The system by which the National Institutes of Health – including the National Institute on Alcoholism & Alcohol Abuse – makes grants has come under criticism.
That’s especially significant given the brouhaha over the funding of an NIAAA study by five leading bev/al suppliers. That study was killed after the funding sources were disclosed.
In an article in The Upshot, an online New York Times newsletter, Aaron E. Campbell notes that research funding in the U.S. increased only 0.8% year to year from 2004 to 2012. Officials say the NIH has lost about 23% of its purchasing power in the last 12 years.
No wonder NIAAA and other NIH components are turning to the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health to obtain funding for studies. And the Foundation looks to parties that may have an interest in the outcome of the research.
But the problem isn’t just limited to a perceived bias in research, based on who is funding the study.
One result of this funding problem is more promising researchers are washing out than ever before. Only about 20% of postdoctoral candidates who aim to earn a tenured university position achieve that goal, Campbell notes.
Equally disturbing: Only about 10% of grant proposals to the National Cancer Institute are being funded. This raises the question of whether there is breakthrough research that isn’t being done, research that could reduce suffering and save lives.
Campbell notes the current system of ranking grant proposals was devised when more than half of submitted grants were funded. “That’s very different than what we see today.”
“The current system favors low-risk research,” Campbell says. “If you’re going to fund only a small percentage of proposals, you tend to favor the ones most likely to show positive results. You don’t want to have to defend null findings as a ‘waste of money.'”
Campbell has his biases, of course. He’s a professor of pediatrics and associate dean for research mentoring at Indiana University School of Medicine.
But that doesn’t mean he has a very valid point.