The National Institute of Health (NIH) doubled their funding in just 5 few years, starting in the late 1990’s, until this exponential increase in funds came to an abrupt halt. The document “A Broken Pipeline,” put together by a number of concerned scientists, addresses the issue of the hostile environment that developed under the severe financial pressure academic research institutions are facing as a result of losing funds. Nonetheless, halting thousands of innovative research projects with promise is unacceptable, especially when the research being performed is detrimental to keeping up with progress in our rapidly advancing age. The urgency of the scientists in “A Broken Pipeline” is absolutely justified, and I strongly agree that funds
…show more content…
Because of the immense financial pressure suddenly put on the NIH only one in four original research applications are getting funded, and even those that find success are funded almost exclusively after “lengthy delays and cumbersome reapplications,” (A Broken Pipeline). Many young scientists were attracted to the field and veterans were encouraged to stick with their research 10 years ago, but now the competition for grant approval between junior investigators and their mentors is highly discouraging. Scientists trying to start their careers are struggling immensely because funds are solely available for their veteran counterparts, who hold many more years of experience and credibility behind their studies. The median age of first-time research project grant recipients has increased continuously since 1970, but as of 2008 the median age of grant recipients was 41 years old (MEDIAN AGE GRAPH). This means most scientists right now are doing work under mentors for a large portion of their career, instead of doing their own, independent research. Consequently, junior investigators are deciding to leave academia all together to pursue private research (A Broken Pipeline). The Director of the NIH (in 2008), Elias Zerhouni, predicted that in less than 15 years, there will be more scientists older than 65 than those younger …show more content…
“A Broken Pipeline” brings to light a lot of growing problems in the industry since funding slowed, but there are structural issues that existed even before financial pressure skyrocketed. In a more recent article by Michael White, he explains that universities don’t fully consider whom they are training because they are regarded as temporary, but their system is unsustainable (White). Constantly training more and more scientists in an already fiercely competitive field is encouraging a full blown disaster, leaving a large portion of the same scientists dissatisfied and stagnant in the progression towards their own research. White also explains the improper “tournament model”, describing it as “a situation in which small advantages—in productivity, skill, or network connections—translate into large differences in rewards like faculty jobs, grant funding, and tenure,” (White). As a result, competition between investigators is intensified by another degree. This leads to wasting a lot of the resources scientists depend on, prospectively destroying their careers in the process, as well as turning future innovators away from the field. Until a consensus is made the problem will continue to inflate and progressive research will
Because of the immense financial pressure suddenly put on the NIH only one in four original research applications are getting funded, and even those that find success are funded almost exclusively after “lengthy delays and cumbersome reapplications,” (A Broken Pipeline). Many young scientists were attracted to the field and veterans were encouraged to stick with their research 10 years ago, but now the competition for grant approval between junior investigators and their mentors is highly discouraging. Scientists trying to start their careers are struggling immensely because funds are solely available for their veteran counterparts, who hold many more years of experience and credibility behind their studies. The median age of first-time research project grant recipients has increased continuously since 1970, but as of 2008 the median age of grant recipients was 41 years old (MEDIAN AGE GRAPH). This means most scientists right now are doing work under mentors for a large portion of their career, instead of doing their own, independent research. Consequently, junior investigators are deciding to leave academia all together to pursue private research (A Broken Pipeline). The Director of the NIH (in 2008), Elias Zerhouni, predicted that in less than 15 years, there will be more scientists older than 65 than those younger …show more content…
“A Broken Pipeline” brings to light a lot of growing problems in the industry since funding slowed, but there are structural issues that existed even before financial pressure skyrocketed. In a more recent article by Michael White, he explains that universities don’t fully consider whom they are training because they are regarded as temporary, but their system is unsustainable (White). Constantly training more and more scientists in an already fiercely competitive field is encouraging a full blown disaster, leaving a large portion of the same scientists dissatisfied and stagnant in the progression towards their own research. White also explains the improper “tournament model”, describing it as “a situation in which small advantages—in productivity, skill, or network connections—translate into large differences in rewards like faculty jobs, grant funding, and tenure,” (White). As a result, competition between investigators is intensified by another degree. This leads to wasting a lot of the resources scientists depend on, prospectively destroying their careers in the process, as well as turning future innovators away from the field. Until a consensus is made the problem will continue to inflate and progressive research will