Differing Opinions within the System

Although it appears that there is no strong opposition to the underfunding of the NIH, there is opposition within the scientific establishment to changing the system such that it can be more equitable for future scientists. Graduate students and post doctoral fellows largely comprise the laboratory workforce. They work 80-100 hours a week, usually receive minimal benefits and are paid around $40,000 a year. Elizabeth Johnson, a former president of the Postdoc Association at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, remarked that,”Postdocs are an invisible workforce for a university” (Dance 26). Johnson refers to the fact that postdocs are used as “slave” labor, carrying out the bulk of experiments and acquiring data for their supervisor. We no longer seem to understand what the definition of a postdoc is. In 2007, the NPA (National Postdoctoral Association), NSF and NIH came to the consensus that, “…a postdoc is a doctorate holder in a temporary research job, receiving mentoring and training needed for the next career stage” (Dance 27). According to this definition, postdocs are scientists who have a graduate degree and are receiving the training necessary to eventually hold a full time, permanent job. A postdoc in the 1980’s might have fit this standard, but today’s postdocs are in a different situation.

A typical post-doc in the sciences should not take more than two years, however, “With these positions stretching four years or much longer, some enthusiastic young scientists molder in a kind of postdoctoral purgatory, hoping for a career that seems further away with each passing experiment” (Dance 26). As this statement from an HHMI Bulletin says, it is becoming increasingly difficult for postdocs to make the transition into a permanent position. The obstructions that postdocs face can partly be attributed to their PI’s (principal investigators) or advisors. The HHMI Bulletin discusses this issue, saying that, “Some advisors don’t take their role as mentors seriously, treating their trainees as cheap hands in the lab” (Dance 28). As I said earlier, postdocs are often used as slave labor. They are a cheap and efficient way to get research done. An HHMI investigator, Thomas Cech, points out, “Some fraction of postdocs do not get much career advice…they’re mostly being employed for the purpose of doing a certain set of experiments” (Dance 28). Cech realizes that meaningful mentoring does not exist in some labs, which is very unfortunate because postdocs need to acquire certain skills that will enable them to run their own lab. Postdocs are an integral part of the research community, so if we want to ensure that they continue their work, changes have to be made.

Based on the data I’ve presented, it seems obvious and logical that postdoctoral training programs should be reformed. There is resistance, mostly from investigators. PI’s are generally older and set in their ways. They like having lots of postdocs and graduate students working for them. The more bodies running assays, centrifuging, sterilizing equipment, preparing reagents and ordering materials, the better. The main functions that PI’s carry out are writing grants and publishing papers. Working postdocs to death is an inexpensive way of compiling the data for grants and papers. PI’s would rather not have their postdocs obtain permanent positions, because that would result in less experiments being done. Also, some PI’s have this mentality that because they had to work so hard to acquire their full time position, all students/fellows under them should have to go through the same thing. This short-sightedness and stubbornness needs to be stopped. PI’s need to realize that letting their postdocs go is not going to make their labs fail. A change in postdoctoral training will benefit everyone in scientific research. Allowing postdocs to successfully transition into a permanent position in a decent amount of time will free up spaces in labs that future postdocs and graduate students can take. Once a postdoc become an investigator, then they will be able to start contributing to the scientific community, and ultimately the world. 

With regards to the NIH, freeing up money from training graduate students and postdocs is a good idea. Allocating these funds to young scientists who are struggling to get their first grants would be more beneficial. The NIH has to work with the little money that they have; spending less on postdocs and graduate students and more on up and coming researchers will help them to fulfill their mission of improving health in our Nation.

Word Count: 735

Works Cited:

Dance, Amber. "The Best of Times and the Worst of Times." HHMI Bulletin (2011): 26-29. Web. 9 Nov. 2013. <http://www.hhmi.org/sites/default/files/postdoc_life.pdf>.

