4 ms·

> In 2017, 1% of NIH extramural grantees received 11% of the total funds. The top 10% of researchers received over 40% of the funds.36 37 This is a larger divid

> In 2017, 1% of NIH extramural grantees received 11% of the total funds. The top 10% of researchers received over 40% of the funds.36 37 This is a larger divide in wealth inequality than for the general U.S. population, where the top 10% of earners received 40% of (post-tax) income What the above does not capture is much work it takes to submit and prepare a grant. Not getting a grant also means months upon months of lost work, and years of enthusiasm out the window. Multiply the 50K unsuccessful grants by 10x to get a magnitude of the wastage.

jhart99 4y ago
This captures the problem I have with this system. The wasted effort is absolutely immense. Rejected grants do come back with comments so you can try to fix the perceived problems. You can also consult with the NIH about how you can improve. But sometimes your idea is just not going to get funded. The current pay line is about 12%. On average a researcher is going to end up failing 7/8 times. They are going to waste years of effort going back and forth to get a single R01. I don't remember the statistics but it is something like 8-10 years for a new professor to land their first R01. At my institute, you are basically required to have 2 R01 grants to keep things running. That means your job is not to do science at all, but to be a grant writing machine that gets enough funding so your lab can do whatever it is you want to do. On some level academic science is really marketing your brand of science.
- caycep 4y ago
  I was one of the ones that didn't play the political game right (choosing mentors, proper faculty appts etc) so my grant got tossed aside (triaged). Then the choice is to either do another 5 years as essentially a post-doc while the chairman grumbles that you're costing his department money, vs. going into practice and making double what the NIH protected salary would be for a K grant, and the choice was clear.

jhart99 4y ago

This captures the problem I have with this system. The wasted effort is absolutely immense. Rejected grants do come back with comments so you can try to fix the perceived problems. You can also consult with the NIH about how you can improve. But sometimes your idea is just not going to get funded. The current pay line is about 12%. On average a researcher is going to end up failing 7/8 times. They are going to waste years of effort going back and forth to get a single R01. I don't remember the statistics but it is something like 8-10 years for a new professor to land their first R01. At my institute, you are basically required to have 2 R01 grants to keep things running. That means your job is not to do science at all, but to be a grant writing machine that gets enough funding so your lab can do whatever it is you want to do. On some level academic science is really marketing your brand of science.

caycep 4y ago
I was one of the ones that didn't play the political game right (choosing mentors, proper faculty appts etc) so my grant got tossed aside (triaged). Then the choice is to either do another 5 years as essentially a post-doc while the chairman grumbles that you're costing his department money, vs. going into practice and making double what the NIH protected salary would be for a K grant, and the choice was clear.