Science Funding in a Tanking Economy (Part One)

  • An EPA scientist testing online sensors for water distribution systems (Photo courtesy of the US Office of Management and Budget)

The recession is hitting more than banks and homes these days. State budget cuts and no increases from the federal government are straining research labs and scientists. Adam Allington reports the effects might not be as obvious or immediate as the house foreclosures and the credit crisis, the effect on science jobs and innovation might be just as bad:

Transcript

The recession is hitting more than banks and homes these days. State budget cuts and no increases from the federal government are straining research labs and scientists. Adam Allington reports the effects might not be as obvious or immediate as the house foreclosures and the credit crisis, the effect on science jobs and innovation might be just as bad:

At first glance there’s not much in Dale Dorsett’s lab beyond the usual – you know, grad students in white lab coats, centrifuges, test tubes.

Even though his lab is relatively small, his costs are not.

He takes me toward a locked room in the back of the lab containing a single microscope.

“It’s a laser scanning confocal microscope, which is essential for part of our work. That cost – $350,000 – now you know why we keep it locked.”

Dale is a molecular biologist at St. Louis University. He studies a genetic disorder that affects about one in ten-thousand humans.

Well, that is, when he can.

These days Dorsett says he spends more of his time filling out grant applications than he does on his research.

And he’s not the only one in this pickle. Winning grants for research is getting tough.

“The problem becomes when it gets so competitive that even really deserving projects, or very productive scientists who are doing really good work can’t get funded and that’s the situation we’re in right now.”

Funding from organizations like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation has been slipping for years. It’s a big problem.

It used to be about 30% of grant applications were successful. Now, that success rate has slipped into the teens.

And even those researchers who do get funded say grant preference is often given to projects that produce immediate results – which just isn’t the way most science works.

“I’m conservative because otherwise the lab would go under.”

Kristen Kroll runs a lab studying stem cells at Washington University.

“I would love to be more aggressive about what we go after, which connections we try to make to other models. I think I’ve curbed what we could be doing to a point where what we are doing is sustainable in the current funding climate.”

Kroll says there is such a back log of quality grant applications on file at the NIH and NSF, grant reviewers aren’t even separating wheat from chaff any more they’re separating wheat from wheat. So a lot of good research just doesn’t happen.

And in a world economy the U.S. isn’t the only player in the market for innovation. Other countries could gain an advantage in science.

James McCarter is the Chief Scientist for Divergence, a St. Louis-based biotech company.

“The emergence of India and China, in addition to Japan and Korea and Europe. There are sizeable countries out there now that are serious in these spaces and are making serious investments and have the talent.”

Now,you might be thinking, won’t that big stimulus package send wave of cash into the coffers of government research agencies – problem solved right?

Not so much. While a billion dollar shot in arm might be welcome news for some labs, many advisors worry that the long-term effect might actually exacerbate the funding crisis.

John Russell is the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies at Washington University. He says, a big pile of cash all at once does nothing for ongoing research that can take years to complete.

“One of the concerns about a big bubble is that if it’s just a bubble is that it takes five years to train somebody so it needs to be more spread out I think to be effective.”

Russell warns universities considering a building and spending spree to plan carefully, so current projects don’t reach beyond future budget realities.

For The Environment Report, I’m Adam Allington.

Related Links

Stimulus Package to Boost Research?

  • The stimulus money is a one-time thing, which concerns some researchers (Photo courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)

The government’s stimulus package is pouring billions of dollars into research for health, energy, and basic science. Rebecca Williams reports the new money will be helpful, but it’s not clear whether it’ll last:

Transcript

The government’s stimulus package is pouring billions of dollars into research for health, energy, and basic science. Rebecca Williams reports the new money will be helpful, but it’s not clear whether it’ll last:

There’s 10 billion dollars for health care research, 3 billion for other science funding, and that’s just the beginning.

Sam Rankin says it’s a positive change. He chairs the Coalition for National Science Funding.

“This administration and the current Speaker of the House have been very adamant about how important science is and that they want to fund science because they realize it’s an economic driver.”

There’s a catch. The stimulus money is a one-time thing.

But this week, President Barack Obama indicated his budget will mean steady money for health care and energy technology.

