Presidential election and scientific careers

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

vitalamine

Full Member
10+ Year Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2011
Messages
33
Reaction score
3
For those who have been in science for a while. How much easier does a pro-science president make it to get a research career off the ground (and vice versa)?

Is there any evidence that it is harder to establish a research career under republican administration?

I hope this doesn't become a contentious thread, just wondering if I should pay more attention to politics than I usually do.

Members don't see this ad.
 
For those who have been in science for a while. How much easier does a pro-science president make it to get a research career off the ground (and vice versa)?

Is there any evidence that it is harder to establish a research career under republican administration?

I hope this doesn't become a contentious thread, just wondering if I should pay more attention to politics than I usually do.


http://futurist.typepad.com/my_weblog/images/trres08p.jpg

I would argue there is no relationship. 1981-1988 was Reagan. 1989-1992 was Bush I. 2000-2008 was Bush II. Everything else was Democratic.

In fact, the greatest increase in funding occurred under Bush II, albeit with a decrease in the last few years. Then of course there was Nixon's War on Cancer. That's not to say that the current Republican party looks as favorably on research, but it's difficult to predict. The research budget depends on much, much more than who is president at the time. Congress controls the purse, which means that whichever party has control of Congress is going to have more say.

In general, my opinion is that you shouldn't pay too much attention to politics. Politics is largely a pile of crap. OTOH, policy is very important, particularly if you're in a field like stem cells, etc.
 
OTOH, policy is very important, particularly if you're in a field like stem cells, etc.

+1. GW Bush put a ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Obama lifted it. Surely if Romney gets elected, he will put the ban into place again. Don't confuse this with all stem cell research though because much of it does not use human embryos.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Funny how the liberal-slanted OP assumed that conservatives hated science and defunded it, when in fact the much maligned Bush expanded funding.

For the record, I identify with neither party and vote for neither. I would just recommend that people not be quite to make assumptions of who would have one or another stance towards research and funding it.
 
The answer is: Both will mess you up.

The Republican Party is so anti-science its scary, especially when religion gets involved. Did you know women who are raped can't get pregnant because they activate spermicidal secretions? (For those who live under rocks: That gem is from Todd Akin, a Republican Congressman who sits on the freakin House Science and Technology Committee.)

And if Obama wins he intends to cut the NIH budget by ~15%.
 
Funny how the liberal-slanted OP assumed that conservatives hated science and defunded it, when in fact the much maligned Bush expanded funding.

For the record, I identify with neither party and vote for neither. I would just recommend that people not be quite to make assumptions of who would have one or another stance towards research and funding it.

To be fair, the GOP has changed significantly since Obama's election. It's gone from the traditional conservatives to a mix of traditional conservatives + tea party conservatives.
 
The answer is: Both will mess you up.

The Republican Party is so anti-science its scary, especially when religion gets involved. Did you know women who are raped can't get pregnant because they activate spermicidal secretions? (For those who live under rocks: That gem is from Todd Akin, a Republican Congressman who sits on the freakin House Science and Technology Committee.)

And if Obama wins he intends to cut the NIH budget by ~15%.

Just curious because I didn't know that about Obama, but could you provide a link for that NIH budget quote? Thanks.
 
And if Obama wins he intends to cut the NIH budget by ~15%.

http://www.nature.com/news/obama-shoots-for-science-increase-1.10019

http://www.medpagetoday.com/Washington-Watch/Washington-Watch/31162

"Funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) remained flat at $31 billion. NIH director Francis Collins, MD, said the administration's decision not to cut NIH funding significantly reflects its "priority for biomedical research as an investment that promises to deliver better health and drive economic growth."

The budget request will enable NIH to support 9,415 new and competing research project grants, an 8% increase over the number of grants the agency is expected to award in fiscal 2012, Collins said in a statement."
 
Last edited:
I've been hearing about sequestration coming for the NIH budget firsthand from researchers who work there. It could just be rumors, but I wouldn't bet on that.

Even if the budget isn't cut and the request for more funds is approved, an 8% increase in grants would still put funding at ~4% of grants submitted. Getting a research career off the ground is going be very difficult no matter who sits in the oval office.
 
