Even as the president and Congress make overtures about the importance of greater investment in science, federal agencies are under increasing pressure to make the most efficient use of the funds they are given. Bruce Alberts, editor-in-chief of Science Magazine, and others say that traditional funding mechanisms have created a peer-review culture that funds conservative and incremental science (1). In response, federal agencies, nonprofits and private enterprises are developing new ways to fund creative, innovative and breakthrough-oriented science. But will they create more scientific “bang” for our buck?
Highlights from the Policy Blotter
•The American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Policy Blotter blog posts regular news and commentary about current science policy issues. Below are some recent highlights. You can read them and other posts at http://asbmbpolicy.asbmb.org.
• A Lesson From Nobel Laureates:
Basic Science Requires Federal Dollars (http://wp.me/pFLHF-27)
President Obama’s recent visit with the 11 American 2009 Nobel Prize laureates underscores the importance of federal funding for basic science.
• An Ongoing Conversation:
Women In Science
Several nonprofits, blogs and federal agencies recently have released publications about women in science, and some have surprising takes on the issue.
• NIH, Collins Announce
Approval of Stem-Cell Lines
The National Institutes of Health has approved the use of 13 lines of stem cells under a new policy that will expand dramatically the resources available for regenerative biomedical research.
• “Growing Pains” for Evolution (http://wp.me/pFLHF-1W)
Actor Kirk Cameron has teamed up with a creationist group to promote a version of Darwin’s “Origin of the Species” with a creationist introduction.
Identifying Innovative Projects
Traditional science funding is project oriented. Proposals historically have required detailed descriptions of specific methods and preliminary data. Peer-review panels traditionally have chosen proposals that may be the best science but are also most likely to succeed. Many policymakers and scientists say that approach has created a culture adverse to the risk-taking necessary for innovative research.
In response, federal agencies recently have re-evaluated their grant-review procedures to make the process more innovation-friendly. For example, the National Institutes of Health recently changed its grant application form, reducing its length and requiring less preliminary data and fewer specific research methods (2). Further, the National Science Foundation has adopted the language of innovation into every grant review it facilitates. Since 2008, the NSF has used a definition of so-called “transformative” research to instruct reviewers in identifying research on the scientific cutting edge (3).
But, the NIH and the NSF have gone even further and created project-based funding mechanisms that attempt to specifically fund innovative research. For example, the NIH’s Exceptional, Unconventional Research Enabling Knowledge Acceleration (EUREKA) Awards “target investigators who are testing novel, unconventional hypotheses or are pursuing major methodological and technical challenges” (4). Demonstrating that it, too, will fund yet-untested ideas, the NSF has created the Early-concept Grants for Exploratory Research (EAGER) to support potentially transformative ideas or approaches in the absence of preliminary data (5).
Other agencies in the U.S. defense and energy departments are specifically tasked with funding innovative research projects. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is famous for supporting efforts that led to the development of the stealth fighter and the Internet (6). The Department of Energy’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, ARPA-E, is modeled after DARPA and aims to fund “nimble, creative inventive approaches to transform the global energy landscape” (7).
“People, Not Projects”
While federal agencies rely on project-based grants to fund the vast majority of research, some private foundations have developed different philosophies. By funding “people, not projects,” Howard Hughes Medical Institute believes that scientists will be able to “capitalize on a flash of insight that occurs at three in the morning,” Gerald M. Rubin, vice president of the institute, said in recent testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives’ Committee on Science and Technology (8). The institute’s investigator program provides multiyear funding to individuals who will creatively push the boundaries of science, working at the frontiers of their chosen fields. With funding that is not tied to any specific project or proposal, the institute hopes to give investigators the “ability to move quickly to take advantage of unforeseen targets of opportunity,” Rubin said.