Congress vs. the NSF: The battle continues

The acting director of the NSF, Cora Marrett, has responded to Representative Lamar Smith's request to justify awarding particular social science research grants. She refused to provide reviewer comments citing that anonymity is necessary for the review process to work. 

In this article in Science, however, it is apparent that the fight to keep research funding oversight in the hands of experts is far from over. It is important to consider the implications of congressional intervention: who is qualified to decide what type of research will improve our safety or expand the economy? And more importantly, will stricter definitions protect our academic investments or just stifle innovation? 

Follow this story as it continues to develop and decide on what purpose academia should be driving for: expanding knowledge or delivering societal results. 

Interesting article!

Nature has published a great article comparing European and American PhD program, focusing on the rise of structured programs and preparation for non-academic careers.

"Transformative Research" and the Future of Science

Will funding "high risk" projects help reinvigorate our current research models?

A frequent critique of the current funding model for scientific research is that the pressure to secure grants is limiting the risks that researchers will take in their research projects and subsequently stifling innovation. As the United States continues to lags behind other countries in science (as highlighted by this NBC article), funding agencies have begun to invest in projects that foster innovation and collaboration, focusing less on the results of the projects and more on the tools that they will develop [1]. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) implemented a Collaborative Innovation Award in 2008, funding a total of eight projects. The goal of the Award is to provide support for longer term collaborations that "... could yield important results, but may never directly further the lab's own mission," according to Philip Perlman, a senior HHMI scientific officer overseeing the program. The National Science Foundation (NSF), a lead source of research capital in the United States, followed suit in 2011, offering $1 million in support for five years to small teams through its Creative Research Awards for Transformative Interdisciplinary Ventures (CREATIV), expanding the funds available for new lines of research. 

The biggest caveat of this new award system is defining "transformative research." Robert Frodeman, philosophy professor and director of the Center for the Study of Interdisciplinary at the University of North Texas, cites Watson and Crick's presentation of a model for DNA structure as being a prime example of a project that's impact reaches far beyond the tomes of scientific journals and instead transformed the way humanity views itself. [4] This description does little to define what criteria a "transformative" project would need to meet in its infancy. The NSF outline for CREATIV submissions is more direct in its requirements; it states that these grants are NOT for "projects that continue along well-established lines of research" and is expected to "integrate across multiple disciplines, as opposed to incorporating disciplinary contributions additively." [5]

Has this infusion of funds revolutionized research methods or shifted the public perception of scientific pursuits? A Google News search for "HHMI Collaborative Innovation Awards" yielded eight results in September (for scale: querying "Human Genome" yields about 20,000 results and querying "Britney Spears" yields over 80,000 results). So, while awareness within the research community might be increasing, a media firestorm has not yet begun. It may be too early to see the effects of transformative research grants. Or it might be that while the shift in funding requirements might have changed, the groups that receive the awards have not (see HHMI Award list, 2008 [2]). Well established senior researchers are a safe bet; put your money where you already know you can get valuable returns. But is this breaking down barriers for researchers? Or stimulating fresh ideas?

Fostering cross-discipline communication is the most transformative part of these new funding mechanisms and should be given a greater emphasis. Research areas are often characterized by a high degree of specialization, creating a "language" barrier between researchers and reducing the tools and resources available. Facilitating better communication by creating forums for discussion as part of grant requirements could stimulate innovation more than investments in any particular research project. The cultivation of challenging intellectual environments at research institutions have often contributed to some of science's greatest discoveries as much as the power of the minds credited. In this rapidly developing age of technology, is it possible to cultivate an innovative environment independently of the confines of an institution or specialization? Will that truly transform the way science is done? 

Further information:

[1] Figure Table A4.6,  Page 87

[2] HHMI press release

[3] Collaborative Inovation Award, Team Leaders

[4] Science Careers, Innovation

[5] NSF CREATIV press release

PLUS: Great Science article on transformative research 

On the eve of beginning my own PhD in Biology, this Nature editorial on job prospects for PhD students could have been disheartening. A prolonged venting session by a PhD student a few years ahead of me in "the system" might have added to this seeming insurmountable pressure to get out of science as soon as possible. However, unpacking boxes in my new apartment, I surprisingly had no urge to tape them up, return them to sender and head back home. At least, not tonight.

Why?

Good question.

I strongly agree with the editors of Nature: the system is broken. Many programs train their PhD students to be cogs in a constantly growing and poorly maintained machine. The public only vaguely understands what research entails outside of creating cures for cancer. Last fall's budget crisis and subsequent budget debates highlighted the shortfalls in domestic spending on basic research but did not touch upon the extent of issues associated with the current research model. Bigger projects mean more and more people working on a single line of research, often with less impactful results or, far more common, less individuals with strong enough credentials to compete for a shrinking number of academic positions. These often untenured positions have become more associated with grant writing than with mentoring or even teaching.

This is precisely why I want to do my PhD in Biology. As some of our greatest minds are shut out due to budget shortfalls and administrative pressures, I find myself hoping to be part of a generation of indignant scientists. Individuals that challenge the status quo and refuse to play by the current rules of engagement and contemplate a different kind of future for science.

Maybe I'm just young and naive but maybe, just maybe, a dose of idealism is exactly what this discipline needs.

Scientists, the public, and everyone in between... share your thoughts.