Exodus of clinical pharmacologists and pharmacometricians from academia--Who is to blame? A policy statement from the American College of Clinical Pharmacology.

Academic institutes are breeding grounds of innovation and the cradle of future clinical pharmacologists and pharmacometricians. However, there is a crisis looming over academic institutions; funding for research in clinical pharmacology is at an all-time low. This crisis of academic funding is no longer a well-kept secret. This crisis is at a national level and has far-reaching consequences. Federal funding for biomedical research in the United States doubled between 1998 and 2003 and fueled academic research nationally.This funding was considered key to maintaining the edge of the United States in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. However, federal funding for biomedical research has been in decline since that time. Federal funding for biomedical research is estimated to be at least 25% less in inflationadjusted dollars than it was in 2003, whereas demand for research dollars has skyrocketed. The increased demand for research money in the face of dwindling federal support may be attributed to several factors. Universities were able to expand their facilities and hire more faculty during the years of surplus funding and now must maintain those facilities and retain key faculty in the face of ever-shrinking federal dollars. Adding to the problem, public universities face decreased funding at the state level, as state governments attempt to balance their budgets. Other sources of funding, such as the pharmaceutical industry, have also dried up, as the industry itself comes under pressure to control costs and faces close scrutiny of its funding of academic research. Finally, the rising cost of conducting biomedical research (both as actual costs and the ever-increasing regulatory burden to conduct those studies) contributes to the problem, as even phase 1 clinical studies may now cost upwards of $4 million. As dire as things are for the biomedical research community as a whole, the situation is even worse when it comes to attracting major federal funding for research in the field of clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics. The key characteristic of being a universally applicable field of research has a considerable downside; clinical pharmacology is a field without the face of a disease that the public cares about. There is no 5K race for “getting the dose right,” in contrast to diseases like breast cancer, diabetes, and AIDS. The public in general does not know what clinical pharmacology is and does not understand its role in the development of new medicines for the diseases that affect loved ones in their families and communities. This is even reflected in federal funding, where the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has traditionally funded basic research while being slow in funding clinical pharmacology–based research. The funding crisis may affect what kind of research is performed in academic institutions, as “fundability” takes precedence over good science. More time is now spent by researchers worrying about how to bring in funds rather than generating truly innovative ideas. The time that used to be spent brainstorming on the whiteboard that fueled and inspired great innovations and mentored and shaped future leaders in the field of clinical pharmacology and pharmacometrics is now spent on decorating, refining, and rewriting research proposals to make them “fundable.” As academic researchers compete for the same small share of grant money, they are realizing that they often need to abandon ambitious innovative ideas for The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 2015, 55(9) 955–956 © 2015, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology DOI: 10.1002/jcph.542