NYT op-ed on science funding

Stephen Quake took over for Olivia Judson this week and wrote about his lucky experiences with funding as an early career scientist and what's wrong with the 'free market' of grants. Among his litany of accomplishments, Quake has pioneered single-molecule sequencing. I am in awe of all scientists who stepped back and asked "how can DNA sequencing be better?" while I was still feeling blessed I became a scientist at a time we could do DNA sequencing at all.

There are some minuses to Quake's idea of every scientist getting guaranteed minimal research support... because of those funds going to faculty no longer doing research (even if they claim they are), or to scientists who are not particularly good at research, mentoring, and because it holds back research that requires expensive techniques. Grants with lower dollar values going to more scientists would move the US towards other countries' funding systems. We'd have to shift how we fund personnel as well, because one can run a lab and get some experiments done on a shoestring budget, but short of using an army of unpaid undergrads, the majority of the cost of even a minimal lab budget will be salaries and stipends. But these changes have notable upsides as well, including dampening the effects of boom-bust cycles on laboratories.

As for 11-month salaries being covered by our universities -- yes please! In the current economy, however, AFT/AAUP shouldn't rise up and demand such things. It would be nice if it were more publicly known that many (most?) professors are already on summer furlough, and some schools are already furloughing faculty during the year to save money. Academics often work for free, we're not all cushy and secure in recession-proof ivory tower tenured positions. Knowing that we are sharing the pain with workers all across America might make people feel more sanguine about supporting the federal granting agencies and continuing to fund their state universities through these budget crises.