Last edited:
I've been hearing about sequestration coming for the NIH budget firsthand from researchers who work there. It could just be rumors, but I wouldn't bet on that.

From those articles it sounds like since NIH funding isn't increasing (flatlined), you could say that it's being "cut" because it's not keeping up with biomedical inflation. Either way, it sounds very misleading to say that "And if Obama wins he intends to cut the NIH budget by ~15%." Funding is being cut for a lot of different things in the 2013 fiscal year budget - scientific research funding is not one of those things --> 'NIH director Francis Collins, MD, said the administration's decision not to cut NIH funding significantly reflects its "priority for biomedical research as an investment that promises to deliver better health and drive economic growth." '

It's actually the exact opposite: if Obama wins, he wants to keep the NIH budget as high as he can. Funding scientific research is one of his priorities, at least from the looks of things.
 
I've been contemplating about this as well. One of the labs that I'm rotating in January works with hESCs and their potential for tissue engineering. However, regardless of who becomes president, funding is going to be tight for every field whether it's basic science, translational, or clinical related.
 
Honestly we're screwed no matter what right now. Funding rates are abysmal and getting worse. Unless Washington gets it together and infuses the NIH with a budget several times its current size, the situation isn't going to get better. The chances of that happening are also about 0%, especially in the current political climate where everyone is extremely hostile to any kind of budget increases in anything (except defense spending of course; that $1.5 trillion F-35 ain't gonna develop itself!). Really, in the current presidential election, it's about ensuring that scientific Armageddon is averted more than anything else. The Republican party is currently overrun by extremists who want to kill the federal government by starving it of funding, and considering their current anti-science attitude you can bet that gutting science funding is something that they wouldn't really blink an eye at. While the Democrats aren't going to increase funding, at least they're not liable to cut it.

Probably the only thing that could result in a significant increase in science funding in the US is if China pulled off a bunch of high-profile scientific feats that made the US look behind the times. Then we'd have no shortage of politicians and pundits crying about how the US needs to pour money into science funding. Unfortunately there's no reason to believe that's going to happen anytime in the foreseeable future.
 
I think that centers strong in biomedical research are going to have to provide funds siphoned off of clinical revenue to feed basic science research. The NIH is no longer a funding mechanism that people can apply to with confidence that, if their proposal is good and they have a good publication record, they will be able to continue their research. In other words, investigators having fulfilled their end of the "bargain" are no longer meeting success in continuing their work. The various private associations have not been able to match this (although getting grants from them is increasingly important). So I really see no other revenue source than clinical revenue. Either that or patronage from multi-billionaires who have a particular disease of interest they are willing to see cured (e.g. Bill Gates and malaria or Lee Iacocca and T1D).

I may have mentioned it before, but one of my former mentors published a Nature and a PNAS article within a year and when he talked to the officer at NIGMS was told to not even apply since he had no reasonable chance.
 
I think that centers strong in biomedical research are going to have to provide funds siphoned off of clinical revenue to feed basic science research. The NIH is no longer a funding mechanism that people can apply to with confidence that, if their proposal is good and they have a good publication record, they will be able to continue their research. In other words, investigators having fulfilled their end of the "bargain" are no longer meeting success in continuing their work. The various private associations have not been able to match this (although getting grants from them is increasingly important). So I really see no other revenue source than clinical revenue. Either that or patronage from multi-billionaires who have a particular disease of interest they are willing to see cured (e.g. Bill Gates and malaria or Lee Iacocca and T1D).

I may have mentioned it before, but one of my former mentors published a Nature and a PNAS article within a year and when he talked to the officer at NIGMS was told to not even apply since he had no reasonable chance.

Billionaires aren't a viable substitute at all. Bill Gates was the richest man in the world and at one point held $40 billion. Even if he had devoted his entire estate to funding science, he would have only been able to fund at the current level of the NIH ($35 billlion/year) for a single year.

For better or worse, government funding is the only viable solution for basic research. It simply costs too much and the returns take so much investment that you can't possibly turn a profit off basic science research.
 
Billionaires aren't a viable substitute at all. Bill Gates was the richest man in the world and at one point held $40 billion. Even if he had devoted his entire estate to funding science, he would have only been able to fund at the current level of the NIH ($35 billlion/year) for a single year.

