There has been a bit of a buzz in regards to a recent NY Times article, which discusses some fallbacks in the NIH funding system. According to the article, most grants that are funded in the field of cancer research tend to be those that aren’t too risky, but have less potential for high impact. In turn, it seems that those who have big ideas, which require big bucks, often have to look for funding outside of the NIH.

But the NIH does recognize these fallbacks. The article also discusses some recent changes to the NIH funding system, which put in place pioneer awards designated to those who propose high impact but high risk projects. However, these grants are also funded at a low level (3-5%, according to the article) despite many of the applications being described as “fantastic.”

So this brings me to my point. I think we all agree that the NIH funding systems isn’t perfect, but in general, I’d say it works pretty sufficiently. It isn’t too often that you read of the NIH funding bad research, due in part, to the peer-review system and high standards set in place for scientists. Good science is rewarded in our current system. I’d say the major problem is a lack of funds. This makes funding rates lower and causes many good scientists to loose funding. Even though science has had a good year so far, even the challenge grants appear to be a lottery.

So what are we to do? As a scientist-in-training, I often wonder this. Good advice tells us to persevere and the article reminds us to also look beyond the NIH for funding. But now I turn to you Nature Networkers. In hard times, how were you able to weather the storm and continue doing your research?