University President Ronald J. Daniels published a paper on the decline in grants for young scientists in the Jan. 13 issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences out of concern that the future of science is at risk.
The number of principal investigators with a leading National Institutes of Health grant who are 36 years of age or younger dropped from 18 percent in 1983 to three percent in 2010.
In an email to The News-Letter, Daniels expressed his concern for the future of young scientists and emphasized the importance of young professionals to their respective scientific industries.
“The data on funding for young scientists shows a disturbing downward trend. This is a complex and challenging problem and I’ve seen how it has affected faculty, research institutions and science itself,” Daniels wrote. “Young investigators through history have been responsible for some of our most trailblazing scientific discoveries, but our current funding system is leaving them behind.”
Hopkins, along with other prominent research universities, has proposed ways to reverse this trend. Daniels wrote that Hopkins in particular is committed to changing the future for young scientists.
“At Johns Hopkins we have launched a series of initiatives designed to address the funding challenges our early career faculty face,” Daniels said.
Several programs have been designed with the purpose of preventing science students from dropping out of their chosen fields, including the Catalyst and Discover Awards, which offer grants to Hopkins faculty that have exceptionally innovative research proposals.
“The Catalyst and Discovery Awards programs [are] two initiatives that will provide $15 million dollars to support the promise of our early career scholars and ignite creative collaborations among our faculty across the University,” Daniels wrote.
Other programs proposed in Daniels’s paper include increased funding for the National Institutes of Health as well as the creation of a standing body that will develop new ways in which the University can support the sciences.
Hopkins students shared a variety of opinions regarding the future of young scientists and have responded to the statements and solutions provided by Daniels.
Grace Baek, a freshman biophysics major, expressed her fear of the measured decline in research grants from the perspective of a science student.
“It’s very scary because without research grants there will not be as many opportunities of great ideas in science and research proposals to come to fruition,” Baek said.
Freshman Ryan Newell, a mechanical engineering major, expressed similar concerns, even though he does not intend to conduct research during his time at Hopkins. He emphasized the importance of research to everyone in the scientific and collegiate community.
“I think science and research need more funding,” Newell said. “It’s good that Hopkins is committed to putting money towards that. I would also love to see more money for engineering. I support Hopkins students and faculty doing any type of research.”
Some humanities students at Hopkins have expressed concerns regarding this issue. They recognizing that its consequences are not limited to the fields of science, medicine and technology. Freshman Mia Berman, a International Studies and philosophy major, also expressed her support of research grants.
“I don’t have any experience with it, but research is the way we progress in society,” Berman said. “Research allows people to discover new, important facts of life even if they don’t know what they’re looking for. A lot of people in research fields will be doing research throughout their lives, so it’s important they are able to start young.”
Baek agreed that the ability of young scientists to conduct research is helpful to these individuals and to the entire scientific community.
“Without research, without young people, the scientific front is basically held back from important findings,” Baek said.
Daniels’s words also provoked many responses from online readers. Dr. Brijesh Sathian, one commenter on The HUB’s summary of the paper, advocated that the scientific community be judicious when it comes to affording grants to certain scientists and researchers.
“Young researchers should be supported by NIH, if they have very good projects. Grants should not be given according to experience. Otherwise they will lose their interest towards improving science in their most productive time,” Sathian wrote.
Despite his concern, Daniels said he has a positive outlook on the future of scientific research because of the University’s commitment to supporting research.
“With these programs, we are showing our support for and making a substantial investment in the creativity, vision and great promise of our remarkable faculty members. And I am optimistic that the new and growing focus on this issue on the national stage can bring about some real, positive reforms,” Daniels wrote.
