As money for young researchers dries up, they give up

Manufacturing & Technology News, June 30, 2008

Fewer young researchers able to push beyond the envelope of known science and technology are receiving funding, and they are spending more time writing grants than doing research, according to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. The United States science enterprise has veered off course and is funding too many old researchers, says the academy, created in 1780. It is essential for the United States to invest in young scientists "and transformative research in order to sustain its ability to compete in the new global environment," according to a 69-page study entitled "Investing in Early-Career Scientists and High-Risk, High-Reward Research."

"Today's early-career faculty will be responsible for our country's future science and technology discoveries and for the education of our future Ph.D.-level scientists and engineers," says the study. "Yet they face greater obstacles than their more senior colleagues in securing research grants to inaugurate what should be one of the most productive stages of their careers. Time spent submitting repeated grant applications is a distraction for the research endeavor itself and poorly utilizes the potential of this highly creative resource."

Young researchers are being discouraged to push the boundaries of knowledge by "conservative thinking in agencies and during peer review" of grants written by them. Young researchers are not taking risks. " 'Don't put it in your grants unless you know it will work' too often guides early-career and established researchers," says the Academy.

It's tough to get a research grant. The average age of a first-time awardee of a grant from the National Institutes of Health is 42.4, "and rising," says the academy. In 2007, the funding rate for first-time grant applicants was 18.5 percent, compared to established investigators, which was 26.1 percent.

"The odds of getting started successfully seem to be diminishing even as the U.S. needs for fresh ideas that can advance the nation's future leadership and its prosperity in a more competitive world are growing," says the report.

It's also tough for first-time awardees at the National Science Foundation. Funding rates at NSF "have decreased for all investigators, while the funding rate for new investigators is significantly below that of previously funded investigators," says the report. Funding rates for new investigators fell from 22 percent in 2000 to a lowly 15 percent in 2006, while funding rates for established investigators fell from 36 percent in 2000 to 26 percent in 2006.

"One-half of new investigators never again receive NSF funding after their initial award," the academy notes. "For new investigators who received awards in 1995 and 2000, 50 percent or fewer still had NSF funding three years after the initial award, with three years being the typical length of NSF grants. Four years later, only 40 percent still held NSF funding." Most new investigators "do not secure a second grant to sustain their research."

New investigators spend more time submitting proposals than older investigators. They submit double the number of proposals than those submitted by older investigators. "From 1997 to 2006, new investigators accounted for 40 percent of proposals received even though they accounted for only 22 to 24 percent of the principal investigators submitting proposals," says the report.

If they do get an NSF grant, it is "still too small to sustain a single researcher's laboratory equipment, students and staff," says the study. "Multiple awards from several sources remain the norm."

The NSF is also not making awards for "transformational" research. "Historically, the DOD, the DOE and industrial laboratories of the past have taken a longer-term view of science funding than the NSF," says the academy. "As a result, the longer-term scientific research support needed to develop the maser, the laser and the transistor did not come from NSF funding but from ONR, the Air Force Office of Scientific Research and AT&T. Quantum mechanics, a seemingly abstract field without apparent practical application, was necessary before we could invent the transistor and laser that led to computers and the Internet ... In the past two decades, research directed to longer-term missions has greatly diminished in industry, DOD and DOE. The U.S. research and development portfolio must include the support of long-term potentially transformative research that will be needed to establish the scientific foundations for the next new industry."

The group recommends that government research agencies initiate "transformative" research programs that allow for submission of short and focused grant applications that place a premium on innovation. Agencies should provide fast-track seed money to evaluate novel ideas, and they should be open to providing funding for up to six years and can be renewed for up to 11 years. Government grant reviewers should also evaluate grant proposals with an eye toward innovation and creativity. Government R&D program managers need to be leaders in their respective fields of endeavor. They need resources to do their jobs, attend conferences and interact with members of their scientific communities.