NIH Cuts by Feds: Does it screw MSTP students?

[Gfunk6]

On the residency application trail this year, I have constantly been reminded of the paltry 0.1% increase in NIH funding this year (erased by inflation) which is actually the first time the institution has received funding cuts since the 1970s.

I've heard predictions of doom and gloom, including screwing a generation of young scientists, particularly those the government has already invested in via MSTP fellowships. The # of R01's to be funded will go down to about 10% or so, making it much more difficult for young investigators starting their careers to obtain one.

I was wondering what any of you have heard (or think) that perhaps puts some siliver lining on this cloud.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Aptamer]

On the residency application trail this year, I have constantly been reminded of the paltry 0.1% increase in NIH funding this year (erased by inflation) which is actually the first time the institution has received funding cuts since the 1970s.

I've heard predictions of doom and gloom, including screwing a generation of young scientists, particularly those the government has already invested in via MSTP fellowships. The # of R01's to be funded will go down to about 10% or so, making it much more difficult for young investigators starting their careers to obtain one.

I was wondering what any of you have heard (or think) that perhaps puts some siliver lining on this cloud.

I've discussed this with other professors, including my own, and it just seems that, taking politics out of this discussion, that times are becoming more gloomy by the day. In my experience, our lab recently scored high on a huge NIH grant that could carry our lab (ca. 50 members) for a while, as we are hitting tough times as well, only to have it red-flagged citing that my PI has too many grants. WTF? Just to keep my job afloat, I've been writing paltry grants from various agencies, like DARPA, and special programs, like NIH/NSF SBIRs and STTRs, just trying to get a dollar or two to keep my science going. Additionally, I also hear that the NIH is threatening to triage 60% over the customary 50%.

Honestly, times are sucking right now, and I could only hope it gets better once I graduate a decade from now; otherwise, I anticipate that I might steer towards clinical work over academia. I wish I had something better to say...it's hard to be optimistic when your (your being my) job is in jeopardy everyday.

 

[izibo]

Does this screw MSTP students directly? No. Schools wont reduce the number of spots, although some programs which were hoping to grow may not be able to do so. A majority of the MSTP funding does not actually come from the NIH... in fact I had heard that they provide funding for only ~ 4 spots, so schools like WashU fund the rest largely independently of the NIH.

Does this screw MSTP students in the long run? Yes, science is becoming harder to break into, which means more stress and less money. It makes for a more difficult career.

 

[Neuronix]

The NIH budget growth under several presidents, most recently president Clinton, created an optimistic boom for scientists-to-be. As a country we produced lots of science PhDs, imported tons of foreign post-docs, and made lots of new training slots to create new scientists. Under President Bush, the NIH budget has faltered significantly. I don't have the data to back this up, but my understanding is that with inflation factored in, the NIH has lost money.

The big problem becomes the competition for new grants. New scientists are getting screwed as they can't get those R01s they need to get tenured positions and existing scientists are fighting even harder for their grants or seeking more funding from industry. All those post-docs and assistant faculty now don't have the jobs waiting for them that they'd hoped for and it seems like everyone I talk to knows about the stress this is putting on new investigators. It's obvious who's going to make it and who isn't, and those who aren't are in some cases literally going crazy due to the stress. At least at my institution, the amount of data fraud is going up in recent years... While they say they're not sure why this is--I think it's fairly obvious.

I don't think this is going to impact us in training. As other posters have pointed out, the bulk of the money for our training comes from other sources. The most probable event in the near-term is that there aren't going to be any new MSTPs added. However, if the NIH budget doesn't start swelling more MD/PhDs are probably going to succumb to the pressure (or just lose to the competition) and become clinicians. That may give the impetus needed for the NIH to downsize the MSTP, as I've seen some argue that the MSTP is too expensive per student to justify the number that actually end up in basic science research.

[POLITICS]I'm hoping that the American people are as really sick of the Republican rape of America as approval ratings reflect and will give control of the house, senate, and presidency to the Democrats so that we can end this financial mess and fund what really matters.[/POLITICS] If the NIH budget starts growing again, those jobs in research that we're looking forward to might start being created again. If not, science in America will falter and that MD will become more valuable for us.

 

[gaganheim]

The NIH had its budget doubled in the late 90s, and it was unrealistic to expect this to continue. I don't think this was an attack against the science community, but rather a reflection of fiscal realities on capitol hill. They want to keep tax cuts in place, while funding certain foreign "expeditions", rebuilding from the biggest natural disaster in U.S. history, picking up tabs for pension funds from the automakers and airlines, and bracing for Soc. Security once the baby boomers retire etc. This just isn't the best time to be in what can be considered non-essential funding. I think the pressure will be to fund disease-oriented research rather than basic, and the clinical training should help us in this regard.

 

[Ecthgar]

The NIH budget growth under several presidents, most recently president Clinton, created an optimistic boom for scientists-to-be. As a country we produced lots of science PhDs, imported tons of foreign post-docs, and made lots of new training slots to create new scientists. Under President Bush, the NIH budget has faltered significantly. I don't have the data to back this up, but my understanding is that with inflation factored in, the NIH has lost money.