A Personal View

A career in the biomedical sciences is no longer what it used to be due to the long years of intense training and decreased funding. Being a biomedical researcher used to be much more attainable. Students fresh out of graduate school were able to secure positions in industry, academia and government with more ease than students at present. Now, with budget cuts at the NIH and other research institutions (both government and universities) continuing to be the norm, a biomedical research career has become a long and grueling path, marred with the constant fear of losing funding.

I have often pondered the possibility that I might not be able to secure a research position when I eventually graduate. My goal is to eventually become a principal investigator at the National Cancer Institute. Someday, maybe even the director. I have been advised to pursue my passions and never to believe that anything is impossible. I have seen the facts, I have read the studies and reports, and as much I want to believe that I will have a successful research career, I cannot. I have to be realistic. Increasing competition and slashed budgets are making the future of biomedical research bleak, and I don’t want to have high expectations only to have them crushed.

I am not alone in this mentality. Students in PhD programs are continuing to be encouraged by their advisors to pursue a research career. PLos ONE published a study which investigated science PhD career preferences,

                Academic administrators and advisors should consider such heterogeneity in career preferences when designing graduate curricula, ensuring that students have opportunities to acquire the skills and knowledge required to perform in non-academic careers that may not only be more readily available but are also quite attractive to students themselves. Similarly, the public discussion may benefit from recognizing that labor market experiences may be quite different depending on which particular career a junior scientist seeks to pursue. (5)

This goes to show that academic advisors and mentors should make sure that their students have skills that would enable them to obtain a non-research position. If there is a chance that a PhD student will not be able to find a job in their field, they need to be aware of this and have opportunities to find a job elsewhere. In addition, the study found that respondents felt

…that their advisors and departments strongly encourage academic research careers while being less encouraging of other career paths. Such strong encouragement of academic careers may be dysfunctional if it exacerbates labor market imbalances or creates stress for students who feel that their career aspirations do not live up to the expectations of their advisors. (5)

These statements offer more support to the fact that advisors should not encourage their students to exclusively pursue an academic/government research career. There are more applicants than positions open, so the chances of PhD students having an “ideal” research career are not high, and advisors need to make sure that their students are aware of this. Even if a PhD student is able to secure a research position, there is no guarantee that they will receive adequate funding.

As I mentioned before, there is ample data supporting the difficulties that young scientists go through to obtain funding for their projects. Another study published by PLos ONE discussed the aging of biomedical research in the United States. Included in the paper was a remark from a previous NIH director, Dr. Elias Zerhouni, “you have to get a Nobel Prize before your first grant- referring to Dr. David Baltimore, the 1975 Nobel Prize winner in medicine, who received the award at the age of 37, well under the average age of both an NIH principal investigator (PI) and a first-time NIH grantee” (Matthews 1). Dr. Zerhouni makes a strong point, saying that a novel researcher must be outstanding in order get their first grant. Results from the study suggested that, “…the NIH might be setting high barriers for entry into biomedical research, as demonstrated by the rising age of PIs and first-time grantees.” This is very discouraging. The NIH is setting a standard way too high for an average young researcher to achieve, and I don’t see a reason for it. The work being done by NIH researchers is critical, so why should they have to endure so many obstacles? The paper even says that, “Difficulties obtaining funding can negatively impact the career choices of young scientists, particularly in the biological sciences. Researchers in the biological sciences are waiting longer for independence or to start their own research projects than in other scientific fields” (Matthews 4). The paper plainly states that lack of funding negatively impacts young researchers. Because that is the case, we need to re-evaluate the manner in which these researchers are being funded.

Having said all this, anyone considering a biomedical research career needs to realize what lies in store for them. It is no longer a stable job. Funding is consistently resulting in a decrease of the amount of awarded grants. Because of this, PhD students need to keep an open mind about where they will eventually end up working, and advisors and mentors must be truthful and realistic regarding research career opportunities. As I discussed in my second post, the grant application process needs to be reformed so that young scientists have an equal opportunity to receive funds regardless of whether they are in the “top-tier” or not. I chose to write about reforming the NIH budget because the current trends of research funding will affect me. Working at the NIH is all I have ever wanted, but the state of their budget is going to make it extremely difficult for me. Biomedical research was once considered a glorious career. Now, scientists are disregarded and are on the losing side of the “fight” for funding. Only knowing all this, should a student enter the research field.   

