Posts Tagged ‘science funding’

New Study: Funding Science is Good for the US Economy

 :: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 04-04-2014

University research is a key component of the US economic ecosystem, returning the investment through enormous public value and impact on employment, business, and manufacturing nationwide.

Using new data available to examine the short-term economic activity generated by science funding, researchers have for the first time been able to illuminate the breadth of the scientific workforce and the national impact of the research supply chain that is funded by federal grants.

Most of the workers supported by federal research funding are not university faculty members. In fact, fewer than one in five workers supported by federal funding are faculty researchers. The study, published this week in the journal Science, provides the first detailed information about the short-term economic impacts of federal research spending, the researchers said.

Using a new data set, the researchers also found that each university that receives funding spends those dollars throughout the United States – about 70 percent spent outside their home states – supporting companies both large and small.

The researchers conclude that federal funding has a wider impact than is often assumed. “The process of scientific research supports organizations and jobs in many of the high skill sectors of our economy,” the researchers wrote in Science.

The study was conducted by researchers from the American Institute of Research, the Committee on Institutional Cooperation, University of Michigan, University of Chicago, and the Ohio State University. The data came from the STAR METRICS project, which is a partnership between federal science agencies and research institutions to document the outcomes of science investments to the public.

In this study, the researchers examined STAR METRICS data from nine universities – Michigan, Wisconsin-Madison, Minnesota, Ohio State, Northwestern, Purdue, Michigan State, Chicago and Indiana (all members of the Committee on Institutional Cooperation consortium).

The universities in this study received about $7 billion in total research and development funding in 2012, and about 56 percent of that came from the federal government.

One key insight from the study was whose jobs were supported by federal funding. “Workers with many different skill levels are employed, and these are not primarily faculty,” the authors said.

Faculty members accounted for fewer than 20 percent of the people supported by federal funding. About one in three workers is either a graduate student or an undergraduate. One in three is either research staff or a staff scientist, and about one in ten is a post-doctoral fellow.

The study also sheds light on where universities spend the federal funding they receive. In 2012, almost $1 billion of research expenditures were spent with U.S. vendors and subcontractors.

Of those expenditures, 15 percent went to vendors in the university’s home county, 15 percent in the rest of the home state and the balance to vendors across the United States.

The researchers noted that universities bought goods and services from a wide range of contractors in a variety of industries: everything from test tubes to telescopes and microscopes to gene sequencing machines.

Many of the purchases came from large U.S companies. But as the researchers examined the websites of some of the tens of thousands of vendors, “we were struck by how many are small, niche, high-technology companies…” they wrote.

Noting the scope of the impact of scientific work being done across universities, co-author Roy Weiss, Deputy Provost for Research at the University of Chicago, said, “Research universities are dedicated to the discovery of new knowledge. This study reports the first cooperative endeavor by multiple universities to evaluate the benefit of government investment in research. In addition to making the world a better place by virtue of these discoveries, we now have data to support the overall benefits to society.”

“The main purpose of science funding isn’t as a jobs or stimulus program, but this study shows there are also major short-term economic benefits to science funding,” said Bruce Weinberg, co-author and professor of economics at Ohio State.

As Julia Lane, Senior Managing Economist at the American Institutes for Research and a lead researcher on the project, summarized, “This study provides evidence that while science is complicated, it is not magic. It is productive work. Scientific endeavors employ people. They use capital inputs. Related economic activity occurs immediately. Policy makers need to have an understanding of how science is produced when making resource allocation decisions, and this study provides that information in a reliable and current fashion.”

Thanks to the Committee on Institutional Cooperation for contributing this story.

Why American Patriots Need to Support Science

 :: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 03-12-2014

Eloquently said by The Science Guy.

)

Is American Research Going Down the Drain?

 :: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 03-14-2012

Disclosure: I don’t believe that we are in as bad a shape as some would have us believe. Nonetheless, in a recent survey conducted by Research!America more than half of likely voters doubt that the United States will be the No. 1 world leader in science, technology and health care by the year 2020.

Significant findings include:

  • 57% are upset by cuts in federal spending for medical and health research
  • 54% think that federal spending for medical and health research should be exempt from across-the-board cuts outlined in the Budget Control Act of 2011
  • 58% of Americans do not believe the United States will be a world leader in science and technology in 2020
  • 53% of Americans do not believe the United States will be a world leader in health care in 2020
  • 65% of Americans say it’s important that the U.S. is a leader in medical and health research
  • 85% of likely voters are concerned about the impact of a decreased federal investment in research, including the possibility of scientists leaving their profession or moving abroad to countries with a stronger investment in research
  • 66% of likely voters believe government investment in medical and health research will have an impact on the future of the United States
  • Nearly 70% of Americans believe science and math education will have an impact on the future of the United States

There is, of course, an upside to all of these negative findings, and that is that more than half of likely voters (64%) say they would be more likely to vote for a presidential candidate who supports increased government funding for medical and health research. We are fortunate to live in a strong democracy. We have the power to change the future!

What are your thoughts?

Jump on the proteomic bandwagon

 :: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 03-06-2012

Proteomics is about to take a big leap forward, that is if the NIH can help it.

Last week, the NIH put out a request for information aimed at determining how best to accelerate research in disruptive proteomics technologies. The organization is hoping that submissions will aim to greatly outperform current mass spec technologies and introduce an all new way of advancing proteomic questions.

According to the proposal:

The Disruptive Proteomics Technologies (DPT) Working Group of the NIH Common Fund wishes to identify gaps and opportunities in current technologies and methodologies related to proteome-wide measurements. For the purposes of this RFI, “disruptive” is defined as very rapid, very significant gains, similar to the “disruptive” technology development that occurred in DNA sequencing technology.

These are exciting times for the field of proteomics. Don’t be left behind! Click here to find out more on how to get involved today!

Is a financial crisis in the cards for American scientists?

 :: Posted by American Biotechnologist on 11-23-2011

GenomeWeb Daily News is reporting that a dozen Congressional leaders tasked with striking a bipartisan agreement to cut the federal deficit said yesterday that they have failed to reach a deal, and that failure would now trigger a plan that would, if enacted, cut research funding across the government by nearly 8 percent.

What impact do you believe this might have on your research activities?

Click here to read more.