The big problem becomes the competition for new grants. New scientists are getting screwed as they can't get those R01s they need to get tenured positions and existing scientists are fighting even harder for their grants or seeking more funding from industry. All those post-docs and assistant faculty now don't have the jobs waiting for them that they'd hoped for and it seems like everyone I talk to knows about the stress this is putting on new investigators. It's obvious who's going to make it and who isn't, and those who aren't are in some cases literally going crazy due to the stress. At least at my institution, the amount of data fraud is going up in recent years... While they say they're not sure why this is--I think it's fairly obvious.

I don't think this is going to impact us in training. As other posters have pointed out, the bulk of the money for our training comes from other sources. The most probable event in the near-term is that there aren't going to be any new MSTPs added. However, if the NIH budget doesn't start swelling more MD/PhDs are probably going to succumb to the pressure (or just lose to the competition) and become clinicians. That may give the impetus needed for the NIH to downsize the MSTP, as I've seen some argue that the MSTP is too expensive per student to justify the number that actually end up in basic science research.

[POLITICS]I'm hoping that the American people are as really sick of the Republican rape of America as approval ratings reflect and will give control of the house, senate, and presidency to the Democrats so that we can end this financial mess and fund what really matters.[/POLITICS] If the NIH budget starts growing again, those jobs in research that we're looking forward to might start being created again. If not, science in America will falter and that MD will become more valuable for us.

Amen, brother......Rome is indeed buring and we're standing by helpless as it burns.

I'm going the political route here and placing this crisis squarly on the shoulders of the uber-religious conservatives. They make it painfully obvious that science isn't important to them at all. I've talked with many faculty members about this "funding depression" and most of the guys who have been around a while say that this basically happened in the 80's under Reagan, and is cyclical in nature......ie. funding changes as the seats in Washington do.

With that in mind, this is both good (potentially) and bad (definitely) for all grad students (us the MDPhDers and the PhD students). First the bad news, which many of you have already alluded to: times are gettin' hard for the PI's. This means that our work becomes even more important than before....ie. getting good data with great haste for renewal/new RO1's. I've already had my PI bitching to me that we (our lab) have to beef up the workload to get grants out. This means more (and probably harder) work for most of us. The good news here is that if this indeed is a cyclical thing (funding that is), then its better to have this trough during our educational years than when we're the PI battling it out for the grant (hopefully the next peak of the cycle). We can always hope, right? I also try to learn something from everything and I'm definitely learning how bad it can get with funding in science.

 

[1Path]

I echo what others here are saying about the funding situation at universities. One of the issues with why I didn't return to NC was that both my old PI's told me to say where I was (NIH) and do my dissertation there if at all possible. And this is a top 25, although public school! 😱 Of course, top private schools will have no worreis but for other schools.......................

My "solution" should this poor funding trend continue:
1) Do my dissertation research at NIH
2) When I graduate, become a government researcher/employee! 👍

 

[SeventhSon]

i may be overcynical but I think that's just the nature of the political system. You fund your constituents.

At my school (UCSD) the school newspaper released data showing that in the 2004 presidential election university faculty + scientists (postdoc etc.) literally over 99% of the total money given was to the kerry campaign. You think academia is going to be first on the list of people that Bush is going to fund? Not at all...

 

[Doctor&Geek]

When you fund the NIH, not only do you fund the jobs of people at the NIH and grantees, you also fund the patients who benefit from NIH research - these folks are your constituents, too!

Funding the NIH is most undoubtably popular. Its just that right now, other things are just a little bit more important (die now to terrorism vs. die later to disease).

 

[SeventhSon]

When you fund the NIH, not only do you fund the jobs of people at the NIH and grantees, you also fund the patients who benefit from NIH research - these folks are your constituents, too!

Yeah but when you are funding basic science research and there isn't an obvious therapeutic benefit, funding becomes a lot more controversial in the eyes of the public, and calling patients that may benefit from the research 10+ years down the line "constituents" isn't quite accurate in the public eye, except for especially sensitive areas such as stem cell research.

Funding the NIH is most undoubtably popular. Its just that right now, other things are just a little bit more important (die now to terrorism vs. die later to disease).

I dunno about how much this really echoes the reality of things... if I understand correctly the money spent on Iraq (much of which goes to defense contractors, yeah) is not explicitly considered part of the national budget, so I think the NIH funding should be compared to the rest of the budget, by our fearless leader's logic. We are still way in the red I suppose, so I guess it's inevitable to see that spending is going to be attenuated to some extent across the board.

However, I think the stem cell data fabrication in S. Korea is a real wake-up call to the type of things that will happen if research budgets are severely impacted. Scientific research is about laying brick after brick of small findings that is possible only by the collective trust that we have for one another. Money talks, and I think that the acute consequences to such budget cuts are only the beginning.

For the record by the way, I am not a big fan of our president, but I'll say that up front to apologize for any political overtones : 🙄