由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
Biology版 - NIGMS 要劫富济贫了 (转载)
相关主题
没人讨论Varmus辞职么?广大钱老的衣食父母啊俺来问问那个新的DP5 mechanism吧
请教现在 NIH RO1 的几率有多大啊?NIH一定不给办H1b么?
NIH budget要砍2.5B?生物学兼医学相关的PI进来看下
Can NIH Renovate the Biomedical Workforce?Obama unveils brain mapping project
当生物博后变老后,都去哪儿了?温水就要沸腾了
Well-educated trainees seen as source of cheap scientific laborR21 Impact score: 27. 没有有希望?
HHMI early career scientist探索生物学的问题
nih今年的budget出来了,减1.4 billionNIH raise $ 2 B. 喜大普奔
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: research话题: nigms话题: funding话题: biomedical话题: more
进入Biology版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
s******y
发帖数: 28562
1
【 以下文字转载自 Faculty 讨论区 】
发信人: sunnyday (胖头鱼。按斤卖就赚了), 信区: Faculty
标 题: NIGMS 要劫富济贫了
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jan 5 22:29:34 2015, 美东)
革命了革命了!
今天收到NIGMS director 的公开信,里面明白着说单个实验室不应该拿到超过三个R01
(除非是clinical research), 并明白指出这个动向的原因是:
1。在钱的总数有限的情况下,一个实验室拿到多的钱就会导致另外一个实验室拿到的
钱变少。
2。大实验室对博士后和研究生培养不利,因为导师的注意力被分散了。
3。从统计上来看,大实验室的成果并不和资金成正比
A Shared Responsibility
Dr. Jon LorschPosted by Dr. Jon Lorsch on January 5, 2015
Post a Comment
The doubling of the NIH budget between 1998 and 2003 affected nearly every
part of the biomedical research enterprise. The strategies we use to support
research, the manner in which scientists conduct research, the ways in
which researchers are evaluated and rewarded, and the organization of
research institutions were all influenced by the large, sustained increases
in funding during the doubling period.
Despite the fact that the budget doubling ended more than a decade ago, the
biomedical research enterprise has not re-equilibrated to function optimally
under the current circumstances. As has been pointed out by others (e.g.,
Ioannidis, 2011; Vale, 2012; Bourne, 2013; Alberts et al., 2014), the old
models for supporting, evaluating, rewarding and organizing research are not
well suited to today’s realities. Talented and productive investigators at
all levels are struggling to keep their labs open (see Figure 1 below,
Figure 3 in my previous post on factors affecting success rates and Figure 3
in Sally Rockey’s 2012 post on application numbers). Trainees are
apprehensive about pursuing careers in research (Polka and Krukenberg, 2014)
. Study sections are discouraged by the fact that most of the excellent
applications they review won’t be funded and by the difficulty of trying to
prioritize among them. And the nation’s academic institutions and funding
agencies struggle to find new financial models to continue to support
research and graduate education. If we do not retool the system to become
more efficient and sustainable, we will be doing a disservice to the country
by depriving it of scientific advances that would have led to improvements
in health and prosperity.
Re-optimizing the biomedical research enterprise will require significant
changes in every part of the system. For example, despite prescient, early
warnings from Bruce Alberts (1985) about the dangers of confusing the number
of grants and the size of one’s research group with success, large labs
and big budgets have come to be viewed by many researchers and institutions
as key indicators of scientific achievement. However, when basic research
labs get too big it creates a number of inefficiencies. Much of the problem
is one of bandwidth: One person can effectively supervise, mentor and train
a limited number of people. Furthermore, the larger a lab gets, the more
time the principal investigator must devote to writing grants and performing
administrative tasks, further reducing the time available for actually
doing science.
Although certain kinds of research projects—particularly those with an
applied outcome, such as clinical trials—can require large teams, a 2010
analysis by NIGMS and a number of subsequent studies of other funding
systems (Fortin and Currie, 2013; Gallo et al., 2014) have shown that, on
average, large budgets do not give us the best returns on our investments in
basic science. In addition, because it is impossible to know in advance
where the next breakthroughs will arise, having a broad and diverse research
portfolio should maximize the number of important discoveries that emerge
from the science we support (Lauer, 2014).
These and other lines of evidence indicate that funding smaller, more
efficient research groups will increase the net impact of fundamental
biomedical research: valuable scientific output per taxpayer dollar invested
. But to achieve this increase, we must all be willing to share the
responsibility and focus on efficiency as much as we have always focused on
efficacy. In the current zero-sum funding environment, the tradeoffs are
stark: If one investigator gets a third R01, it means that another
productive scientist loses his only grant or a promising new investigator
can’t get her lab off the ground. Which outcome should we choose?
My main motivation for writing this post is to ask the biomedical research
community to think carefully about these issues. Researchers should ask: Can
I do my work more efficiently? What size does my lab need to be? How much
funding do I really need? How do I define success? What can I do to help the
research enterprise thrive?
Academic institutions should ask: How should we evaluate, reward and support
researchers? What changes can we make to enhance the efficiency and
sustainability of the research enterprise?
And journals, professional societies and private funding organizations
should examine the roles they can play in helping to rewire the unproductive
incentive systems that encourage researchers to focus on getting more
funding than they actually need.
We at NIGMS are working hard to find ways to address the challenges
currently facing fundamental biomedical research. As just one example, our
MIRA program aims to create a more efficient, stable, flexible and
productive research funding mechanism. If it is successful, the program
could become the Institute’s primary means of funding individual
investigators and could help transform how we support fundamental biomedical
research. But reshaping the system will require everyone involved to share
the responsibility. We owe it to the next generation of researchers and to
the American public.
a*********n
发帖数: 2526
2
NIGMS是最苦逼的部门了,申请的都使一些研究最基础的PI,在不济贫让人怎么活。