“We will invest 15 billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power, advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.”

That makes scientists hopeful, but we won’t know the details of the budget until sometime in April.

For The Environment Report, I’m Rebecca Williams.

Related Links

Science Jobs Scarce (Part Two)

  • (Photo courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)

It’s the best of times and the worst of times to start a science career in the
United States. Researchers today have access to tools and techniques that
have accelerated the pace of discovery to new highs. But as record numbers
of PhD’s graduate, many young scientists are finding a job market that is not
ready to absorb them. Adam Allington traces the supply and demand for
young scientists in a faltering economy:

Transcript

It’s the best of times and the worst of times to start a science career in the
United States. Researchers today have access to tools and techniques that
have accelerated the pace of discovery to new highs. But as record numbers
of PhD’s graduate, many young scientists are finding a job market that is not
ready to absorb them. Adam Allington traces the supply and demand for
young scientists in a faltering economy:

Briana Gross is in her second year of a post-doctoral fellowship at
Washington University, she’s studying genetic adaptations of wild rice.

She’s been applying for college faculty jobs for the past two years. This
year she says she’s gone all-out.

“I’ve applied for I think 36-38 jobs, 3-4 of those positions have been cancelled
completely due to hiring freezes. I’ve had two interviews.”

These days there’s a glut of qualified talent. Between too many doctoral
grads and cutbacks, it’s tough to find a position.

One recent job interview did little to bolster Gross’s confidence for the
future.

“While I was waiting to meet with the dean, one of the financial administrators came buy
and kind of joked about how I couldn’t possibly be interviewing for a position because
there was no money available to hire anyone at the university. So, if that’s happening
this year, next year is going to be really rough.”

So, how’d we end up with too many scientists for the jobs out there? Well,
the answer goes back to an event scientists simply call “the doubling.”

In 1998, President Clinton doubled budget for the National Institutes of
Health, which had the effect of drawing in all kinds of new talent and
investment for science and research.

The problem came later when that funding went flat – precisely at the same
time all those new PhD’s were entering the job market.

“You know, its like you push a bunch of people into the pipeline and then there’s been
chocking off of the U.S. pipeline.”

Kristen Kroll is a professor of developmental biology at Washington
University; she employs two post-docs in her lab.

“What we’ve done is we’ve convinced a whole generation of U.S. post-docs and graduate
students not to go into academic science.”

Young PhD’s see the uphill battle for jobs and scarce grant money and
wonder if its worth the struggle.

And it’s not just post-docs who are feeling the pressure these days—junior
faculty are spending more of their time in the lecture hall and less time in the
lab.

David Duvernell teaches biology at Southern Illinois University at
Edwardsville.

“We try to maintain an active research program at SIUE, at the same time we’re teaching
our 2 or 3 courses a semester.”

Duvernell says SIUE enrollment in freshman-level biology courses has
nearly doubled, but state support has not.

“And where the students are losing out is that then we have less time to spend in research
labs, where we train students individually and give them an experience that will
ultimately make them employable and competitive for graduate and professional
programs.”

University administrators point that historically only about 30% of all post-
docs land a faculty job, with the rest going into the private sector. Except
these the private sector is shedding jobs even faster than the universities.

Jared Strasburg is a 4th-year post-doc from Indiana University. He says if he
hasn’t found a faculty job by August, he’ll have to consider something else.

“Academia is long hours, it’s a lot of work, But, I never felt like if I put in those hours
and worked really hard that I wouldn’t be capable of getting a position and getting
funding necessary to do the work that I was interested in. Needless to say now that
proposition looks a lot more tenuous.”

In recent years some universities have taken steps to curb the number of
graduating PhD’s.

But as the number of unemployed post-graduates rises, some say the whole
system for training scientists needs to be updated to jive with the modern
economy.

As fewer and fewer scientists actually work in universities, some say more
focus needs to be placed on careers outside of academia.

For The Environment Report, I’m Adam Allington.

