Hank Campbell picks up the issue on research funding and the NIH

As you might know the new exec at American Council on Science and Health (ASCH) is Hank Campbell, who started up Science 2.0

Here below I pasted what I think is a thoughtful and informative essay on the research funding issue we mentioned in the last 2 days. I have a couple of comments that are critical of Hank’s analysis but we agree on the big point that big jumps in research funding are not necessarily going to be efficient or productive. Hank agrees but says more that needs to be said.

Freeing Up Money For Science, Without Funding Waste
Posted on August 20, 2015 by Hank Campbell
Congress has decided to boost funding for the National Institutes of Health by $9.3 billion over five years, and that is welcome news to researchers. But there are two ways we could have prevented life sciences researchers from feeling like they were being disrespected by the current White House administration.

The first is to recognize that the previous administration, and his same-party Congress, loved science a little too much and reset expectations somewhat. When NIH funding was basically doubled in a short period of time, it meant the creation of many new buildings for Johns Hopkins University and a whole raft of new R01 grants and hiring of post-docs to do research. However, science actually doesn’t get done that way. It is mostly a slow, measured process. If it was really possible to just spend more and get a result, we could throw $50 billion at cancer and solar power and the issues would be solved.

Instead of boosting science output, it created an artificial bubble. The current administration wanted to focus on solar panels, not biology, and academia was producing 600 percent more PhDs than were ever going to get faculty positions, which meant a glut of post-docs, and suddenly, the average age for getting a first grant became 40-plus.

So while it was wonderful that the White House and Congress in the early 2000s were so pro-science, it didn’t help science to be over-funded in such a short period of time.

The second obstacle has been a lingering one: waste and duplication. Former Senator Tom Coburn, one of the few fiscals hawks in either House of Congress, used to issue an annual report of such waste in transportation, and the military, and in science. But scientists reacted no differently than any of those other special interest groups when their funding was critiqued. They cried foul and claimed they were being unfairly targeted. Yet they should have embraced it. He was telling them that they could easily have more funding if the government started spending the money already allocated in ways it was supposed to be spend — not to fund things that were not science (i.e. how people build relationships in Farmville, why political candidates make vague statements) and to prevent funding from becoming bureaucratic waste.

More recently, a third issue has cropped up: Concern that even studies that are science may not be very good.

I have written in the Wall Street Journal about reproducibility issues, and Adam Marcus and Ivan Oransky touch on it again today. A recent paper determined that half of examined papers could not be reproduced, and implied therefore they were flawed. But they are being too simplistic — reproducibility is actually a false metric in a lot of cases, so perhaps they mean replication, and erroneously use the terms interchangeably in their article.

Yet definitions aside, the real issue is a modern Big Science culture that makes publishing things in a hurry so important in the chase for government money.

Sixty percent of American basic research, and almost 100 percent of applied research, is corporate — and America produces the best science in the world, with five percent of the population generating over 30 percent of total output. By instead promoting government Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) initiatives across multiple government departments at a cost of billions of dollars, we have created a belief in universities that only academic science is “real” science and everything else is basically some flavor of evil Big Pharma.

John1282 note: I won’t disagree with the claim, having no access to the numbers, but my impression is that academic research in the hot policy/political areas is dominated by government money. Private sources for applied research I guess requires a definition of terms. 60% of basic research?? I always seem to see a government finger on medical research, climate research, public health research–so maybe a get a distorted picture.

In that environment, where every lab is competing against every other lab to get the prestige of a finite pool of government money, without having to get funding in the private sector, shortcuts will be common. As will be doing incremental studies guaranteed to succeed rather than doing bold science, because government penalizes failure in a way corporations do not.

One solution proposed by Marcus and Oransky, to divert funding from science in order to replicate science, is laudable but unworkable. It is a career dead-end and it passes on some of the cost and responsibility to universities that are already woefully inefficient at every level.

However, making sure there is no outright fraud, and that science funding only goes to science and not to waste or duplication, or to things that have no business getting science funding, frees up a lot more money for good science. And that means less worry about reproducibility or replication.

john 1282–Hank woefully underestimates the nature of the problem. There is a systematic and systemic junk science cabal in epidemiology studies of all kinds and way too much dishonesty and publication bias. Epidemiology and toxicology are two areas where the white coats are running a cargo cult science fraud operation in service to government agendas. Publication bias and cronyism in peer review prevents corrective action–take for example the shutting out of warming opposition in the climate journals–but it’s bad in other areas, like medical research and public health toxicology and epidemiological research dominated by Government/Academic/National Academy of Science/AAAS entities with influence and access to money and power. I have been arguing long enough from the outside to be convinced the Government Research Complex warning by IKE was dead on target, even if it makes the scientific “expert” oligarchy uncomfortable.


6 responses to “Hank Campbell picks up the issue on research funding and the NIH

  1. I’m more than a little confused. I was taught that the cycle of scientific investigations included peer review, which was really more a validation of design, structure, etc. of the study and that the real “proof” (such as it is) of a study being correct is it’s replication by other researchers using the same design and measurement instruments. That’s why all the hullaballoo about peer review always rankles. It’s as if people think peer review is the equivalent of actually doing another study to support (or not, as the results may be) the original when it’s really just a few peers looking at the paperwork and saying, “yep, looks about right to me”. So under what circumstances should reproduction/replication be discounted as no longer important? Or am I misreading what the author wrote?

  2. I thought he was wrong on that one for sure.

    replication is essential to the process–in fact the originator should have replicated to confirm the results.

    Hank apparently doesn’t understand that peer review is not close to replication as a good test of reliability and validity.

    • Whew, thank goodness. In recent years I’ve become more and more dismayed by how out of date my knowledge base is in some things. All the archaeological finds in Egypt, dinosaur discoveries, etc. that have changed what we know since I first learned it as a kid. Life gets in the way of keeping current in interesting but not life altering topics. But the scientific principle is something I always thought to be immutable because it is a proven philosophy and methodology of how to learn about the world, which is ignored at our peril.

  3. rccjr, look at my last comment–i tried to say that he was underestimating the nature of the misconduct. I also tried to say that we need to verify or validify or test the results of many of these junky studies.

    • Gotcha’ I understood and pretty much agree with your editorial comments, it’s just his last sentence was a bit world shaking, if it turned out to be true.

  4. @john1282
    How about the simple fact that well over 50% of the research NIH funds is total garbage.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s