The biology community is reeling from the rather sudden dropoff of NIH funding (from double-digit percent growth a few years ago to now an actual decline for the first time in decades). Some are saying, with the benefit of hindsight, that a smaller but steadier, longer-term rate of increase would have been better than short-term explosive growth followed now by plunging morale. More grant proposals are being rejected and universities are scrambling to find funding elsewhere to keep their new facilities (built during the boom) afloat, according to an article from Inside Higher Ed.

A Tufts vice provost says in the article that Tufts has hired people to help with grant writing. This may help improve one’s chances of getting funding, but it certainly doesn’t solve the problem of more researchers applying for a shrinking pot of money. Will this drive away young biologists from academic research?

And thinking more long-term, will the shock of the bust wear off? Could this possibly even be a good thing, forcing the biological research community (already pretty well funded compared to other areas of scientific research) to adjust and recalibrate to a more steady and manageable state of growth and maintenance?

Also, from today’s Globe, an op-ed calling on Congress to increase NIH funding by 5 percent.