This is our second article in the Postdoc Perspective Series that deals with the new challenges facing our generation of life scientists. The first article (Taking the “Alternative” out of Alternative Careers in Science) discussed the evolution of new postdoc career options emerging as a result of the bleak academic job market and increased growth in industry. This month the focus is on the funding patterns of the National Institutes of Health vis-à-vis postdocs and faculty. Most of the data we draw on was compiled by the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) and can be found at http://opa.faseb.org/pages/PolicyIssues/training_datappt.htm.

First, let’s analyze the cold hard data. In 2006 the NIH spent approximately $750 million, up from $300 million in 1990 on Training Grants and Fellowships. The overall NIH budget has increased more dramatically, however, and the percentage of NIH funds dedicated for Training Grants and Fellowships has actually decreased from about 4.2% to 2.6%. As a case in point, when we examine the F32 postdoctoral fellowships (a.k.a the Ruth Kirchstein National Research Service Awards) the number of these awards granted were virtually unchanged from 1990 to 2006 leading to a drop in the average success rates from 42% in 1990 to 27% in 2006. In 1990, there were roughly 34,000 postdocs in the US supported by research grants, non-federal sources, traineeships or fellowships. In 2006, this number increased to about 56,000. Interestingly, the percentage of postdocs supported by research grants increased from 53% in 1990 to 57% in 2006, while the percentage of those supported by fellowships decreased from 7% to 5%. The above data reflects the increasing competitiveness for postdoctoral funding due to the excess of postdocs relative to the funding capacity of federal and non-federal sources.

Unfortunately, the funding situation for new PIs is also rather grim. Receiving your first R01 grant from the NIH, long known as the bedrock of a biomedical lab’s finances, is becoming increasingly difficult. Since 1995, the number of R01s awarded has been essentially flat despite a 42% increase in the funding of all research project grants. This suggests that investigators must ameliorate the R01 deficiency by tapping into non-federal funding sources—often these funding sources are more likely to favor more experienced investigators over first-timers. As a consequence, more institutions might be hedging their bets by recruiting established PIs in favor of successful postdocs. This is reflected in data surveying US medical schools: although showing steady increases in total faculty since 1970, the percentage of first-time faculty has dropped from 13% in 1970, to 8% in 1990 and 3% in 2006. Most of the hiring increases have been in clinical departments and very little in basic science departments. Furthermore, due to the increasing length of the Ph.D. and postdoc, the average age of a first-time R01 investigator has increased from 36.7 years in 1970 to 43.3 in 2006!

After painting this increasingly bleak picture of federal funding in the US for postdocs and first time faculty, what, if anything, is being done to improve the situation? In a number of public statements, the NIH director has acknowledged the funding woes of our generation of postdocs. To address this issue, the NIH has introduced the Research Scholar Development Award (the K22), and more recently, the Pathway to Independence Award (the K99). These types of awards are often termed “bridging fellowships” as they provide funding to individuals at the end of their postdocs in addition to funds to start their own independent research in a faculty position. It is unfortunate to note that once the K99s were introduced, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund eliminated their prestigious bridging fellowships for Ph.D.s (not M.D.s). Furthermore, there have been suggestions that new investigator grants get priority on grant panels, although nothing official has been put in place. Perhaps most interestingly, there is evidence that the apparent pessimism surrounding the current funding situation is not shared by institutions across the country. Despite the flattening budget landscape, the amount of institutional investments in research facilities over the last four years is almost double that of the prior four years (1998-2003). It is unclear whether such investments reflect a projected increase in tenure or non-tenure track positions.

Related Articles:

• Postdoc Perspective: Taking the “Alternative” out of Alternative Careers in Science