Today: Funding Research Homework #5 and #6 posted Inquiry 3 Report timing Per capita R&D spending

U.S. government research funding sources: National Science Foundation- NSF National Institutes of Health- NIH U.S. Dept. Agriculture- USDA NASA Centers for Disease Control- CDC Environmental Protection Agency- EPA Dept. of Defense- DoD Food and Drug Administraton- FDA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service- USFW

Where does the money come from?

Source of Funds Federal government $21,873$24,771$27,644$29,203$30,124$30,441 State/local government $2,506$2,647$2,879$2,942$2,963$3,145 Industry$2,191$2,162$2,129$2,294$2,404$2,672 Institutional funds $7,134$7,664$7,753$8,261$9,057$9,655 Other$2,701$2,857$2,852$3,093$3,196$3,517 Total R&D Expenditures $36,405$40,100$43,258$45,793$47,743$49,431 College and University R&D Expenditures ($ millions)

While for 2006 and 2007 overall funding has increased, when adjusted for inflation there has been a 1.6% decrease. In 2007 federal grants supported 62% of University research.

UT-Austin spent $447 million in academic research (2007)

Funding Problems Economic woes = reduced public and private research funds

Among the first to feel the slowdown are charitable foundations and other philanthropies, which provide billions of dollars in funding to scientists each year Science 7 November 2008: Vol no. 5903, p. 841

The Burroughs Wellcome Fund fell from nearly $700 million at the end of July to $540 million. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation lost $3.6 billion between the beginning of 2008 and the end of September, to end with $35.1 billion. Science 7 November 2008: Vol no. 5903, p. 841

The Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation has delayed $65 million in research funding to dozens of investigators for the second half of 2008 and The Nature Conservancy, with more than 600 scientists on staff, decided to cut its current research budget by 10% and laid off some scientists. Science 7 November 2008: Vol no. 5903, p. 841

U.S. Bailout May Set Back Science Funding one group that may be particularly hard hit is young researchers at the start of their careers. "If lack of funding drives our most promising young people away from careers in research, the long-term damage to science could be significant," said Kevin Finneran, editor in chief of the National Academy of Sciences journal Issues in Science and Technology

Science 7 November 2008: Vol no. 5903, pp older, established researchers compete for resources with younger, up and coming faculty

NIH research funding is more difficult to get now than it was before the NIH budget doubled, especially for early-career researchers. In 1998, about 32% of NIH applications were funded. by 2007 only 21% were funded. The percentage of NIH awardees aged 40 or under, were less than 23% in 1998, and declined to just over 15% by Science 1 August 2008: Vol no. 5889, pp

Funding Problems Conflicts of Interest

A world-renowned Harvard child psychiatrist, Dr. Biederman, whose work has helped fuel an explosion in the use of powerful antipsychotic medicines in children earned at least $1.6 million in consulting fees from drug makers from 2000 to 2007 but for years did not report much of this income to university officials, according to information given Congressional investigators.

Many of his studies are small and often financed by drug makers, his work helped to fuel a controversial 40-fold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder, which is characterized by severe mood swings, and a rapid rise in the use of antipsychotic medicines in children.

In 2000, for instance, Dr. Biederman received a grant from the NIH to study in children Strattera, an Eli Lilly drug for attention deficit disorder. Dr. Biederman reported to Harvard that he received less than $10,000 from Lilly that year, but the company told Mr. Grassley that it paid Dr. Biederman more than $14,000 in At the time, Harvard forbade professors from conducting clinical trials if they received payments over $10,000 from the company whose product was being studied, and federal rules required such conflicts to be managed.

National Institutes of Health require researchers to report to universities earnings of $10,000 or more per year. Auditing the potential conflicts of each grantee would be impossible, health institutes officials have long insisted. So the government relies on universities.

Universities ask professors to report their conflicts but do almost nothing to verify the accuracy of these voluntary disclosures. “It’s really been an honor system thing,” said Dr. Robert Alpern, dean of Yale School of Medicine. “If somebody tells us that a pharmaceutical company pays them $80,000 a year, I don’t even know how to check on that.”

Pediatric bipolar diagnoses and antipsychotic drug use in children have soared. Some 500,000 children and teenagers were given at least one prescription for an antipsychotic in 2007, including 20,500 under 6 years of age, according to Medco Health Solutions, a pharmacy benefit manager.

Philip Morris Pulls the Plug on Controversial Research Program Philip Morris External Research Program (PMERP) has funded 470 research proposals at about 60 U.S. medical schools At University of California schools, 23 grants were funded by Philip Morris as of fiscal year , for a total of $16 million. Science 29 February 2008: Vol no. 5867, p. 1173

Where does the money go?

Each researcher pays ~50% of money spent on salaries, equipment, supplies, etc to their institution... UT receives $0.50 for every $1.00 of research money spent on campus.

Who decides funding? Similarly to peer review, public granting agencies use panels to rate grant applications.

What does a grant look like? Introduction Previous results Proposed experiments and significance

We spend significant money on public research ~$50 billion in U.S. Most funding from government. More private funding brings potential conflicts of interest. Competition has increased, especially for new researchers. Barack Obama has proposed doubling federal funding for basic research over the next ten years.

Homework #7 due in 5 minutes… 1.If you found out that the lab you were working in was funded by the pharmaceutical company that produced the drug you were using in your project, would you stay in the lab or leave? Why? 2.Would it be different if you found out the funding was from the company that made the rival drug to the one you are studying? 3.Would you answer be different if you were in the last year of your Ph.D?