From: Dr. Fred Sachs \[sachs@buffalo.edu\]

Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 7:58 PM

To: Holland, Michael J.

Subject: Research evaluation

If we knew what was to pay off, we would only do that kiind of work. To

paraphrase Einstein, \"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn\'t be

science\". There is a terrible hazard of coming up with criteria to

evaluate the significance of research. Nearly all important ideas have

been off-the-wall findings. These are approaches and ideas that no one

would fund. It is generally agreed among scientists that their most

important results are those obtained without explicit funding; results

obtained by using the mooney from funded projects to try things that

were not included.

Successful grant applications, particularly those to NIH, require that

the proposed experiments can\'t fail. Since 3/4 of all submissions must

be rejected according to current funding standards, the review panels

look for any excuse to turn down an application. A possible failure is a

sure fire trigger to lose. This of course makes applicants into liars,

because they must say that the most important and interesting things to

do are those that can\'t fail. These are inherently the least
interesting

experiments. That is not to say that these boring measurements are

flawed, but any exeriment that can\'t fail is not an experiment at all,

just a measurement.

There are too many grants being funded because applicants fear a gap in

funding, and hence become application witers instead of full time

scientists. If the number of grants/PI was limited (perhaps to two),

then no one would spend time writing additional proposals, and hence

would get down to work. If the funding rate was higher then scientists

would not feel the necessity to keep writing applications to avoid

academic death due to a lack of research funds. The government advisory

groups should realize that most schools have turned over tenure

decisions to granting agencies: those that are funded get tenure, the

rest don\'t. This leads to ageing of the scientific community as young

scientists are driven off by the pressure. The average age of applicants

obtaining their very first grants has risen to about 36. Loss of a

single grant can lead to the untenured scientist being fired. This doesn

not make for creative science. It rewards the least interesting and

hence the safest research. Young people are the ones with the new ideas,

and they need to be supported.

The conflicts of funding \"powerful\" NAS members, etc, with large

laboratories costs the access of young people to research. To my

knowledge, the has never been a study of the value of research/\$ in

large and small labs. My prediction is that small labs where the PIs are

intimately involved with the ongoing research are much more efficient. I

suggest such a study of efficiney of labs size vs. productivity/\$ is in

order before changing priorities.

\--

Dr. Frederick Sachs

Hughes Center for Single Molecule Biophysics

Physiology and Biophysical Sciences

320 Cary Hall, SUNY

Buffalo, NY 14214

Voice Mail (716) 829-3289 x105

FAX (716) 829-2569

email sachs@buffalo.edu

[[www.sachslab.buffalo.edu]{.underline}](../www.sachslab.buffalo.edu)

\"The secret to eternal youth is arrested development.\"