Word Count: 988

Works Cited:

Matthews, Kirstin, Kara Calhoun, Nathan Lo, and Vivian Ho. "The Aging of Biomedical Research in the United States." PLoS ONE 6.12 (2011): 1-6. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0029738&representation=PDF>.

Sauermann, Henry, and Michael Roach. "Science PhD Career Preferences: Levels, Changes, and Advisor Encouragement." PLoS ONE 7.5 (2012): 1-9. Web. 5 Nov. 2013. <http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0036307&representation=PDF>.

Is there a shortage of STEM graduates in America? Is it ethical to continue to recruit foreign STEM students?

America does not need any more science and engineering graduates, either native born or foreign. However, we are under the belief that there is a deficiency of STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) majors. The President holds this belief as well, “A 2012 report by President Obama’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology… stated that over the next decade, 1 million additional STEM graduates will be needed” (Charette 13). The president’s staff is claiming that we need to increase the number of STEM graduates, which means spending more money. As a result of this report, the President wishes for, “government and industry to train 10,000 new U.S. engineers every year as well as 100,000 additional STEM teachers by 2020” (Charette 29).The president, industry and politicians are consistently pushing for an increased number of STEM graduates. They either do not understand or are not aware that America has a surplus of scientists. We cannot even properly fund the NIH, yet we want to pour money into science education.

As a way to compensate for our “deficit” of American scientists, we recruit foreigners to fill the laboratories of our graduate schools, government agencies and industrial corporations. In addition to rising numbers of foreign students in graduate science and engineering programs, “a significant number of university faculty in the scientific disciplines are foreign, and foreign doctorates are employed in large numbers by industry” (Matthews 1). I do not mean to sound racist, but if someone were to visit the NIH or FDA, or Johns Hopkins Medicine or the University of Maryland Medical Center, they would see an overwhelming number of foreign doctors, researchers and faculty members, which contributes to the idea that we lack American scientists.

Congress has been instrumental in bringing foreign students into our scientific workplace. In Matthews’ Congressional Research Service Report for Congress, she mentions that the nationwide shortage of scientists in the 1908s,

 …may have contributed to the decision by Congress to expand the skilled-labor preference system contained in the Immigration Act of 1990.12 The 1990 legislation more than doubled employment-based immigration, including scientists and engineers entering under the H-1B visa category. The act raised the numerical limits or ceilings on permanent, employment-based admissions, from 54,000 to 140,000 annually.13 In addition, the legislation ascribed high priority to the entry of selected skilled and professional workers, and simplified admissions procedures for foreign nationals seeking to temporarily work, study, or conduct business in the United States. (2)

As the report states, the shortage of scientists in the 1980s marked the beginning of the changing of immigration laws to better facilitate foreign STEM students.

An increased prevalence of foreigners in our schools and workplaces invites ethical issues which need to be addressed. One issue is funding. Foreign students receive most of their funding from their university, usually in the form of “research assistantships or teaching assistantships” often resulting from, “federally funded research grants awarded to their home institution.” The 2007 report, Doctorate Recipients from United States Universities: Summary Report 2006, “reveals that institutions of higher education provide a significant amount of support, primarily through teaching assistantships, research assistantships/traineeships, and fellowships/dissertation grants, to foreign students on temporary and permanent resident visas” (Matthews 8). The report shows that the percentage of non-U.S. citizen doctoral recipients receiving funding from universities is greater than that of U.S. doctoral recipients, and that is not ethical.

