Yesterday’s The New York Times featured a front-page story suggesting that the government’s approach to funding cancer research—particularly at the National Institutes of Health (NIH)—pushes scientists to “play it safe” and steer clear of bold ideas. The article, by Gina Kolata, touched on points scientists have complained about for years, and generated a blizzard of mostly supportive comments on the Times’s Web site. More than 200 people have weighed in so far, many of them frustrated researchers, grant reviewers, and others inside and outside the cancer field.
A number of scientists, both those commenting and those quoted in the original article, said it hasn’t always been this bad. They attribute some cautiousness to years of tight budgets under the Bush Administration. Several commenters defended the current system, particularly in an age of tough funding: “There is a limited amount of money. VERY limited,” wrote Rosa from Ohio, who said she’s reviewed NIH grants for the last 8 years. “We cannot possibly fund every wild idea without any proof of basic feasibility.”
But from the sound of it, there’s a yearning, among some at least, for wilder studies at the expense of tame ones, in the hope that they will actually make a difference.
—Jennifer Couzin-Frankel
By the way, the ultra-conservative approach to only funding things that are "sure hits" is not limited to the NCI. It pervades everything the NIH does, including biodefense, which you would think might be more open to innovation. I've given up trying to be innovative when it comes to grant writing. If you aren't orthodox and mainstream you can forget getting NIH funds. It's easier to fund continued work on "mouse medicine" because it's safe but you can forget getting a grant if you point out that humans aren't "big mice" and that newer or more evidence-driven work on non-traditional animal models of human diseases might be of greater value.