I thought I would post about how scientists get their funding. I’ve written about this before, so have edited a section of another document into this post at the end. I’m writing now because yesterday we had a visit to our shiny new building by Scottish comedian and broadcaster Fred MacAuley so I had a few minutes to explain what Computational Biology was and have a bit of a discussion with him and his group of friends. It might seem odd that we had a visit from a prominent media-person, but Fred is an
alumnus of our University and a former Rector of the University. Rectors are usually media-folk (the current one is Brian Cox, the Hollywood actor who generally plays bad guys in the big movies like X-men) and their high profile helps to promote the University in interesting ways. Anyway, the point is that Fred was with a group of friends, all also Alumni of the University who were celebrating 40 years since they graduated. Fred had missed the grand opening back in October of our new building so asked if he could visit for a tour. None of the group had a science background, so it was a perfect audience for my six minute “what we do in Computational Biology and why” talk with an overview of some of the highlights from our Research Division.
I really enjoy talking to non-scientists about what we do. Every time I do it, I am reminded of what a privileged and “small” world we work in. Most people have no real concept of what scientists actually do, what motivates them or even how their work is funded and this always comes out in the kinds of questions I get asked. I think a couple yesterday were:
“How often do you get a Eureka! moment?”
Well, I said: “All the time, it is just that most of them are wrong!”, or as our Research Dean Julian Blow pointed out, “They might be right, but are only small steps that you get excited about!”.
A trickier question was:
“Who tells you what to do research on?”
I hesitated with this one, but then answered that most people go into academic research and become group leaders because they don’t like to be told what to do. Certainly true in my case… The follow up question was then,
“Well, how do you decide what to do?”
This is of course complicated and like most things in life comes down to money… I didn’t say this at the time, so wanted to expand a bit here.
- Ideas are free. As an academic scientist you probably have lots of ideas. Well, I hope so. If not, you are perhaps in the wrong job!
- Proving ideas are right is not free. Even if you are a theoretician who works alone only with pencil and paper, turning your idea into a solid proof takes your time. Someone has to pay for this since you have to have food to eat and somewhere to live. If you do experimental science, then it certainly costs to set about exploring your idea since you have to build a team and pay for equipment, consumables and travel.
The following is an edited excerpt from “The UK Academic System: hierarchy, students, grants, fellowships and all that“.
All research requires people to do it, as well as equipment and consumables, not to mention space and electricity. People need to eat and have somewhere to live, so like to get paid for their work. As a consequence, all research takes money! So, where does funding for scientific research come from in the UK and how do you go about getting it? As an independent scientist (a PI – Principal Investigator), a lot of your time is spent finding ways to fund your research and maintaining continuity of staff in your research group. There is very little funding in the UK for long-term (i.e. to retirement age) appointments, just about everything is funded on short-term grants from one or more organisations. This presents an interesting and challenging problem for a PI, not to mention his/her staff.
There are three main sources of funding: Government “Research Councils”, Charities and Industry. I will focus on Research Council and Charity funding since this is the most common source and the methods of applying are similar and follow an established pattern. Funding organisations offer different types of grants to support research. They include project grants that might fund a single post-doctoral researcher for three years, some equipment money, laboratory consumables and travel (so they can go to conferences, learn what else is going on in their field and tell people about what they have done) to work on a specific problem. Project grants can be bigger or longer, but 3-years and one post-doc is the norm, at least in biology-related subjects. Longer term funding is also possible and is often referred to as a programme grant. A programme grant may fund several post-doc researchers for 5 years. This allows the PI who holds a programme grant to try more ambitious research and to develop multiple themes in their research portfolio. Most successful PIs will hold multiple grants at any one time and from multiple organisations and will spend a fair proportion of their time juggling funds to enable people coming go the end of contract to keep working until the next grant starts.
So, how do you get a grant? First, you have to have a good idea! Then, you identify the funding agency that is most appropriate to approach. There may be specific calls for proposals in your area, or you may apply in responsive mode. Funding is not infinite, not all good ideas can be supported, so funding agencies appoint committees that specialise in different areas of science to assess grants and decide which will get funded. You have to target one of these committees with your application. You then need to write the grant application. This will include a detailed costing for personnel, etc, as well as a detailed scientific case. The scientific case will include relevant background leading up to the proposed research as well as a description of what you are proposing to do. Space is usually limited to 5 pages for a three-year, single post-doc grant, so you have to be concise and clear in what you write. The application will also include sections to describe your scientific track record and previous relevant publications. Once everything is together, you submit the application to the funding agency in time for whatever deadline they work to. There is a lot of skill involved in writing grants – it is different to writing papers for publication. You have to present your past work and planned research in a way that is clear and appealing to someone who may not be an expert in your narrow field. This is a particularly big challenge.
What happens then? First, the office checks that you have included everything you should on the proposal and that your proposal is in the right area for their agency. Then, they send the proposal to up to 10 people for peer review. Other scientists in your field (often your competitors) read your grant, write comments about the grant application and give it a grading. At the next committee meeting of the committee that your grant application will be assessed, your grant will be one of many, possibly 150 that are considered in 1-2 days by the committee. The committee consists of perhaps 20 people like you who are experts in some relevant area of science, plus the administrative staff of the funding agency and will be chaired by a scientist like you. Each committee member is given a set of grants to speak to and each grant will have two committee members who will speak to it. The committee members will have been sent all the grant applications and the peer-review reports in advance of the meeting and will have carefully read at least the applications that they are speaking to. Bear in mind that each member of the committee will have had to read around 10 grants in detail, so if your grant is not written clearly, they may miss the point of it. Committee members may also read other grants in the set if they have a particular interest in them and time to do it!
All committees work in different ways, but one common procedure is as follows: At the committee meeting, the grants are initially ranked by the scores given by peer-reviewers. The committee quickly reviews low-scoring grants to check that the scores are fair, these grants are then eliminated. Any very high-scoring grants may also be put to one side as almost certain to be recommended for funding. The committee then spends most of its time discussing the rest of the proposals, which normally amounts to 80 or 90% of the proposals submitted!! Discussion goes grant-by-grant. For each grant, the two people who have to speak to the grant take it in turn to summarise the grant and what they think of it given their understanding of the proposal and the comments of the referees. The wider committee then have the opportunity to comment/ask questions and generally discuss the merits of the proposal. At the end of discussion, a score will be assigned to the grant and it will be added to a preliminary ranking of all the grants. This is often done by one of the staff on a spreadsheet that is visible on a large screen. Once all the grants have been discussed and assigned scores, the ranking is re-examined by the committee to see if, now that all grants have been considered, that the ranking given to each grant is fair. Some re-organisation of scores can happen at this stage leading to a final ranking that is put forward. The precise cut-off for funding will vary from committee to committee and from meeting to meeting depending on the amount of money the agency has available to fund grants at that time. However, many good, high-ranked grants do not get funded, simply due to lack of funds. Most scientists get used to some of their very good grants being highly ranked, but not funded.
Is the system fair? At the committee, anyone who has a conflict of interest with the proposal being discussed has to leave the room while it is discussed. A conflict might be that their own application is being discussed, or that of a colleague at their own institution. The main problem is that most grants are potentially fundable, so the committee has a difficult job ranking them. A key component on the committee is who speaks to your grant. Their opinion can make a grant go up in rank or down.
So, getting funding for your research is tough and competitive, but you can’t do research without funding. Success in obtaining funding is thus one of the metrics by which individual scientists are judged. Unfortunately, with some committees on some days, it can seem a bit of a lottery which grant applications get funded and which don’t but it is hard to see a fairer way of choosing, without injecting more money into the system.