Most of his funding is from NIH grants. He is quite worried about the state of funding 5 years from now, when his current grants are up for renewal or ending (not just for his lab employees, for even perhaps for himself). Peer-reviewed grant funding has always been quite competitive, but with good grant-writing skills, an outstanding track-record of scientific achievement, and a good reputation among his peers, he has been successful in earning grants and developing an outstanding lab at an excellent non-profit research institute (ok, I’m very proud of him). The competition tends to make the good scientists better, and weed out the less competant (for the most part).

But now, even the best scientists are having trouble getting grants funded or renewed at all. It is only going to get worse if Congress and the President continue to underfund NIH (all govt departments have taken budget hits to fund the war in Iraq & Afghanistan). Basic research may be seriously compromised in the US if NIH funding continues to be reduced. Much of the current medical research is based on this basic research, sort of like a trickle down effect. Good scientists are leaving the country and going to places like Singapore & China (& the UK, to a lesser extent), where the funding is generous (especially in Asia) and stem cell research is less restricted.

Yes, I have a personal stake in this because it is my husband’s livelihood, but we also see a dark cloud ahead for basic science (and all the good stuff that trickles down from it). Drug companies will pick up the slack with more basic research perhaps, but there may be a huge price to pay for that, because then the research is patented and decisions to pursue certain areas of knowledge will be more frequently based on profit, rather than the pursuit of pure knowledge. Additionally, there will be a huge brain drain as the top folks leave the non-profit US science communities for profit based organizations or other countries, just to keep working at what they love. Most people in the NIH-funded non-profit research institutes are not in it for riches (in fact it is a long, low paying process of higher education and apprenticeship, not to mention weeding out less competitive candidates, before one earns his/her own lab and research grants), and most do it because they are extremely intellectually curious and a life pursuing knowledge is very satisfying.
Ok, off my soap box.

Ciao,
Anna
San Diego, CA

Hi Anna–

We are indeed in trouble with worse to come, I fear.  It’s going to be tough to get the Big Pharma to pony up for basic science research unless it gets them something in return.  And with NIH becoming stingier by the minute, I don’t know where it’s all heading, but it doesn’t look good. t would be great to see the extremely wealthy (Bill Gates and/or Warren Buffet, for example) to use their charities to fund basic science research, but I guess that doesn’t get the warm and fuzzies for them.

Let’s keep our fingers crossed.

Cheers–

MRE 

“Were sponsorship bias also to exist in this area of research, the health of the wider public could be affected.”

Geez! I guess so! Anecdotal evidence suggests that there’s a whole lotta trouble in River City’s favorite buffets and fast-food joints!

I’m not a scientist (actually, I’m an artist and curator), but I’ve trudged through just enough research material to realize that if it weren’t already difficult enough, ascertaining the hidden agenda(s) of the sponsors makes it downright depressing.

Mike, is there much hope for a flowering of independently sponsored nutrition studies, or will the political and economic interests of the sponsors always have to play a role in the evaluation of evidence?

R.

Hi Richard–

MRE