To reduce the focus of grant-funded labs on obtaining their next grant (i.e., ensuring their continued existence), funding organizations should deliberately for

To reduce the focus of grant-funded labs on obtaining their next grant (i.e., ensuring their continued existence), funding organizations should deliberately force a soft cap on the number of research PIs. In the context of biomedical research, US universities have been on a hiring spree for the past 25 years. The number of BME departments increased 150% from 1995 to 2005. This expansion was partially funded by Whitaker Foundation money, which ended in 2006. Consequently, the NIH award rate for R01 grants, which are they main lab support mechanism, fell from 27% to ~ 15%. Naturally, funding a lab in a 15% award rate environment takes much more time (probably 3× more; it's nonlinear due to competition), to the detriment of time spent on research and training. This has a corrosive effect on every aspect of publicly-funded science. The NIH has strong leverage to correct this. Grant awards include both "direct" and "indirect" costs. Direct costs go to the applicant (PI). Indirect costs go to their /institution/ (employer). Indirect costs are calculated relative to direct costs, generally 70% (so the total awarded sum is 170% of direct costs), but the rate is negotiated and institution-specific. The NIH could penalize institutions with too many soft money (grant-supported) positions by reducing those institutions' indirect cost rates, or even requiring institutional matching, until the number of grant-supported positions falls to a level at which they can place their main focus on doing the work they are nominally funded to do. This would reduce the number of publicly-funded scientists, but would let them act more like scientists and less like marketers.