That US$20.5 Billion Stimulus for R&D -- A Radical Suggestion. (October 26, 2009)

For its October 15^th issue Nature asked six "experts" regarding "what concerns them most about the US stimulus spending as regards the injection of US$20.5 billion over two years.

Four of the six had as a principal worry the possible (probable?) hard landing for recipients following the two year funding injection.

Michael Crow, President, Arizona State University, is primarily concerned that: "For too long, American science policy at the highest level has been mostly about the amount of funding and not enough about the outcomes of funding... The stimulus funding will demonstrate the weaknesses in the American model for innovation, and will do so quickly. The country produces basic science, but it fails to capture the social and economic returns. Many of those who are best-equipped to produce basic science have the least incentive to ensure that those returns are captured. However, the nation can develop solutions to poverty, health inequities and environmental sustainability if it can approach research from an outcomes basis, and if it can orient knowledge towards real-world applications."

On the other hand Daniel S. Greenberg, a journalist specializing for many years in science and health policy, the author of Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion and The Politics of Pure Science, and perhaps because he is less concerned about biting the feeding hand is more combative in his suggestion that "a new virtual agency could do better than existing agencies" in distributing the stimulus funds.

He writes: The stimulus money will, unfortunately, mainly reinforce the status quo at government research agencies. Political priorities for the stimulus were speed of delivery, job preservation and job creation. Even abiding by those criteria, the windfall still might have done some good, especially at the NIH. Its $10.4 billion could have been used to overcome two chronic failings long lamented by the NIH's own leadership: neglect of the young and aversion to risk.

How to remedy the "disease"?

Set up a nimble, online-only proposal, review and award process dedicated to youth and scientific risk. Under the present costly and slow system, thousands of NIH peer reviewers travel each year to meet for face-to-face discussions. The results, by the NIH's own account, favour established researchers and humdrum proposals. He goes on to note: The median age for first grants now stands at 41, according to The New York Times. The bulk of the NIH's stimulus bonanza is going to a backlog of previously approved proposals that went unfunded for lack of money. Thus, more of the same. The National Science Foundation (NSF), graced with $3 billion in stimulants, is following suit." furthermore, "Last year, the NIH reported funding more people over the age of 70 than under the age of 30. This was nothing new. Despite repeated demands for concrete actions from NIH leadership, the response, too often, is anguished oratory.

Therefore: Next time politicians want to add billions for research, they might consider a truly risky approach: bypass the venerable agencies, set up a new virtual agency and belt out a few billions to bold, young researchers. The results could be stimulating.