Another issue is the language barrier. According to Matthews’ Congressional Report, many foreign teaching assistants,

…do not communicate well with American students. Language as a barrier has been a perennial problem for some foreign students. There are charges that the “accented English” of the foreign teaching assistants  affects the learning process. A large number of graduate schools require foreign teaching  assistants to demonstrate their proficiency in English, but problems remain. Several states have  passed legislation setting English-language standards for foreign students serving as teaching assistants. (10)

Should American students in graduate, or even undergraduate school have to endure a teacher they cannot understand? Graduate courses in the sciences are complex and involve technical terms. Not being able to fully comprehend what the instructor is teaching presents a problem for students. I know that obtaining any sort of position in academia is competitive, and I know that we have Americans who would like those jobs, yet foreigners have priority for openings.

A consensus involving foreign students cannot seem to be reached. There are many people in the scientific community who “maintain that in order to compete with countries that are rapidly expanding their scientific and technological capabilities, the United States needs to bring in those whose skills will benefit society and will enable us to compete in the new-technology based global economy” (Matthews 13). These scientists believe that continued “scientific migration” has enabled the United States economy to maintain its stronghold on science and technology innovation. Others, (including myself) disagree. We have more than enough science graduates to fuel scientific research. Increasing the amount of H-1B visas given to foreign students is unnecessary as well as detrimental to American students in the sciences.

Contradictory to the belief that we need more science graduates, a science writer, Beryl Benderly, writes that,

The National Science Board’s biennial book, Science and Engineering Indicators, consistently finds that the US produces several times the number of STEM graduates than can get jobs in their fields. Recent reports from the National Institutes of Health, the National Academies, and the American Chemical Society warn that overproduction of STEM PhDs is damaging America’s ability to recruit native-born talent, and advise universities to limit the number of doctorates they produce, especially in the severely glutted life sciences. (28)

Benderly makes it very clear that we are overproducing scientists, and his article is not alone in attesting to the fact that America is producing enough STEM graduates. Many other articles and studies have shown that America has more trained STEM graduates than job openings.

Politicians need to start looking at the data and looking at the facts because their argument (we need 1 million STEM graduates) is unfounded and has been refuted by many studies. This fear, this paranoia that America will not be the world’s leader in scientific discovery if we do not have 1 million STEM graduates is unwarranted. There is no need to have a constant stream of foreign students flowing into our research organizations because we have an abundance of American students eager to learn and work.  Yet there are not enough opportunities for American scientists, and a scientific career has now become a dark, dismal path full of rejection and increased competition. Why should we have to compete for a research position with foreign students in our own country? Is it ethical to give priority to someone born in China rather than someone born in New Jersey? It is time for legislators to see what the real issue is here. We do not have a shortage of science graduates, we have a surplus.

In light of the limitations of the NIH budget as I discussed in my first post, this issue is relevant because the NIH is one of the biggest employers of foreign students and funds a great number of them in pre and post-doctoral training programs. Foreigners are taking up positions at the NIH that could otherwise be held by American scientists. It is already extremely competitive to get a job at the NIH, and being an American should not decrease anyone’s chances of getting in.

Word Count: 1241

Works Cited:

Charette, Robert N. "The STEM Crisis Is a Myth." IEEE Spectrum, 30 Aug. 2013. Web. 3 Nov. 2013. <http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/education/the-stem-crisis-is-a-myth>.

United States. Cong. Foreign Science and Engineering Presence in U.S. Institutions and the Labor Force. By Christine M. Matthews. 111th Cong. Cong. Rept. 97-746. [Washington, D.C.]: Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 2010. Web. 3 Nov. 2013.

Benderly, Beryl L. "It doesn’t add up." Columbia Journalism Review, 1 May 2013. Web. 3 Nov. 2013. <http://www.cjr.org/essay/it_doesnt_add_up.php?page=all&print=true>.

