The Funding Conundrum

          Reused pipette tips were once a odd occurrence in the lab, but they're increasingly more common. The eppendorf tube quality, which was once adequate, are now replaced with shoddy counterparts that fail to close properly and are prone to nail chipping. The purchase of an essential antibody for that dream experiment is now arduously negotiated with the principal investigator, though this practice was virtually nonexistent several years ago. These are all measures that have been taken by labs to cut costs, and unfortunately more drastic steps may quickly follow due to significant funding cuts at the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Courtesy: http://report.nih.gov/success_rates/

          The NIH is the major funding agency for biomedical research, and principal investigators rely greatly on NIH grants to support their research projects and staff. The sequester of 2013 resulted in a

5.5% NIH budget decrease to $29.15 million, which greatly reduced the number of funded research grant proposals in 2013 by roughly 650. The approval rate for grant applications in 2013 was estimated to be 14%, exponentially decreasing the chances that a grant application will be funded. Thus, a proportion of researchers looking to renew their grants were denied and many early career scientists requesting financial support for their projects were turned away.
 

         The scientific community is wading through dark times as a result of this drop in funding. Labs are closing left and right, while those that remain are forced to cut down on resources that are essential for their research. For example, a lab heavily dependent on microscopy for its projects may be forced to decrease microscopy hours. This would negatively impact research quality and progress. Postdoctoral researchers planning to apply for faculty positions are now forced to rethink their options as the possibility of reaching that goal dwindles, and graduate students with the same aspirations are facing the same grim reality.

         Scientific research faces an uncertain future. No substantial remedy for the NIH funding situation has been proposed, and it is possible that more cuts will be made to the budget. The ramifications of this dilemma ripple through the research hierarchy, and talented scientists that may have successfully led their own labs are increasingly drawn toward other career paths. Though the government struggles to maintain our country's infrastructure, officials need to ensure that biomedical research is sufficiently funded. The etiologies of many developmental disorders and diseases remain unclear, and treatment alternatives as well as prophylactic therapy for these maladies depend on the work of research scientists. It is our hope that Congress keeps these considerations in mind as we move forward.