Engineering Science - The Yankees and Research Funding Comments

Comment on 'The Yankees and Research Funding' by JS

2007-06-21T19:07:25Z

This reminds me of a question I've long wondered about. If you only knew about the US university system from reading Nature and Science and Cell, you'd think there were only 20 universities in the country. (I once was talking with a German postdoc at MIT who did think that!) But the difference between winding up in a position at, say, UCSD versus KU has such a large element of luck, you'd think that the difference between the faculty at the 15-20th top schools and the 80-90th top schools can't be that much. So why do you almost never see the latter in top journals, at least in the molecular biology literature I read?

My best guess is that the quality of grad student (and, to a lesser extent, postdocs) is the key limiting factor, which suggests that you can't bring in a bunch of profs and expect them to change everything.

Interestingly, Singapore has done a remarkable job of developing a world-class genomics community from basically zero, in less than a decade. But doing that in a small country is different than doing it in one corner of a huge country.

Comment on 'The Yankees and Research Funding' by Evan

2007-06-21T18:36:32Z

Peter - Let's put it this way, I don't think the biotech/pharma would attract Alex Rodriguez or Albert Pujols.

Comment on 'The Yankees and Research Funding' by Peter Fiske

2007-06-21T16:11:28Z

Evan and Geoff,

I can't help but take the baseball analogy to (absurd) extremes. Imagine if we could determine the "winningest" researchers in various disciplines - publishing such a list would probably freak everyone out but it would clarify who's on top and for how long. (Maybe AAAS should publish trading cards with their pictures and list of recent grants and Science publications - sort of the baseball card analogy to Karen Hopkin's Studmuffins of Science calendar that she put out a few years back).

More seriously though, Barbara Atkinson (Vice Chancellor) should have a very specific business plan that specifies how such a large expansion of R&D funding can be achieved. It doesn't HAVE to all come from the NIH - she should also think about state money, other agencies such as the VA and DOD, and Congressionally-directed funding. Evan - maybe you can tell us if there's much biotech or pharma in your area that could be part of an industry/medical center consortium. An aggressive, multi-pronged business plan, targeting specific "customers" and aiming for strong (but not absurd) rates of growth would be extremely valuable. If done right, KU could really make a move.

Comment on 'The Yankees and Research Funding' by Geoff Davis

2007-06-21T13:19:36Z

It's not Kansas. As I mentioned in my first post on the subject, a bunch of universities are all trying to do the same thing. With NIH funding flat, it's pretty unlikely that all (or even most) will succeed. If UCSF or Harvard said they were going to quadruple their funding in the current funding environment, I'd think they were being rather optimistic as well. In fact, Kansas would probably have an easier time with a quadrupling since they are starting from a lower base.

I spent some time in Kansas City recently and was pleasantly surprised. The city council has been doing some thoughtful urban planning, and, despite my coastal bias, it looks like a good place to live, especially given the low cost of living. So that should help.

Michael Lewis's book Moneyball describes how the Oakland A's built a great team on the cheap a few years back by using statistics to figure out what players contributed the most to team wins. It turns out it wasn't the obvious (and expensive) superstars; rather than hiring a bunch of showboating home run hitters, they brought in cheaper players who consistently got on base. It worked like a charm, at least for the first season (not being a baseball fan, I'm not sure they've held up or if they're still following the strategy).

I wonder if there are similar kinds of strategies that KUMC could follow?

Comment on 'The Yankees and Research Funding' by Evan

2007-06-21T11:57:34Z

It's been interesting to see this series of articles, as I am currently a postdoc at KUMC. And since you ask...I see no problem with the medical school having lofty ambitions. If it were UCSF or Harvard, no one would question these "benchmarks". Of course, the fine folks of the rest of Kansas need to work on their stance on evolution and stem cell research, but that's another matter.