Comments on: Great Science, Great Scientists, and Funding

By: Monica Metzler

Monica Metzler — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 23:41:50 +0000

SLC’s point is well taken. It can be a little risky to cite Einstein and Darwin, whether for early or later work, as they weren’t funded by the government. Darwin never did and Einstein’s prolific early work can only be said to be gov’t funded from his paycheck working for the patent office. I believe the Curies struggled for funding before their first Nobel as did many others no doubt. It’s appealing to reference the iconic scientists of earlier eras, but that was before the enormous costs and extensive government funding of research we have today. Be careful about giving ammunition to those who would cut or eliminate gov’t funding with the argument that geniuses like Einstein and Darwin didn’t need it.

By: Karl Leif Bates

Karl Leif Bates — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 14:44:51 +0000

There are some huge demographics — AKA the Baby Boom — underlying this graph that cannot be ignored.

That first, sharpest, peak in 1980 corresponds with people born in 1947, the first-borns of the Baby Boom. Notice then that the peak attenuates somewhat in 1990, with the later-born boomers (who are more in number) getting in on the act, and flattens out further still as you go on. It’s not so discouraging to look at this way, especially if you plotted these trends against the numbers of applicants in each age-cohort.

That said, the age of first funding is probably creeping older, and that IS a problem. So guess what? The reviewers controlling the purse strings are mostly baby boomers in their late 50s and early 60s. As a tail-ender of the boom, this graph is the story of my life.

By: Peggy

Peggy — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:09:57 +0000

Lab Lemming: sorry for misspelling your name. I obviously need an edit option.

By: Peggy

Peggy — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:58:00 +0000

Lab Leming: Everyone benefits (i.e., makes money) except young researchers, no? Presumably, the “best and the brightest” leverage their networks or break out of the system.

By: gillt

gillt — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 03:35:38 +0000

PI stands for Principal Investigator, someone who heads a lab and its research. At least in biology labs post-docs have their own projects under the direction and guidance of a PI, and are considered in training.

By: Brian Too

Brian Too — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 01:12:37 +0000

I’ve just spent about 5 minutes trying to figure out what PI stands for. What I’ve come up with is “Post-Doctoral Investigator”. Am I on the right track?

Because as a child of the 70′s, a PI to me will always be what Columbo, Cannon, Rockford and Baretta were!

By: SLC

SLC — Sat, 19 Dec 2009 00:08:14 +0000

In all fairness, it should be pointed out that Darwin funded his own work as he came from a well to do family and his wife came from one of the wealthiest families in Great Britain. Obviously, the day of gentleman scientists has passed.

By: Lab Lemming

Lab Lemming — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 23:59:36 +0000

So why are we keeping people in post-docs until they are past their prime?

By: Peggy

Peggy — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:33:19 +0000

To be clear, the funding success rate for new investigators is declining AND the average age of new investigators is increasing. There is a ton of raw data (available on the NIH web-site) and multiple analyses by the NRC, although I haven’t seen anything about stimulus funding. Part of the problem is there aren’t enough tenure track positions, but this is expected to change as the boomers retire. Bottom line, they don’t have a complete answer…NIH is still trying to model the population dynamics of the US scientific workforce and understand interventions (e.g., RFA-GM-10-003).

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:34:03 +0000

Isn’t this also indicative of an aging population? Birth rates are falling, death rates are declining.

Does the research say anything about the volumes of applicants across age bands?