Medical Writing, Editing & Grantsmanship

So, with one FY of ARRA/stimulus funding behind us, where and how is it going? Nature has an economical infographic showing how 7 federal agencies are spending their R&D stimulus dollars and also includes brief commentaries by 6 experts on “what concerns them most about the US stimulus spending and … ways to ensure that it benefits research and society in the long term.” Many touch on the problems of feast-famine cycles in research funding and how these hit young researchers particularly hard. I suspect Michael Teitelbaum (Sloan Foundation)’s essay on “Incentives for universities do not promote sustainable behavior” will resonate with many regular readers of this blog.

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a commentary from our friends at AAMC entitled, Key for Future Investment: Researchers’ Response to America’s Recovery Act. And what is the proper response?

Researchers should continue to be unflinchingly positive about the opportunities that the Recovery Act has presented.

Unflinchingly. Indeed. The first comment submitted in response to this piece flinches a bit, certainly (“Unfortunately, most of the Recovery Act money was given to those who already hold NIH awards- so the rich get richer … I fail to see how this is going to provide much innovation, much added technology or job creation, and a stimulus to biomedical research other than that which already exists.”)

The authors urge beneficiaries of ARRA funding to demonstrate “thoughtful stewardship of those resources” so as to “bolster the nation’s future enthusiasm for science as a socially responsive and effective enterprise.” They caution that “future support for the NIH and research throughout the country could depend on whether Congress and the public perceive that scientists have taken appropriate advantage of [this] opportunity.” With regard to the reporting requirements on job creation and “other economic impacts of the grants”,

… such requirements will allow scientists to engage the public by putting in plain words the practical, present benefits from academic research, as well as potential future economic and societal gains that result … Some institutions already track the potential economic impacts and multiplier effects of research investments within local communities, such as job creation and the attraction of “high tech” health-sector jobs. … The willingness of researchers to create and improve upon such methodologies will reflect a commitment to be held publicly accountable for the generous public and private support they receive.

BICO already does this, and certainly, research, technology, health care, and education have replaced manufacturing and milling as the economic engine in our region – with spectacular success. But does that make universities here more worthy of increased federal funding? No, only the sound, peer-reviewed science that made such an economic transformation possible should be rewarded – here and elsewhere. As for public accountability … I guess you PIs should start disclosing those multi-million dollar bonuses you get every year.

But getting back to why we all should be “unflinchingly positive” about ARRA,

The act ends a five-year hiatus in real growth of the NIH’s budget, which had declined in inflation-adjusted terms by more than 14% since 2003. The recent rapid infusion of dollars illustrates the confidence of Congress in the ability of the NIH and other science agencies to play a vital, more immediate role as an economic engine essential to our national recovery. But those funds notwithstanding, the Recovery Act’s political significance for biomedical research goes far beyond material support, reflecting the trust of Congress and the administration in the medical and scientific communities as responsive and essential to long-term economic development and health.

I’m not sure ARRA ended the loss of “real growth” in the NIH budget, as the base appropriation will go up by just 1.3% for FY10 and probably not much more for FY11. If the impact of this unanticipated and hastily (frenzily) planned and implemented $10.3B infusion turns out to be mediocre at best (at least in the short-fuse time span acceptable to elected representatives), and if Congress therefore feels justified in maintaining flat-lined federal spending, this would seem to be akin to basing the future of the US research enterprise on the outcome of a pop quiz. Put another way, would someone who proposed this high-risk experiment as a pioneering or innovative project to demonstrate the value of research to US society have been funded?

On the other hand, a glimmer of hope for the Administration’s commitment to science. The NSF can be grateful to the White House for their concern over the Senate plan to reduce funding to the NSF and NIST (Natl Institute of Standards and Technology) by $200M and to “transfer … icebreaker operations and maintenance funding from the NSF to the Coast Guard.”

Oh joy. Joe Biden’s office likes the ARRA transparency so much that he wants to make the quarterly reporting permanent:

“We’ve never followed the dollars the way we are now and this should be the start of a new way of doing business rather than the implementation of a single program.”

I’m sure he’d find some interesting spending practices if he followed every dollar of every NIH grant … and of course not spending every dollar the way you said you would (or were advised to) can be a good thing, as in the case of Nobel laureate Mario Capecchi. Imagine a world without transgenics.

By way of reminder, NIAID has a nice collection of information and links on the what, why, and how-to of ARRA reporting. Have fun.

Oh joy … bureaucraspeak at its best on the FY11 budget priorities in science and technology from Peter Orzag (OMB) and John Holdren (Obama science adviser).

Let’s see … the Administration is already investing in:

“high-risk, high-payoff research; making permanent the Research and Enterprise tax credit; targeting investment in promising clean energy technologies research; improving health outcomes while lowering costs; and nurturing a scientifically literate population as well as a world-class, diverse science, technology, engineering, and mathematics workforce.”

Phew. So what’s next?

In preparing FY2011 Budget submissions to the Office of Management and Budget, agencies should build on the science and technology priorities already reflected in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the FY2010 Budget.

Hmmmmmm. Further …

Agencies should explain in their budget submissions how they will redirect available resources, as appropriate, from lower-priority areas to science and technology activities that address four practical challenges and strengthen four cross-cutting areas that underlie success in addressing all of them.

So what would these four challenges be?

• Applying science and technology strategies to drive economic recovery, job creation, and economic growth;
• Promoting innovative energy technologies to reduce dependence on energy imports and mitigate the impact of climate-change while creating green jobs and new businesses;
• Applying biomedical science and information technology to help Americans live longer, healthier lives while reducing health care costs; and
• Assuring we have the technologies needed to protect our troops, citizens, and national interests, including those needed to verify arms control and nonproliferation agreements essential to our security.

And the strategies for addressing these challenges?:

• Increasing the productivity of our research institutions, including our research universities and major public and private laboratories and research centers;
• Strengthening science, technology, engineering, and mathematics education at every level, from pre-college to postgraduate to lifelong learning;
• Improving and protecting our information, communication, and transportation infrastructure, which is essential to our commerce, science, and security alike; and
• Enhancing our capabilities in space, which are essential for communications, geopositioning, intelligence gathering, Earth observation, and national defense, as well as for increasing our understanding of the universe and our place in it.

My poverty-stricken friends at the Observatory should be happy at least. Would one of the approaches to increasing research productivity possibly involve more funding for research? Unclear, but the memo does urge Agencies to

“empower their scientists to have ongoing contact with people who know what’s involved in making and using things, from cost and competitive factors to the many practical constraints and opportunities that can arise when turning ideas into reality.”

I’m sure you’ll all appreciate this empowerment. But in the meantime, I suggest you get writing for the October-November cycle, including a missive to your Congressional delegation supporting a sustained increase in the NIH base appropriation.