Funding

Pure Pedantry

Category archives for Funding

Rather than funding new grants, most of the fiscal stimulus to NIH will be going to grants that have already been reviewed. From Science Insider: The National Institutes of Health will dedicate most of its $8.2 billion for research from the economic stimulus bill to funding grant applications it has already received and to supplementing…

SEA (again) has the details of the result of the House and Senate conference bill for economic stimulus. Here are the parts related to science: Provides $3 billion for the National Science Foundation, for basic research in fundamental science and engineering – which spurs discovery and innovation. Provides $1.6 billion for the Department of Energy’s…

Over at SEA they have a point-by-point description of the Senate economic stimulus bill. Obviously what is actually passed will be sorted out in conference committee but here is what is included about science: Science: National Science Foundation (NSF) Research: $1.2 billion total for NSF including: $1 billion to help America compete globally; $150 million…

David Goldston, writing in Nature, echoes a point I have been trying to make about the science provisions of the economic stimulus package. He lists some reasons why scientists should be wary of getting our funding this way: First, being included in the stimulus measure could turn science spending into a political football. In general,…

Health-infrastructure, information technology, and science research spending are clearly related to the success of our economy. They represent investments into intellectual property and human capital that increase productivity and create long-term growth. For this reason, I don’t object to the government spending money on them as a matter of policy. But Gary Becker makes an…

People expressed a healthy skepticism to my assertion that money for science in the economic stimulus package is not the best way to fund science and may do more harm than good.  One of my assumptions in that argument was that this funding would be short-term and not followed through with further increases. Nature has…

So I have been reading over the details of the stimulus bill that is working its way through Congress. Now I grant that this is a rough draft and may be substantially modified in the process of passage, but one particular sentence got me thinking: Transform our Economy with Science and Technology: We need to…

Many scientifically-inclined voters were a bit shocked by McCain’s comment criticizing Obama for supporting a “3 million dollar earmark for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago.” The “overhead projector” in question was actually a top of the line piece of equipment for the Adler Planetarium in Chicago, and many did not consider this…

Michael S. Teitelbaum has an editorial in Science about scientific funding that echoes a point that I have been making for a while: the issue with scientific funding is as much about volatility (bigs ups and downs) as it is total funding. For NIH, more research funding does produce increased research output, as intended. Yet,…

Changes to NIH Peer Review

NIH has agreed to some suggestions from advisory panels about how to change the grant peer review process: One year ago, NIH Director Elias Zerhouni asked external and internal advisory panels for advice on how to cope with a record number of applications, a flat NIH budget, and a shortage of quality reviewers. The two…