Biological research funding

This AM on public radio there was a story about the lack of research grant money and what a difficult time biomedical researchers had keeping their research labs going. Now here's the thing, these are biomedical researchers, and they've always had access to more research money than any other part of biology to the point that we like to say the human bio-medical tail wags the biology dog. The hunt for grant money shapes many hiring decisions at research universities.  TPP takes no pleasure in hearing about researchers' grant money woes, but try getting botanical research funded that doesn't include wheat, maize, or soybean in the title. So easy street is drying up for biomedical type research, but it's always been like pulling teeth to get grant money for botanical research. And actually in terms of bang for your buck, giving us small science guys money would result in more students doing more research than when you give it to big money research. For $50,000 TPP could do research for 5 years using most of the money to keep students fed. That much money wouldn't keep the doors of a big biomedical research lab open for 3 months. And small money grants are even harder to find and to get than big money grants. The competition for grants now creates a boom or bust cycle, and generally that's not an efficient use of resources at all. Presently the USA is selling its biological research down the river because it doesn't want to invest in the future. This is part of the anti-science, anti-education attitude that has permeated our government and such politicians don't mind throwing the baby out with the bath water to get rid of the parts of science they don't like. Unless research at universities is protected, science will begin to erode, and already it's obvious that whatever leadership the USA had in its public education system is slipping away. Like many other things, the lack of biomedical research funding is symptomatic of an even bigger problem of continually decreased funding for higher education as a whole. You see, the only way to really teach science is to do science, and that takes time and money.  Fortunately, my research has been cheap and TPP has been able to absorb personally the costs of his research up to a point; students have got to eat, at least a little.

Do you study a cute enough organism to get patron funding?

How cute is that?  Here's a well known entomologist trying to drum up research support on line.  The problem is that charismatic organisms tend to get support from "enthusiasts" or their organizations, but for the most part the USA fails to support small science, so this is what it has come to.  People who do big science are tied to a boom or bust grant cycle either because the cost of their research demands it or their university demands it.  A hefty percentage of every grant goes to "indirect costs", the institution's take for providing you with a place to work.  But that's not what the Phactor wishes to complain about.  A lot of us do research that does not require big money, and in all honesty cannot compete for grants with the big money, and yet we still do worthwhile and useful research, often involving undergraduate students, and for us $50,000, or $20,000, or even $10,000 a year would pay the bills and keep the student fed.  Yes, research has shown that students actually need to eat.  And in terms of "bang for the buck", 10 small science operations at $50,000/yr may well generate more science than one big science operation for $500,000/yr.  No question about it, science needs both, so far from dumping on my big money colleagues or my entomological colleague, although one cannot condone pandering, the Phactor has been known to make an annual plea (2010, 2011) for a patron of botany.  But so far none of my readers have decided to become the Phactor's patron.  Here's even a cute cuddly picture of one of my research organisms.  Aw, the pretty little prairie lousewort (Pedicularis canadensis), an obligate parasite that taps into its neighbors' roots stealing water and nutrients from their xylem because, and here, perhaps, honesty hurts chances of getting a patron, it literally sucks.  But it's still a green plant and it has a considerable impact on the prairie community, and trying to find out why and how it does these things takes some young backs (see above: research on feeding students).  Lastly need we ask if the Phactor is charismatic enough, appealing enough, interesting enough to have a patron?  The silence speaks for itself.

Wanted - A Patron of Botany

Two things grieve me severely. 1. My back isn’t getting any younger and more and more of my research takes place at ground level, or so it seems. 2. Students who miss out on first-hand scientific experiences because of too few resources. And that is the point of today’s missive; the Phactor needs some patrons of botany. Artists have patrons; why not botanists? Surely somebody out there with deep pockets, and actually they don’t have to be that deep, wants to support students interested in botanical research. The Laboratory for Plant Identification and Conservation stands ready to accept your charitable donations. A mere $10,000 a year would keep several students in groceries while happily engaged in research. A mere $100,000 would endow the laboratory and the herbarium collection within providing perpetual support. Just so potential patrons understand, not a cent goes to support the Phytophactor; that’s Mrs. Phactor’s role. And those young minds (and backs!) are needed for the future of botany. While our government daily fritters away billions as if pennies on dubious international escapades, the educational needs of tomorrow’s botanists, apprenticed by engaging in today’s research under the tutorage of experienced and worldly scholars, are not being met. The funding rate from the National Science Foundation has fallen to the lowest level (less than 5% of grants are funded) in my entire career, so needless to say governmental support is far from filling even the minimal research needs, especially those of us who are not at large research universities, those of us who deal with undergraduates rather than post-docs. Failing to support basic research is just one more way that our governmental system is mortgaging our country’s future. But rather than castigate any individuals for having accumulated a large share of this nation’s wealth, how about allowing some of it to trickle down to the grass roots of botanical research? Every Hummer that drives by represents one person with misplaced values; for the difference in price between an impractical and a practical vehicle, you could support a student’s research for a year. You’d never regret your decision. You’d see your name in the scientific literature. You’d be invited to our fabulous end of harvest gala balls (we serve pizza, or sometimes fry a turkey). And we'd love you, really. Your support would allow a clever and committed waitress to rush to a few less tables each evening carrying a few less plates of pasta, a job she needs to make ends meet even after working in the field all day. We’ve got some great youth in this country, and we have lots of interesting things for them to do, but they can’t eat grass. Contact the Phytophactor at his google-mail account with any serious inquiries.