A lengthy article
appeared today in the New York Times entitled, “Billionaires With
Big Ideas Are Privatizing American Science.” The author, William Broad, is a
science reporter for the Times. He notes
how government funding for research has declined in real dollar terms for
years. The chart below shows that in terms of constant 1995 dollars, the
overall NIH budget has been falling for the last decade. (Click on the figures to enlarge). This has been
paralleled by an ever-decreasing success rate in funding grants from
investigators (second chart). During the
years I was reviewing for the National Institutes for Allergy and Infectious
Diseases (NIAID), their payline was never over 10%. That means that less than 10% of the grants
we would review would get funded. At the
worst, the payline was around 6%. One
meeting, maybe 30 reviewers met in the basement of a hotel somewhere for two
days and scored about 110 grants. Seven
were actually funded. Don’t get me wrong.
In the study section where I was reviewing, there were only a small
number of truly deserving applications – but that number was certainly more
than 6%. Reviewers typically spend a minimum of two hours reviewing each grant
and writing up a report of their review. Of course, someone has to do this work
– but it’s no longer me. The point of this is, as Mr. Broad has pointed out,
government funding for research is going down the toilet in this great world power
of a country. (Caveat – BARDA has been a
wonderful exception here).
What appears to be happening is that,
increasingly, billionaires are funding research. According to Mr. Broad, what are the areas
most likely to get money? Cancer – especially prostate cancer (most of the
billionaires are men and some have had prostate cancer) - surprise. Other
subjects popular among the philanthropists include the environment,
exploration, aging and genetic diseases. Gee – what is missing from this
list? Oh – antibiotics and antibiotic
resistance! The closest thing we get to support for that comes from the Gates Foundation
and their work on malaria and TB. This
is wonderful and sorely needed – but what about resistance among Gram negative
bacilli? What about new antibiotics to
treat resistant infections? If we leave
this totally up the pharma, we could be in trouble. Don’t we need to hedge our bet here? Apparently,
all the talk of the second coming of the pre-antibiotic era has not been enough
to get the attention of the billionaire research patrons. Why not?
I think it’s all about whom you know and who
knows you. I just don’t hang out with
billionaires. Does anyone out there have
a line into a billionaire who might be interested in establishing an antibiotics
research institute? Lets make it
non-profit and evergreen. Lets make it competent and staff it with academics
who have spent time in industry and with ex-industry scientists with expertise
on antibiotics. There must be a ton of
them out there looking for jobs given what’s been happening in pharma over the
last 15 years. We could even make the institute, at least partly,
geographically dispersed and connected virtually.
In the meantime, we have to hope that more
pharma companies will get back into the antibiotic game and that they will do
so competently. I don’t think that there
is any hope for a strong presence of government funding here.
No comments:
Post a Comment