The Hard Reality of Soft Money

Hard Realities: Part 2

Chiang Mai Thailand, Dec. 22, 2010 — I am currently writing a research proposal that is due at the end of this month, and I am reminded of that old expression about democracy, “Democracy is the worst system of government out there …  except for all the others that have been tried.” For the past decade I have worked as a soft-money research scientist, meaning that I generate, through grant writing, all of my own salary. I have managed to do this successfully for the past decade, while some of my colleagues have done so for more than 30 years. It still amazes me that this can be done, though it does seem to be getting increasingly more difficult these past several years. Sometimes I feel like a streetwalker, going out to work the “neighborhood” (National Science Foundation, NOAA or other funding agency) to bring home some “sugar” (grant dollars and the associated overhead) to give to my “Daddy” (Columbia University). To be certain, Columbia protects me, gives me a good, respectable home and enough of the dollars back to “buy myself something pretty” (research equipment, travel to a conference). In turn I, and all the others in CU’s stable, bring home the dollars that run institutions like ours.  And CU’s stable is stacked with really top researchers that through highly skilled grant writing bring home an awful lot of sugar.

It has been this way for decades, and there are many among us who have managed to bring in full funding for an entire career, supporting not only ourselves, but lab technicians, administrative staff and a slew of other integral and highly skilled folks. In my opinion it is the worst system out there …  except for all the others that have been tried.

There are several fundamental things to be said in defense of soft-money research. First, the need to always find funding keeps us really sharp. If you don’t remain hungry and sharp, you don’t get funded. And therefore we have to always be thinking of ways of adapting what we do to various calls for proposals, in order to find ways to supply funding agencies with the kinds of data and results they are soliciting. This takes a great deal of creative thinking, and it is not a career path for the faint of heart. At times it is truly exhausting, and downright discouraging when proposals are rejected. There are fat times and lean times, but whenever it seemed that I would be donning the KFC jacket and serving up an order of chicken and potatoes with a side of gravy, I manage to get something funded. There is nothing like having your back against the wall to make one perform.

The most important element of this whole process is peer-review, where other scientists who are experts in related fields review the submitted proposals and they pass judgment on which of the hundreds of proposals submitted merits funding. This is a highly competitive process, and a small percentage of proposals are actually selected, so you have to be really highly ranked to have a shot. While I am writing this proposal, I am also reviewing one for another National Science Foundation program, and I take it very seriously to be as objective as I can and give the most fair and thorough review possible. This is perhaps the most important aspect of this job — to carefully and critically pass judgment on the work of other scientists — as they do likewise for mine. The same peer-review process is in place for published papers as well as for proposals. Again, peer-review is not without its faults, but I do think it is the best system we have, and I am a big proponent of it.

It is almost Christmas, and all of our administrative people at LDEO are going away for the holidays, and I am here, in Chiang Mai, with a dubious link to the Internet and a 12-hour difference between me and the rest of my world. The deadline for this proposal is just after the holidays, not a very easy time to get things done. Furthermore, I have co-PIs (principle investigators) in Australia and the U.S., in the Philippines and Vietnam.  Bringing this type of collaborative project together is truly daunting, and consumes a great deal of time and energy, but I wouldn’t have it any other way. So to all those who take the time to read this blog, I thank you and I wish you a happy and healthy holiday season. I know what I will be doing — mostly writing — but Orawan and I will take the time to have a Christmas dinner of northern Thai food with some friends we just met. And now that the weather is cool we will go for a long walk around the old city moat, and make merit at the temple, and by taking my mother in law out to visit the market. And with a bit of luck, this proposal will come together and will be worthy of funding, and I can put the KFC jacket back in the closet for another year.

11 comments to The Hard Reality of Soft Money

  • W

    Again a well written piece. Happy holidays.

  • Brendan Buckley

    Happy Holidays to you too, big fellah! Been a bit hectic over here, but not really very cool this year. Hope you are enjoying your time in Taipei. Say hello to our colleagues over there for me.

    best, bb

  • Hoai Nguyen

    Hi,the second time i enter ur blog and i think i will be here more time. Thanks for you sharing. Wish the best come with you and Mrs Orawan. Miss u both!

  • Brendan Bucklet

    Thanks Hoai,

    We miss you too! I hope to see you before we go back to the US in early February. I was really hoping you could come to Siem Reap. Did you ask Mai Hong about that? Keep me posted on how your thesis is going.

    Best wishes,
    Brendan

  • Abigail

    Awesome job once again! Thanks.

  • Brendan Buckley

    thanks abigail! it is always nice to see that people read this. i have to admit, i really began writing it as an excuse to be writing something, not knowing if i would actually have an audience. it has been a lot of fun to get comments from people, so thank you.

  • Brendan Buckley

    thanks for the reply, lou. glad you liked it.

    bb

  • Eli Rabett

    As a hard money person who reviews soft money grants over the last 20 years I have noticed an increase in the number of proposals and a decrease in proposal quality as the soft money folk chip themselves up into smaller and smaller pieces (seriously 3% on one proposal).

    I have seen people chew themselves up as funding shrinks.

    Because you have to write more proposals, less time is spent doing science. I have remarked on this in my usual quiet way to a number of program managers.

    The current system is not a feature.

  • Brendan Buckley

    Dear Eli,

    That is surely a major drawback of the soft money system. In fact, we have had a great deal of trouble in getting things funded this past couple of years and things are looking a bit bleak. One of the things you allude to (spending less time doing science and more scrambling for funds) also results in us going for the lowest hanging fruit, and having to forget about pieces higher up the branch. there are many untouched collections of samples in our store room, because we couldn’t spend the time on developing something in greater detail. We lack the luxury of really working things up in great depth, as we need to get the more attention grabbing angle. This becomes increasingly true. We were lucky with our Monsoon Asia grant in that we had more or less full funding for 5 years. Before and after that time, we are carved up into 3-6 research projects, each with its own annual report and host of other administrative duties.

  • Michael Gamache

    Hey Brendan,

    This former Goffstonian, current environmental science teacher is deeply appreciative of the work you’re doing, not only for the good of the planet and environmental research but also for the benefit of the kids I teach who are impressed and enlightened by your work. Thanks again.

  • Brendan Buckley

    Mike, great to see you are on this blog. I have been so swamped since my return to the US I haven’t had time to write for this blog in a while. I have been meaning to, though. Glad to hear from you. And you inspire me to finish the entry I have been meaning to write for the past few weeks.

    Best wishes,

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>