For better or worse, government funding is the only viable solution for basic research. It simply costs too much and the returns take so much investment that you can't possibly turn a profit off basic science research.

It seems to me that part of the problem is the massive cost for medical-related supplies; does a 96-well ELISA really need to cost $400 to make the company a profit? I tend to typically be pretty conservative about government interference in business, but it seems to me that biosupply companies (you guys know the ones) are making money hand-over-fist on the backs of government-funded investigators, who often only have one choice as far as where to get certain supplies.
 
I think that centers strong in biomedical research are going to have to provide funds siphoned off of clinical revenue to feed basic science research.

This is done already to some extent, but with medicare cuts and a large uninsured population (hopefully improving...) there is not a lot of clinical revenue to go around. Many hospitals run at a loss and rely on external funding to stay afloat. In those cases there is nothing to siphon off.

So I really see no other revenue source than clinical revenue.

It's not too hard to earn enough to support a basic lifestyle ($100k/year or less) while you toil in the lab. Salaries are the biggest chunk of most research expenditures, so you can often find small grants or start-up monies to hopefully fund supplies if you don't need expensive technologies. Some institutions are willing to do this. The question is whether or not you will be willing to accept a salary of 1/4 to 1/2 your potential salary for more hours and less job stability in the hope you *might* someday get major grants. Those that do it for 5-10 years and never make it up the academic ladder are the most bitter and they're not the ones you meet in your MD/PhD programs.
 
It seems to me that part of the problem is the massive cost for medical-related supplies; does a 96-well ELISA really need to cost $400 to make the company a profit? I tend to typically be pretty conservative about government interference in business, but it seems to me that biosupply companies (you guys know the ones) are making money hand-over-fist on the backs of government-funded investigators, who often only have one choice as far as where to get certain supplies.
The problem is that those companies make extremely niche technologies and products. Since the market for their products is so small, they have to charge an arm and a leg to make up for it. Granted the prices for a lot of basic stuff are still outrageous, but I'd imagine at least part of the reason for the cost is that those companies are trying to recoup the hits they take from selling expensive devices that are only going to be bought by a couple thousand labs in the country, if even that.
 
Funny how the liberal-slanted OP assumed that conservatives hated science and defunded it, when in fact the much maligned Bush expanded funding.

For the record, I identify with neither party and vote for neither. I would just recommend that people not be quite to make assumptions of who would have one or another stance towards research and funding it.

Why is it funny? With articles like "Republican spending plan casts shadow on science" (last week's Nature) it doesn't necessarily take a "liberal slant" to assume a republican administration could cut science funding and it certainly is not "funny."

If you read my original post, I was asking for historical perspective, not providing it. A more polite response might have been "Bush expanded funding, so not necessarily."
 
Last edited:
Biomedical research in this country has unfortunately been pressure cooking for quite some time now, really since the late 90's. The "bust and boom" cyclical nature of increases and flat-lining funding has led to a much less stable system that what should be the case for something that requires continued, steady investment. Over the last 10+ years, neither party has made it a priority to address this problem. Flat-lining budgets over the last several years is effectively cutting the overall NIH budget due to inflation. While the NIH leaders have done a tremendous job to work with what has been given in terms of funding, overall the picture remains bleak. Funding rates are at all time lows and there is no positive outlook to be had in the near or long term future. Personally, I think we are losing many potential biomedical researchers (especially MD/PhDs) due to this issue, combined with increasing societal costs.

Due to laws passed by Congress, there will be tremendous cuts to the physician and hospital payment system in Medicare and Medicaid in the near future. The medical enterprise will undergo tremendous changes regardless of party that is in power. In either case, physicians will be required to see more patients and do more work for less money. This will further pressure MD/PhDs into full-time clinical careers or increase the pressure to obtain additional grant funding to fund one's salary. It is a terrible vicious circle.

Neither presidential candidate has made it a priority to address these issues. Politically, issues such as the economy, budget deficit, housing crisis, and several others take much higher precedence, even if the research enterprise is linked with the economy. As another poster stated, it might take something like China pushing ahead of us in terms of scientific advances to bring a needed "wake up call". A nation cannot continue to be on top by resting on its haunches.
 
Top