Related Links

Puppies, Poo, and Moose Tracks

  • Aimee Hurt, with the group Working Dogs for Conservation (Photo by Brian Mann)

Researchers and environmentalists are
experimenting with a new method for collecting
biological samples in the wild. They’re using
trained tracking dogs to sniff out everything
from rare plants to moose pellets. Brian Mann
joined the hunt in New York’s Adirondack Mountains:

Transcript

Researchers and environmentalists are
experimenting with a new method for collecting
biological samples in the wild. They’re using
trained tracking dogs to sniff out everything
from rare plants to moose pellets. Brian Mann
joined the hunt in New York’s Adirondack Mountains:

It’s early, the sun still tangled in the alder trees, when we set off
on foot down a
narrow logging road.

(sound of walking down the road)

Soon, Heidi Kretser with the Wildlife Conservation Society finds the
first evidence that
we’re not alone.

“These are moose tracks.”

New York’s moose population has surged in recent years, to move than
500 animals.
Researchers have been tracking moose using airplanes and radio collars.

But today, were tagging along behind a cheerful black lab mix named
Wicket.

(sound of dog’s collar jingling)

Wicket flashes back and forth across the trail, snuffling eagerly.
She wears a bright
red vest and that tinkling bell is designed to keep her from actually
meeting a moose
head-on.

Her owner and handler, Aimee Hurt, says using dogs to find biological
samples – everything from plants to rare birds – isn’t new.

“I think if you talk to a lot of biologists who’ve been out
in the field for
decades, ‘Oh yeah, my dog figured out that we were looking for —
whatever.’ And they
started honing in on it and helping out. So I really think that dog’s
have been
biologists’ partners for a long time.”

Hurt’s organization – Working Dogs for Conservation, based in Montana
– took the idea
one step further, training dogs in much the same way that police train
K-9 units.

Wicket knows how to find six different kinds of scat, including
mountain lion, grizzly
bear – and now moose

“She is an air-scent dog, which means there’s no tracking
involved — she’s
just sniffing the air for a whiff of scat.”

Heidi Kretser, with the Wildlife Conservation Society, says moose
droppings can tell a
lot about why these Clydesdale-sized animals are returning to New York, what they’re
eating, and how they’ll reshape this forest if their numbers keep
growing.

“By understanding the diet, we’ll get a better sense of what
habitats they
might impact long-term, since they eat 40 pounds of vegetation a day.”

(sound of birds and footsteps)

Wicket leads the team on long ramble through the radiant lime green
forest, and down
across a burbling creek.

(sound of creek)

We see moose sign everywhere – mule-sized tracks, maple trees
stripped of bark. And
then Wicket sniffs out her first pile of droppings.

“Whoopee, good girl. Very nice!”

More poop means better data. So the pellets are trucked away in a
plastic bag for the
trip back to the lab.

For Wicket, the reward is a few minutes of joyous play with a squishy
rubber ball.

(sound of squeezing toy)

“Let’s get to work!” (bell jangling)

Then the team is off again, with Wicket snuffling happily through the
trees. Biologists
hope to use the same method to study other wildlife – from grizzlies
to mountain lions.

For The Environment Report, I’m Brian Mann.

Related Links

Law Labels Eco-Protestors as Terrorists

Activists who strike out in the name of the environment or animal rights could find themselves labeled terrorists under a new law. The GLRC’s Lester Graham reports:

Transcript

Activists who strike out in the name of the environment or animal rights
could find themselves labeled terrorists under a new law. The GLRC’s
Lester Graham reports:


State governments and activists across the nation will be watching this
so-called ‘eco-terrorism’ law when it goes into effect in Pennsylvania.


You’re considered an eco-terrorist if you’re involved in civil
disobedience against firms that extract resources, do agricultural research
or animal experimentation. The law also increases penalties for crimes
such as trespassing and vandalism.


Larry Frankel is with the American Civil Liberties Union. He says the
new law tosses around the term terrorist too loosely…


“It not only is unfairly targeting some people as terrorists, it’s really
cheapening the use of the term ‘terrorism’ and it’s going to become at
some point– the government’s going to be crying ‘Wolf,’ calling
everything they don’t like ‘terrorism.’”


The law is in response to activists who’ve destroyed labs and property.
Frankel thinks the law will actually incite those who’ve used such tactics
to go even further.


For the GLRC, this is Lester Graham.

Related Links