Reform NIH Funding

Reform NIH funding

In order to maintain efficiency with a low budget, the NIH needs to reform their current ways of spending in an effort to do more with less. Finding efficiencies for the NIH has become an imminent matter because,

 “the agency hasn't had an increase above inflation other than the one-year stimulus infusion of 2009. Now sequestration means an immediate 5-percent cut, at a time when many universities are trying to figure how to keep the staffing commitments they made when the doubling encouraged them to bulk up their research hiring and building construction” (Basken 15).

This emphasizes the fact that funding for the NIH is no longer consistent, so it needs to compensated for.

One way to do this involves the intramural and extramural programs. The intramural program accounts for 10 percent of the NIH’s budget, however there are conflicting views as to the efficiency of the program. Most of the program “consists of small laboratories similar to those found on many university campuses” (Basken 25). Some scientists argue that the intramural program is weak and that universities and other specialized facilities do a better job of performing research. Other scientists insist that the intramural program is very productive because researchers are able to “focus on the big picture rather than the nitty-gritty pursuit of grants” (Basken 39). These scientists are saying that investigators at the NIH can be highly specialized in a particular area, meaning that they are better qualified compared to a university researcher. In contrast to reducing the intramural program, the agency’s large “center grants” (where NIH officials designate researchers at outside universities to carry out projects and certain fields of study) could be cut instead. The NIH has the capacity to become self-sufficient, so cutting the extramural program could be a viable possibility. I cannot say whether cutting the intramural or extramural program would be more efficient, but the NIH should consider cuts within these programs.

In addition to cuts within the agency, the process of reviewing and selecting grants needs to be addressed. Much like other government agencies, the NIH has certain protocols that are emphasized in order to receive and keep a grant, e.g. proposals, checkpoints, and follow-up reviews. This system entails scientists having to complete work before asking for funding which means scientists who present more preliminary data have a higher priority of receiving funds. This is unfair to other investigators who have worked just as hard on their projects. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) has been suggested as a model research organization because the institute grants funding to outstanding researchers “without requiring that specific projects be identified in advance” (Basken 44). However, HHMI is considerably smaller than the NIH and represents one aspect of the research community so it is not the perfect model, but it is a place to start. I understand that the NIH is a government agency so they have to deal with bureaucracy, but they need to allow their investigators to conduct research without having the burden of grant applications, proposals and follow-ups constantly hanging over their heads.

Furthermore, we do not know whether the research outputted by scientists in the “top tier” is significantly better than what an “average” investigator produces, so this needs to be studied. In a commentary published in Nature, Benjamin Jones proposed a study, “…take winners of grants from the US National Institutes of Health. A subset of these beneficiaries could be randomly selected to receive 10% less funding (treatment group 1) and then grants could be awarded to extra projects that scored just below the funding line (treatment group 2). By tracking project outcomes over time we could determine the causative effects of both dollars and grant numbers on the progress of science, thus informing a better balance between grant size and grant number for future programming (25).” Jones is saying that we should see whether a larger grant size is correlated to more productive research. If it is not highly correlated, then we should consider re-allocating money to allow a greater number of smaller programs to be funded as opposed to less larger programs.

It is unfortunate that the NIH must continue to endure budget cuts, but it is a reality. The NIH must strive to maintain an efficient operation by properly utilizing the funds that they have. They should take the proposed solutions into account and reform their budget to the best of their capabilities.

Word Count: 735

Word Count: 735

Basken, Paul. "Cuts May Force Long-Awaited Efficiencies at NIH." The Chronicle of Higher Education 59.29 (2013). Academic OneFile. Web. 29 Oct. 2013.

Jones, Benjamin. "Research management: What would you cut?" Editorial. Nature 499 (2013): 147-48. PubMed. Web. 29 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v499/n7457/full/499147a.html#/benjamin-jones-make-randomized-controlled-cuts>.

