tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-287327623125068759.post3429581009726558225..comments2023-10-10T06:23:03.133-07:00Comments on Missives from the Frontal Lobe: A rant on funding, againkldicksonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07924518681285923909noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-287327623125068759.post-35112140549271961902008-05-04T18:28:00.000-07:002008-05-04T18:28:00.000-07:00Ok, first off, guess I've been a bit more aggressi...Ok, first off, guess I've been a bit more aggressive in my posting than I should have been. My apologies. I would just say that "shooting from the hip", just isn't a good idea (listen to me, eh?).<BR/><BR/>Second, I didn't start as an environmental microbiologist. My training was in clinical microbiology (by which I mean pure clinical research ... test development, etc), followed by medical microbiology and immunology (with a more "basic science" research approach, and a heavy dose of molecular biology). Given my "skill set", applying the tools I learned to any given problem is simple. When I went looking for jobs out of my postdoc and people looked at my thesis (a heavy dose of microarray gene expression analysis in pathogen) and they're hiring someone to do environmental microbial analysis and microbial biofuel production, I simply told them "My skill set spans fields. My tools will solve your problems as easily as they solved the ones I was working on prior to applying here." <BR/><BR/>You <B>must</B> be creative. You <B>must</B> develop a set of contacts which will help you play the politics when you start your own career. You're spot on when you say there is a lot of competition for the dollars. That's when it comes down "It's who you know." as well as "It's what you know." Hopefully you've picked a Ph.D. adviser who is funded and has some good collaborators. And if not, you make sure your postdoc has those components to it.<BR/><BR/>As a fledgling scientist, there are other ways to get funding as well. When I started looking for jobs, I made sure when I applied to academia that my startup package included research dollars to see me through the first couple of years. It wasn't a huge amount, but it would've been enough. You need time to get your lab up, stocked, and running ... never mind getting a publication or two to convince people that you can do the job (you'll need the preliminary data as well). Also, while it's nice to hit a homerun with an NIH grant your first time in the batters box, swing for the smaller grants as well. I knew a researcher at the place where I got my PhD who received AHA funding to study <I>Borrelia burgdorferi</I>, the etiological agent of Lyme disease. He used that money to get some research done, collected enough data and got himself an R01.<BR/><BR/>Realistically, the funding is going to go where the public focus is. That's the way it's always been, here in the United States, and elsewhere. I'd expect more research dollars to go towards geriatric issues in the future, in part because of the large Baby Boomer population (which makes up the largest voting bloc in the USA). Finding the funding, and establishing your niche is part of the test for scientists. It's not the stress-free way to make a living I think we'd all like, but it is a tool which helps us do what we love, and pay the bills.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, I'd definitely write my congress-people, make sure my vote was carefully considered, and keep my eyes and ears open for opportunities to teach people. I'd do it with a fair degree of consideration for the individual (no matter their political, philosophical, or theological leanings). Best of luck. :)Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211618861743447072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-287327623125068759.post-65023895147847759462008-05-04T18:01:00.000-07:002008-05-04T18:01:00.000-07:00Indeed, tomjoe, but it is a little incensing that ...Indeed, tomjoe, but it is a little incensing that it has become far more of a rat race for scientists to get grants when they are younger but still may have very good research.<BR/><BR/>I see that you are an environmental microbiologist. From my knowledge, and correct me if I am wrong, studies of microbe populations in wastewater and riparian environments are pretty friggin' important right now for judging the health of an environment. You are doing research that currently has the public's attention and probably getting quite a lot of money for it. Biofuels are hot shit. You are probably well-funded. Please correct me if I'm wrong - environmental microbiology is not what I study, nor do I study much of anything having to do with anything other than organisms in the kingdom Animalia.<BR/><BR/>So 'what funding' may not be the right answer if from that you say that all scientists will be suffering from a lack of funding, but certainly, there will be a lot of competent scientists with worthy experiments asking this question if the HHS, the DOA, and the DOE's budgets don't start rising. The big topics in research right now - pollution, global warming, HIV, et cetera - are certainly important, but there are things that people are not paying attention to that are just as important, but are simply apparently not 'sexy' enough to the quivering fleshy masses to merit much attention, such as our efforts to communicate science to the rest of society and to educate the next crop of scientists, or novel ways to deal with mental illness, which affects as much as 20% of the population.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how many important priorities the government is willing to handle, since they seem to be focusing on maybe a small set of about ten to twenty, some of which are not quite as pressing and which are really very short-term problems which really ought to be passed over in favor of more long-term issues. None of the issues I've mentioned should lose much importance in the next ten years, but there are more things which the government needs to prioritize.kldicksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07924518681285923909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-287327623125068759.post-79111177927140247172008-05-04T17:21:00.000-07:002008-05-04T17:21:00.000-07:00So, in a couple years you can either say to me "To...So, in a couple years you can either say to me "Told you so." <B><I>or</I></B> I can come back and laugh at you.<BR/><BR/>The NIH spends over 28 <B>billion</B> annually on medical research. The USDA spends another ~2 <B>billion</B> on agricultural research. The DOE allocated almost 4.5 <B>billion</B> dollars for research money in 2008 as well. The well isn't going to run dry, despite any alarmist protestations to the contrary.<BR/><BR/>All of this during an obviously <I>trying</I> time. And by trying, I'm being generous.<BR/><BR/>Would we all want more research dollars? Heck yeah. Is there a fair amount of money being spent which is basically wasted? Sure, and I've said as much myself at my own blog. But nevertheless, there is a fair amount of money to go around ... and if a scientist is competent, they'll get their funding. If you're a poor research ... well, you'll flounder and not get any research dollars.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211618861743447072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-287327623125068759.post-66809747457127574272008-05-04T17:03:00.000-07:002008-05-04T17:03:00.000-07:00In a couple of years, you'll be asking 'What fundi...In a couple of years, you'll be asking 'What funding?'kldicksonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07924518681285923909noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-287327623125068759.post-26700900941728016812008-05-04T15:55:00.000-07:002008-05-04T15:55:00.000-07:00LOL. The best funding in the world can be found in...LOL. The best funding in the world can be found in the United States. Take your act elsewhere and in a couple of years you'll be wishing you were back in the USA. Besides, it makes it better for the rest of us. One less malcontent fighting for the same dollars.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211618861743447072noreply@blogger.com