Science, like many other professions, requires strict tracking of money and assets and often needs large inputs of capital to function. When these inputs disappear or finances fall short of their expectations, science faces the same setbacks and cuts as any other project might. An article from NPR addresses the issues that arise when scientists have to deal with budgetary issues and spending cuts. When faced with reduced funding, scientists and academic researchers have to figure out ways to either decrease their costs or find new sources of financial support for their labs and employees. Often, this can lead to taking shortcuts or manipulating data, both things that can greatly harm the reputation and results of scientific research. The word “Budget” has become one of the most frightening things in the modern vernacular. Politicians, federal employees, laid-off workers, and almost every employee in America have come to know a deep and singular misery at the hands of this word. But one field that relies heavily on the concept of budgets is science. Much of the research undertaken by labs in the United States receive some sort of external funding, science is expensive after all. The costs are often higher than one might imagine. A report from LAM Action in the UK highlights just how expensive research can be, and in America is no different. Staffing and equipping labs are the costliest of any scientific ordeal, with researchers needing to be paid and even the simplest scientific equipment and machines can cost thousands. Much of the work done at universities like Rutgers is not immediately monetizable. Understanding quantum liquid dynamics or discovering a new peptide that may have catalyzed the creation of life aren’t things that can bring in money to a lab or university, but are incredibly important for the advancement of humanity nonetheless. This fundamental truth of science- that it is expensive and its outcome is not always immediately marketable, means that whoever puts money into a groundbreaking research lab, may never see it again. It is for this reason that so much of the research that happens across the nation rely on grants from the federal government, states, or charitable foundations. This funding comes in the form of grants, which are disbursals of money that need not be repaid. These grants are given to applicants with conditions, such as what studies and goals the money can be used towards and when, and sometimes without, but the main purpose in both cases is to support scientific inquiry and research. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) provide a large portion of federal funding for science in the country. From 2008 to 2014, the NIH saw its budget reduced year on year. Despite increasing since 2015, with even a $2 billion dollar boost in 2019 to a total of $39 billion, science as a percentage of the US federal budget has been declining for decades, down from 10% in 1968 to just 4% in recent years. What does this mean for scientists, universities, and students? It means fewer grants, and less opportunities for students and faculty to make scientific and academic progress. The article by NPR describes the journey of a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin named Mary Allen. She and 5 other students were pursuing doctorates through the lab of a distinguished professor at the university. After budget cuts forced the professor to layoff one postdoctoral researcher, she sought to increase the amount of grant funding her lab received to keep her current students and allow them to continue to work on their degrees. The professor falsified data in order to be an attractive candidate when applying for grants, and eventually, she was dismissed from the university once her lies became evident to university authorities. This sort of corner-cutting is common in research, and many professors have confessed to some form of undesirable behavior in a survey mentioned in the article. The result of these shortcuts are often breaches of data security or confidentiality, inaccuracies leading to results that are not replicable by other labs, and the erosion of trust in the scientific community. The article goes on to state that scientists are under extreme pressure to secure funding and grants by any means possible. Not only do they face expectations from universities to do so, but they feel obligated to their students as well. No one can receive their Ph.D. without years of research under their belt, and this research is almost always done under the tutelage of a professor. A professor’s lab can oversee multiple students’ work, even dozens at a time if their lab is large and well-funded. These researchers feel obligated to provide their students with continuing opportunities to work on their degrees, and losing funding means they may have to let some students go. Despite the pressure, most researchers abide by the ethics of research but this number is dwindling. “For post-graduate students, a decreasing level of science funding means a harsher research environment.; There’s always the looming specter of losing their positions to budget cuts and offsets. This would make them have to find new labs to work in, often times in a different institution and this could delay their plans by years. A Ph.D. is the highest degree of education a student can strive towards. For many, it is the culmination of their life’s work and the validation that distinguishes them as experts in their respective fields of study. Budget cuts and declining funding can become a major hindrance in the pursuit of those goals, and are a part of the ever changing landscape of academia in which we live. [caption id="attachment_2686" align="alignnone" width="910"]
Source: FASEB http://www.faseb.org/Science-Policy--Advocacy-and-Communications/Federal-Funding-Data/NIH-Research-Funding-Trends.aspx[/caption] Some researchers have found respite in private industries. Corporate funding for science is higher now than it’s ever been, and the private sector’s need for science-backed solutions and products continues to grow. Financing from such businesses, however, is difficult to obtain, as labs must prove that their potential findings are not only relevant in the real world, but also marketable. Besides seeking new sources such as this, researchers can do little to stop the hemorrhaging of public funding for science. One can only hope that the last 4 years of increase NIH allocating will be a continuing trend on all levels of government. This article was edited by Vicky Kanta, Maryam Alapa and Helena Mello
iJOBS Blog