The Economic Return on Science: What Does Society Get

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. (SANEPR.com) July 31, 2007 -- One economist, Adam B. Jaffe, thinks that doubling NIH research funding has hurt scientists and why Congress may be poised to make the same mistake with the NSF.

The Economic Return on Science: What Does Society Get for the Billions Spent on Research?

July, 2007—Las Vegas, Atlantic City, the NIH? Even if you don’t frequent the casino, society takes a gamble when it comes to investing in life science research. In this month’s cover story in The Scientist, Kerry Grens explains why one estimated of a 28% average rate of return on billions spent on science isn’t necessarily a safe bet.

Californians could expect returns of at least 120% to 236% on their investment in stem cell research over a span of thirty years, Grens reports. If research also produces “high social returns” such as improved healthcare and a lengthened lifespan, then where is the gamble? With such high return rates, Grens asks “if we get so much back from biomedical research, why not invest $30 billion? $300 billion? If science’s returns are so economically robust, why don’t we put more into it?” Grens investigates whether the government is underinvesting or overinvesting in the sciences.

For researchers, increased funding may seem like a big boost. However, economist Adam B. Jaffe explains why doubling the NIH budget actually has hurt researchers. “It has become clear that the way the increase was implemented significantly reduced the effectiveness of the research enterprise, and hence the rate of return, on this large investment,” Jaffe writes. In his article, “Double Research Funding? Be Careful,” he proposes a conservative plan to this risky gamble. “If we’re not careful, Congress may be poised to make the same mistake with the National Science Foundation, if plans to double its budget become more aggressive.”

This month’s issue of The Scientist also takes a look at what happens when the bet doesn’t pay off and expensive human clinical trials fail—after the success of their animal model tests. “Because of these failures, hundreds of millions of dollars, and a potential approach to stroke treatment have disappeared down the drain,” writes Andrea Gawrylewski. Her article, “The Trouble with Animal Models” explains why human trials in stroke treatment failed and what that means for drug industry research.

Lastly, meet the newest spawn of online networking: e-mentoring. The Scientist reports how Mentornet and sites like these have contributed to the increasing number of women and minorities interested in science and engineering industries. Currently, women represent less than 15% of engineers and only 32% of all scientists. According to their website, Mentornet believes that this service “will assist in meeting current and future labor demands for technical workers,” thus aiding the economy. Furthermore, the article offers an interesting perspective on why mentor relationships help with career choices in life sciences. “Rather than referring to a lab director or someone who may have a vested interest in what kind of career choice you make, or even more importantly, one who controls your salary, the external mentor can be an objective ally,” says Carol Muller, CEO of Mentornet.

About The Scientist

The Scientist, the magazine of the life sciences, has informed and entertained life science professionals around the world for the past 20 years. We provide print and online coverage of the latest developments in the life sciences including trends in research, new technology, news, business and careers. The Scientist reaches the leading researchers in academia and industry that are interested in maintaining a broad view of the life sciences by reading insightful articles that are current, concise, accurate and entertaining. For more information about The Scientist, visit www.the-scientist.com.

# # #



If you’d like press access to articles, for more information or to schedule an interview with our editors, please contact:



Leslie Schultz

lschultz@the-scientist.com

215-351-1660 x3001



Andrea Oliveira

aoliviera@the-scientist.com

215-351-1660 x3044