Professors seeing less money for research

Over the past few years, changes to the federal funding of faculty research have left some Penn officials satisfied with their situation and others apprehensive about the future of research.

Penn continues to hold its spot as second or third in winning grants from federal agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. It competes against major research institutions such as Harvard, Yale, Stanford and Johns Hopkins.

Despite Penn's prestigious position, David Balamuth, associate dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, said that all researchers face a serious threat -- a large federal deficit.

Due to the deficit, Vice Provost of Research Perry Molinoff said that the rate of growth for research grants will continue to slow down and will be well below the rate of inflation.

Five years ago, funds were more widely available. According to Microbiology professor Yvonne Paterson, federal funding giants like the NIH and the NSF allocated funds to about 25 percent of all research proposals during the Clinton years.

With the current federal deficit, however, funding rates have dropped to 20 percent and are expected to plummet to 13 percent. This means that only about half of the grants that were funded 5 years ago will receive funding in the coming year.

Computer Science professor Susan Davidson said that CS has felt the impact of dwindling research funds. While researchers in her department used to get a substantial number of grants, this year they received no federal funding.

"There just isn't enough in the pie. It's being sliced up thinner and thinner ... to feed everybody," Paterson said.

Other departments, however, remain well-funded. According to Balamuth, funding for research in biology, psychology, chemistry and physics has grown significantly.

Molinoff said that a large amount of funding comes from federal agencies involved with health and human services, as well as from the departments of Energy and Defense.

However, according to Davidson, the funding is spread unevenly, favoring areas that garner the attention of the current administration.

She said that up-and-coming technologies, such as robotics and nanotechnology, have received hefty grants. Areas of research that involve national defense, such as biological warfare, also have received adequate funding, a trend that Davidson attributes to the war in Iraq.

"There are people making large home runs," Davidson said.

Despite the clustered success in funding for certain areas, both Davidson and Paterson are fearful about the overall state of funding for research.

"I think the nation's priorities, in particular [President Bush's] vision for the country, lacks vision as far as research goes," Davidson said.

The competition for grants will force those involved in medical research to decrease the size and scope of their labs or cease research altogether, Paterson said.

Davidson said that drains on funding have reduced the number of graduate students accepted into research areas that lack funds. Departments can only accept those they can afford to support and train.

"The result will be an attrition in a generation of scientists," Paterson said.

According to University President Amy Gutmann, the leveling off of research funding means one of two things: either Penn must seek sources of alternative funding -- like money from non-profit organizations -- or it must compete for an even larger slice of the pie, which it has been trying to do for years.

Federal deficit aside, Balamuth said that dissatisfaction with funding is nothing new.

"In the ultra-competitive world of fundamental research, almost no one is satisfied with the funds they receive. That's a little like asking whether major league baseball players are satisfied with the number of home runs they hit -- you can always do better," he said.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.