Increase funding for the NIH

Increase funding for the NIH

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) should not be subjected to further budget and sequestration cuts. These cuts heavily impact research that will benefit society as well as the lives of investigators carrying out that research. The NIH is the largest publically funded biomedical research institute in the world, yet its budget has not been increased and is continuing to undergo sequestration cuts. NIH director Francis Collins stated that, “the NIH runs about as lean an operation as could be imagined, and any reductions will unavoidably harm the nation's scientific output.” We are living in a time where biomedical research should continue to advance; new discoveries are being made every day so we need to ensure that our laboratories receive the funding necessary to maintain their projects.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Collins commented on the effects of long term sequestration, "I think we'll be no longer the world leader in the production of science, technology and innovation. You can't look at the curves and say, 'oh, well, it'll be fine,' if we stay on this track. It will not be. China is coming up so fast, they are so convinced that this is their pathway toward world leadership; they're not going to slow down." Americans need to realize that this is our future; eventually China, India or another foreign country will take our place as the world’s leader in science if we do not make changes to the way scientific research is funded.

A possible solution to increasing funding for the NIH is to cut the defense budget. The United States is largest military spender in the world. In 2011, we spent $695.7 billion on defense, accounting for 58 percent of the total defense dollars paid out by the world's top 10 military powers. In the fiscal year of 2014, we will spend an estimated $830.9 billion on defense compared with the proposed $31.3 billion for the NIH. This sends a statement that we value our military more than the health of our citizens, but there needs to be a balance. Proposed spending cuts for the department of defense include: cutting the nuclear weapons arsenal, reducing the size of the Army and Military Corps, building less aircrafts and submarines for the Navy and Air Force and reforming military compensation. These cuts will help to reduce our deficit and free up funds for other non-defense agencies.

The decrease in funding for research negatively impacts patients, investigators, health care practitioners and students going into a scientific career. Patients are being turned away from clinical trials, staff scientists are losing funding for their projects resulting in a loss of their jobs, students are having a difficult time finding positions for their training and vital research is being halted. The NIH cannot fulfill its mission without proper funding. Our government needs to be committed to supporting the goals of the NIH. 

Basken, Paul. "Cuts May Force Long-Awaited Efficiencies at NIH." The Chronicle of Higher Education 59.29 (2013). Academic OneFile. Web. 22 Oct. 2013.

Stein, Sam. "NIH Director On Sequestration: 'God Help Us If We Get A Worldwide Pandemic'." Politics. The Huffington Post, Aug. Web. 23 Oct. 2013. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/23/nih-director-sequestration_n_3804089.html>.

"Fact Of The Day #8: U.S. Defense Spending Dwarfs Rest Of The World." Politics. The Huffington Post, n.d. Web. 6 Aug. 2012. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/defense-spending-fact-of-the-day_n_1746685.html>.

Chantrill, Christopher. "US Defense Spending." US Government Spending, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2013. <http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_2002_2018USr_15s1li211mcn_30t>.

"Office of Budget." National Institutes of Health, n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2013. <http://officeofbudget.od.nih.gov/index.htm>.

Friedman, Benjamin H., and Christopher Preble. "A Plan to Cut Military Spending." downsizing The Federal Government. CATO Institute, Nov. 2010. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. <http://www.downsizinggovernment.org/defense/plan-cut-military-spending>.

Pictures that represent me

I enjoy attending meetings and conferences at the NIH; anytime I get to go there is a treat. I hope to eventually work at the NIH as an investigator someday.

I love Broadway shows, especially Les Miserables and The Phantom of the Opera. When we were in New York over the summer, we walked around Times Square and took lots of pictures.

I love staying at big, nice and fancy hotels. This was at the Borgata in Atlantic City.

At the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in the National Harbor. 

 My sister and I are very close. We're 3 years apart, yet people always mistake us for twins. 

The Big Bang Theory is my favorite comedy TV show. Mayim Bialik came to the 2012 Science and Engineering Festival. She gave a small talk and answered questions from the audience. It was a lot of fun!

This is our rabbit, Cupcake. We adopted her from the Howard County Animal Shelter.