R01

【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Faculty 讨论区 】
: 发信人: sunnyday (胖头鱼。按斤卖就赚了), 信区: Faculty
: 标 题: NIGMS 要劫富济贫了
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jan 5 22:29:34 2015, 美东)
: 革命了革命了!
: 今天收到NIGMS director 的公开信,里面明白着说单个实验室不应该拿到超过三个R01
: (除非是clinical research), 并明白指出这个动向的原因是:
: 1。在钱的总数有限的情况下,一个实验室拿到多的钱就会导致另外一个实验室拿到的
: 钱变少。
: 2。大实验室对博士后和研究生培养不利,因为导师的注意力被分散了。

r*****m
发帖数: 3619
3
新上任的负责医疗教育的茶党的 Andy Harris 是个狠角色,要打掉一批炮制CNS的机器
S***J
发帖数: 1210
4
俺也收到了这封信。
NIGMS这是要当梁山好汉啊这是,哈哈。

R01

【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Faculty 讨论区 】
: 发信人: sunnyday (胖头鱼。按斤卖就赚了), 信区: Faculty
: 标 题: NIGMS 要劫富济贫了
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jan 5 22:29:34 2015, 美东)
: 革命了革命了!
: 今天收到NIGMS director 的公开信,里面明白着说单个实验室不应该拿到超过三个R01
: (除非是clinical research), 并明白指出这个动向的原因是:
: 1。在钱的总数有限的情况下,一个实验室拿到多的钱就会导致另外一个实验室拿到的
: 钱变少。
: 2。大实验室对博士后和研究生培养不利,因为导师的注意力被分散了。

r******0
发帖数: 357
5
好 好 好
w***r
发帖数: 709
6
三个都多了,计划生育,才能人人有工作,有饭吃,才能减少假货

R01

【在 s******y 的大作中提到】
: 【 以下文字转载自 Faculty 讨论区 】
: 发信人: sunnyday (胖头鱼。按斤卖就赚了), 信区: Faculty
: 标 题: NIGMS 要劫富济贫了
: 发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jan 5 22:29:34 2015, 美东)
: 革命了革命了!
: 今天收到NIGMS director 的公开信,里面明白着说单个实验室不应该拿到超过三个R01
: (除非是clinical research), 并明白指出这个动向的原因是:
: 1。在钱的总数有限的情况下,一个实验室拿到多的钱就会导致另外一个实验室拿到的
: 钱变少。
: 2。大实验室对博士后和研究生培养不利,因为导师的注意力被分散了。

r******8
发帖数: 1486
7
can not agree more

【在 w***r 的大作中提到】
: 三个都多了,计划生育,才能人人有工作,有饭吃,才能减少假货
:
: R01

A******y
发帖数: 2041
8
How many labs have more than 3 R01s from NIGMS? It cannot be that many, it
will hardly solve any problem.
x********e
发帖数: 35261
9
拿三个RO1的实验室肯定不少,不过都是NIGMS的情况比较少吧。是说有三个RO1的申请他
们都直接pass吗

it

【在 A******y 的大作中提到】
: How many labs have more than 3 R01s from NIGMS? It cannot be that many, it
: will hardly solve any problem.

r******8
发帖数: 1486
10
"In the current zero-sum funding environment, the tradeoffs are
stark: If one investigator gets a third R01, it means that another
productive scientist loses his only grant or a promising new investigator
can’t get her lab off the ground. Which outcome should we choose?"
This could mean they are only going to approve at most two R01s, and I hope
this is true. All other NIH agencies should follow suit in this case.
r*****t
发帖数: 4793
11
就应该限制在一个
我老板以前有两个ro1的时候,嗡嗡的满实验室都是人,一个礼拜见不了一面
现在就一个了,我一个人占半拉屋,每周固定时间讨论进度,工资也长了
1 (共1页)
进入Biology版参与讨论
相关主题
NIH raise $ 2 B. 喜大普奔当生物博后变老后,都去哪儿了?
请问我是否应该海龟Well-educated trainees seen as source of cheap scientific labor
NIH 网站现在可以查到grant的钱了HHMI early career scientist
RO1是什么样的grant阿nih今年的budget出来了,减1.4 billion
没人讨论Varmus辞职么?广大钱老的衣食父母啊俺来问问那个新的DP5 mechanism吧
请教现在 NIH RO1 的几率有多大啊?NIH一定不给办H1b么?
NIH budget要砍2.5B?生物学兼医学相关的PI进来看下
Can NIH Renovate the Biomedical Workforce?Obama unveils brain mapping project
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: research话题: nigms话题: funding话题: biomedical话题: more