by Beth Baker. 1994. Washington Watch, BioScience October 44(9): 591.
Young independent researchers in the life sciences are falling behind their older peers in the competition for grant money, according to a study published by the National Research Council (NRC) this summer. The findings, not surprising given the gloom of many young scientists, are causing concern among policy makers about the future health of biomedical and biological research in the United States.
"The scientific population is aging," said Torsten N. Wiesel, president of Rockefeller University, in July at the National Academy of Sciences during the report's presentation. "That to us is significant. We want to keep scientists during their most creative years."
The report, The Funding of Young Investigators in the Biological and Biomedical Sciences, was conducted by an NRC committee, established in 1991 to examine the growing funding problem faced by young researchers. Young researchers were defined as being 36 years or younger and applying for their first grant.
In the early 1980s, young biomedical researchers had a slightly better chance of receiving a grant from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) than older scientists. Approximately 34% of young applicants obtained funding compared with less than 32% of their seniors. This advantage is believed to be necessary to help researchers set up their own labs. "When times get hard, this advantage disappears," says Wiesel, who cochaired the special committee with Shirley M. Tilghman, professor of life sciences at Princeton University.
A surprising finding, according to symposium leaders, was the sharp drop in the number of young applicants applying for NIH grants. Between 1985 and 1993, the number of young investigators applying for grants dropped by 54%, while the number of older applicants increased by 26%. "This seemed a shocking decline to us," says Tilghman.
Fewer young scientists applying did little to help other young scientists succeed. In the case of the NIH ROl, the most common grant, the success rate for receiving the grant dropped from 33 % to 21.7% among young investigators. In contrast, researchers ages 41-50 increased both their number of applications and their success rate in obtaining grants.
In terms of National Science Foundation (NSF) money, the success rate for all researchers dropped from 38% in 1983 to 30% in 1993. Biologists, with a 25% success rate, consistently fared worse than other scientists.
In March, NSF moved to improve prospects for young researchers by initiating the Faculty Early Career Development Award program, which combines several existing programs. Depending on other NSF program decisions, the new program could support a larger number of persons than have been supported.
The committee did not address why young researchers are failing to apply for grant money at traditional levels. Possible explanations are the decline in the pool of college students, a return to native countries by foreign students, and a shift away from independent research.
The report's authors complained they were hindered by a dearth of data. " There are good statistics through the Ph.D. Ievel," says Tilghman. "Then there's a complete black hole in demographics. Data pick up again at the faculty level."
The committee's intention was to study funding for all the life sciences, but the results focused much more on biomedical research because NIH, the main funder of biomedicine, provided the committee with better data than did NSF, the main basic biology funder.
"The difficult funding environment in the biomedical sciences, which stimulated this study, has been in place in the biological sciences for many years," the study notes. But the committee also pointed out that less money is available for biological sciences than for biomedical research and that "the effort to ensure a future supply of scientists in the field was much less pronounced." "Some of us had hoped when [former President] Bush said he'd double the NSF budget, that would help. But that never happened," says Wiesel.
The committee made the following recommendations to boost funding for young investigators:
- Increase the amount of NIH R29 grant money, a special grant for new investigators, from $75,000 a year for five years to $125,000 a year.
- Establish a separate grant pool for young researchers.
- Judge research plans on their merit and promise and eliminate requirements for preliminary data.
- Set up a funding center to coordinate all types of support, both public and private, to help young researchers learn where and how to apply for funds.
Another NRC committee is to begin work in January on why young scientists are not applying for funding. Its study is to be finished within a year.