Submission: Loss of government funding hurts scientific research, economy

By David Eisenberg

Classes and instruction go on as usual at UCLA, but those of us dedicated also to scientific research are increasingly squeezed by the United States budget sequestration and the federal government shutdown.

The dollars that pay for most of the work in our labs come from the federal government. True, the University of California supports most faculty salaries, and some private foundations such as the Howard Hughes Medical Institute support university research, but the great bulk of UCLA research funding comes from the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy.

Without these funds from U.S. government agencies, there would be almost no scientific equipment in our labs. We would be paralyzed without expensive supplies such as chemicals and enzymes and we would be unable to provide salary support for the scientists who carry out the day-to-day research. These scientists include the graduate research assistants who are learning how to do research as well as postdoctoral fellows and professional scientists.

As government scientific funding tapers down, our students and professional researchers increasingly lack the tools and supplies they need for their work, and we are faced more and more often with the unpleasant task of telling our colleagues that we can no longer support them.

On the larger scale, the stream of scientific discoveries that has created and fueled our biotechnology, information technology and green energy economy is drying up. To the extent that this stream dwindles, America surrenders new technologies to the rest of the world and our economy is sure to wind down too.

The research budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy have not kept pace with the number of U.S. scientists over the past several years. Stretched thin already, the budgets of these agencies have been cut anew by the budget sequestration. I hear every day of California scientists who have lost funding for their labs. Even one of the new California Nobel Prize awardees in chemistry recently reported on National Public Radio that he had lost the research grant that had supported his work for 20 years.

The federal government shutdown is further dragging us down.

Submission of new grant proposals has been suspended, and the peer review system which prioritizes the few grants available for funding has now ground to a halt.

From the National Institutes of Health, no new grants are now being awarded. Also, government-run websites, such as those of the National Library of Medicine, essential for our work, are faltering. In addition, government-supported research facilities, such as the crucial synchrotron particle accelerators, may have to close. Fear of funding loss is causing UCLA faculty to cut back on the number of students and employees in their labs.

Loss of indirect funding, which comes to the campus as a percentage of all awarded research grants, is also falling. That is, when we scientists receive grants, a percentage of the funds do not go to our labs, but instead to the UCLA administration. These indirect funds are supposed to pay for the upkeep of our buildings and campus services, such as fund management and personnel management.

As a consequence, janitorial services have been cut back, worsening conditions in our labs, many of which are decades old, having enjoyed no renovations. While funding is diminishing, red tape increasingly entangles us. Some new safety requirements are onerous without truly increasing safety, making students cynical. Each month brings new forms for us to fill out, devouring time and threatening to freeze the former dynamism of American science.

Imagine my surprise last month when I visited the University of Leuven, located in a Belgian city with a population of less than 100,000 people.

There I saw spacious modern laboratories, a striking contrast to some of our shabby research spaces. Students and postdoctoral fellows there are well supported. Their productivity is excellent and I heard few complaints from lab leaders about funding, which is abundant and reliable.

Meanwhile Congress dithers, endangering the vitality of American science and, by extension, our economy.

Eisenberg is a professor of biological chemistry and molecular biology at UCLA.