Research spending isn't all about the money

WITH Americans nervous about the economy, Washington and industry leaders have increasingly called for the federal government to ramp up investment in research. Federal support for university research, in particular, is seen as a way to ensure that the United States has a steady stream of innovative ideas to keep the economy humming and foreign competition at bay.

Congress and the president agree in principle that the budgets of key research funding agencies should increase substantially in the coming years. Yet the amount of funding for research inevitably will fluctuate over time. Regardless of the size of the pie, it is crucial that the dollars available are spent wisely. That way, the United States gets the most bang for its research buck.

A report released recently by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences points to two priorities that need greater attention - support for early-career researchers and funding for the most daring research. Absent such supprt, the United States risks losing a generation of productive researchers and innovative ideas.

The report, called ARISE (Advancing Research in Science and Engineering), was drafted by 22 leading scientists from a variety of fields, including five Nobel Prize winners. It paints a worrisome picture of the status quo. Newly hired research faculty - those entering what may be their most productive years - have a hard time finding funds to support their work. On average, biomedical researchers don't receive their first grant from the National Institutes of Health, their primary source of funding, until they are 42.

The percentage of grants from the National Institutes of Health going to new researchers has been falling, and most researchers waste time by having to submit multiple applications before they receive their first grant. The situation is equally bleak at the National Science Foundation. The approval rate for grant applications from new researchers has fallen to 15 percent, and, on average, first-time awardees have already been done with their schooling for nine years.

The US research system has also become very risk-averse. Scientists tend to submit conservative research proposals for fear that more innovative ideas will be turned down.

The result of these trends is that the United States is being deprived of the kinds of path-breaking work that could be the basis of future economic success - the next leapfrogging technology on the order of the Internet or entire new fields like biotechnology.

The government can take steps to overcome these barriers to innovation. The problem is inertia more than it is a lack of funds. Federal agencies should set up, or in some cases expand, programs that are devoted exclusively to funding early-career investigators and the most innovative, potentially transformative research. If the research budget increases, then these programs should be the first to get new funds. If budgets do not increase, then money needs to be shifted into these programs from less productive programs, projects, and centers.

Ongoing programs also have to be administered so they do not disadvantage young researchers or far-reaching ideas. For example, peer reviews of first-time and second-time grant applications should have expectations appropriate for that career stage, paying more attention to an investigator's promise. To promote potentially transformative research, applications should minimize detailed methodology and instead explain the impact the research would have if successful. And progress reports should explain the applicant's most important accomplishments, not just list prior publications.

The US research system needs more money, but mechanisms of funding also need to be transformed through simple but definite steps or the United States will continue to turn away the very people and ideas that would have the biggest payoff for the entire nation. The political debate in Washington needs to be expanded to make sure these priorities are addressed.

Thomas R. Cech, president of Howard Hughes Medical Institute, chaired the American Academy of Arts & Sciences' ARISE Committee.