VA--Vague and Aberrant--Funding Decisions

"Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." --Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) This applies equally to women and men. On April 2, 18 basic science grants from the US Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) were "defunded."1 Months previously, the successful applicants were informed by telephone that funding had been approved (the peer review process took place in November 2002), and they had budgeted on that basis. But on the day after the grants were slated to begin (April 1), the VA sent faxes stating that funds would not, after all, be forthcoming. What happened? At the center of the controversy is Nelda Wray, the VA's recently appointed Chief of Research and Development, and commander of a $400 million (US) budget. Wray, an expert in outcomes research, has set a vague goal of shifting the emphasis from laboratory-based studies to research "that is more immediately applicable to healthcare."1 With just a 2% increase in the budget to play with, an early impact seemed unlikely. But defunding the 18 grants, which totaled around $2 million, provided a quick way of shifting the emphasis. Wray could rationalize the defunding because delays by Congress in the clearance of science budgets meant that the VA's research budget had not been formalized, and no official notices of funding had been sent. The episode is instructive for those who might apply for VA grants in the future. It is customary for those who manage science--officers of research institutes, directors of funding agencies, even journal editors--to make decisions on the basis of advice from expert scientists through the peer review process; this is considered to be the best means of providing objective, detailed, and constructive evaluation. The recommendations are not binding, however, meaning that administrators wield considerable power, should they choose to do so. Wray chose to do so. In research administration as in most walks of life, talent, calculated risk, and perhaps even ambition are desirable traits, and arguably all these are on display. The VA's move away from bench research cannot be judged for some years, but Wray is within her rights to shift the focus of funding. However, this exercising of power raises a number of questions that need to be addressed: What is the justification for disregarding the peer review process? What is the explanation for the apparent breach of integrity, given the verbal commitment to researchers? Why the lack of due process for the defunded researchers? To what extent might these events have a negative impact on recruitment and retention of high-quality staff within the VA system? How much damage has been done to ongoing research programs? What is the immediate human cost in terms of careers--for students, researchers, and physicians--of the decision? On first evaluation, it would have been honorable and prudent to fulfill commitments on the current round of funding and for Wray to consider changes for the next one. Richard Gallagher, Editor(rgallagher@the-scientist.com) 1. J. Couzin, "Canceling grants, VA chief shakes the system," Science, 330:574-5, 2003. function sendData() { document.frm.pathName.value = location.pathname; result = false if (document.frm.score[0].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[1].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[2].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[3].checked) result = true; if (document.frm.score[4].checked) result = true; if (!result) alert("Please select") return result; } .myradio{background-color : #94bee5} Please indicate on a 1 - 5 scale how strongly you would recommend this article to your colleagues? Not recommended 1 2 3 4 5 Highly recommended Please register your vote

VA--Vague and Aberrant--Funding Decisions

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of