(Posted April 17, 1998 · Issue 28)

Abstract

Scientists are uniquely able to explain to the public and to U.S. legislators why healthy levels of funding for science are good for America. Chronic funding shortages at the NSF have resulted in smaller and fewer grants. This inhibits research productivity and, in today's managed-care environment, has made NSF-funded investigators second-class citizens in health-oriented institutions .

The fastest-growing economic sector in America is that of science and technology. Its fuel for progress is research, largely sponsored by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. A group of Pennsylvania scientists recently met with members of Congress to try to explain why increased science funding, particularly for NIH and NSF, is good for the the country. During that trip, it became apparent that even budget makers were little aware of the chronic problems faced by NSF investigators in addition to those suffered by NIH-funded researchers. Not only are too few grants funded, but the level of funding itself is inadequate.

NSF plays a unique and essential role in American science. It funds critical work in education, math, chemistry, physics, and biology, as well as in the health sciences. NSF supports a strong research infrastructure through its unique method of peer review and its perceived role of supporting promising new ideas that have high potential gain. It is the very essence of American pluck and inventiveness. For example, NSF funding contributed to the development of the basic tools of modern molecular biology, the development of the Internet, and our basic understanding of the genome and its maintenance. On NSF's horizon are nanotechnologies and exciting integrations between diverse disciplines.

Each researcher has had a different individual experience with NSF or NIH that can be useful to share with Congress in support of increased funding for science. Consider the example of biological sciences research sponsored by the NSF, comprising some 15% of its current budget.[2] NSF grants are just as hard to get as NIH grants, and just as worthwhile to fund. However, chronic underfunding of NSF has forced program directors to reduce award sizes to help the maximum number of scientists. The average grant is thus funded, on average, at only one-third the level of NIH grants. As those who are funded by NSF know, the grants given include overhead, which can easily eat away half of the funds. What is left is barely enough to cover perhaps a portion of salary, a technician, and supplies. If the work takes longer than expected, investigators are forced to ask their institution for help, waste valuable research time to bid for other funds, and subsidize their research with personal funds. In institutions affected by managed care, where both NIH and NSF grants are given, NSF investigators become second-class citizens since their grants are not as large. Inadequate funding leads to suboptimal productivity. You can't win the Indy 500 in a Yugo.

Let's focus for the moment on the 15% of the NSF budget that is directed toward biological research. A 30% increase in funding to NSF directed solely to the biological sciences could be entirely used up to bring the average NSF grant to the same current level of funding as NIH grants. Additional increases would be required to increase the number of grants funded to a more appropriate level. To properly fund the other essential work supported by NSF, even more would be required. This additional support for NSF would also indirectly result in greater productivity for NIH-funded research, whose funding increases also deserve vocal support. Thus, increased investment in NSF funding can potentially yield dramatic increases in scientific productivity. President Clinton and the Congress deserve great praise for supporting a 10% increase for NSF - it is a healthy start to solving the problem.

Keith C. Cheng, assistant professor of pathology and of biochemistry and molecular biology, and member of the Jake Gittlen Cancer Research Institute at the Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine, is developing the zebrafish as a model system to study mutation, cell differentiation, and cancer.

Andrzej Krauze is an illustrator, poster maker, cartoonist, and painter who illustrates regularly for HMS Beagle, The Guardian, The Sunday Telegraph, Bookseller, and New Statesman.

Send us your comments and ideas for future articles.

Endlinks

Joint Steering Committee for Public Policy - a coalition of four basic biomedical research societies formed to bring together scientists to advocate for federal funding for basic biomedical research. JSC members are alerted to issues in Congress via an email network, and are asked to contact their congresspeople to urge support for basic research.

The Science Coalition - aims to "sustain the federal government's historic commitment to university-based science research." Provides information about legislative news and R&D budgets from Washington. Also features articles on research at various universities, and lists ways to get involved in support of academic research funding.

Research!America - advocacy organization for medical research. This site has descriptions of their initiatives, membership info, and a list of ways to contact Congress and make one's opinions known.

Congress.org - has a search function to find your representatives in Congress, and a simple form for submitting congressional email.

NSF Fiscal Year 1999 Proposed Budget - summarizes the fiscal year 1999 budget increase and its effects on NSF, and provides links to details about the budget request as well as to remarks made by Neal Lane, the NSF's current director.

Research and Development: Priority Setting and Consolidation in Science Budgeting - this report for Congress from the Congressional Research Service provides a detailed analysis of the trends in government funding of R&D. Part of a series of CRS reports posted online by the Committee for the National Institute for the Environment.

Microbiologist Rita Colwell, who is President Clinton's nominee for the directorship of NSF, is profiled in HMS Beagle. Colwell was unavailable for comments on the current essay.