apply for funding above and beyond the initial level depending on their progress and needs. All successful investigators should continue to receive at least minimal funding to carry on their work. Scientists not achieving in the five-year period would have the future continuous funding denied. I contend that the question of the impact of one's work is difficult to assess, and I question its validity for young scientists. Not everyone is an innovator. And sometimes it takes time before the significance of one's work is appreciated by others. Thus, impact--if used at all--should not be part of a review until sometime in the future as the investigator matures. By supporting such a program, investigators are freed from the pressures of continually writing grants, depending on the vagaries of the peer review system, and playing the game of having the previous grant pay for the research data on which a new grant is to be based. Also, the guaranteeing of funds should help investigators in obtaining entry-level positions at research-oriented colleges and universities. I contend that such a program is a way of having science progress by enhancing the opportunity of dedicated individuals to express their vision unimpeded by personality, politics, and other inane and unrelated intrusions. Such a program would capitalize on the vast scientific potential of available biomedical scientists. By linking the system to tenure instead of term contracts, the investigator would be assured of job-related stability and would be in a position to make long-range plans. Sheldon F. Gottlieb, Ph.D. 10418 Utopia Circle Boynton Beach, FL 33437E-mail: shelly-eda@juno.com

On Consensus and Funding

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of