next »

[wondering]

We are having some changes at our Research Institute and I am wondering if this is typical of the times. We have a few "superstar" researchers at the institute with 80-100 pulications and several million dollars in grant funding. Under the old model, as long as most of your salary was funded from grants, you could independently pursue your research agenda. Now, for the non-superstars, there seem to be 3 paths (I'm not goiing to call them choices, because we are not given a choice):

1. Work for a superstar, essentially as a "side kick", writing grants and papers in superstar's area of interest. This is not exactly ghost writing, but in many cases sidekick writes the grant, superstar makes revisions, and superstar is listed as PI.

Also some secretarial-type work such as IRB applications and maybe dealing with budgeting and personnel issues.

2. get fired (likely if you are seen as "not collegial" enough to be a sidekick)

3. leave

I am wondering if this reflects the NIH funding right now, which seems to reward the superstars and is hesitant to fund the more junior investigators. Not to mention the offer/counteroffer culture at universities, where the superstar salaries are so much higher than everyone else. Comments?

[%sig%]

[similar circumstances]

wondering wrote:

> We are having some changes at our Research Institute and I am
> wondering if this is typical of the times. We have a few
> "superstar" researchers at the institute with 80-100
> pulications and several million dollars in grant funding. Under
> the old model, as long as most of your salary was funded from
> grants, you could independently pursue your research agenda.
> Now, for the non-superstars, there seem to be 3 paths (I'm not
> goiing to call them choices, because we are not given a
> choice):
>

we have one of those too (funding yes, but a mediocre publication record though).

> 1. Work for a superstar, essentially as a "side kick", writing
> grants and papers in superstar's area of interest. This is not
> exactly ghost writing, but in many cases sidekick writes the
> grant, superstar makes revisions, and superstar is listed as
> PI.
>
> Also some secretarial-type work such as IRB applications and
> maybe dealing with budgeting and personnel issues.
>

Actually, here its worse than that. I am only listed as a "senior researcher" on the grant (identified in the proposal by name). That grant pays me summer salary for 3 years. Moreover, a major portion of that research is my research area, which the PI has no background in.

We recently had a faculty meeting a slide was presented showing which faculty had brought in how much money. She took credit for the full amount of the grant and I was attributed without one red cent. Of course, if I wasn't on the grant, the total amount of funding would be reduced by my three years of summer salary. Nevertheless, she took credit for the full amount. After all, she was the PI and I was only a senior researcher.

That particular relationship is never going to happen again. Either I am listed as a co-PI or we aren't going to be working together. Ever.

One thing I can control. My portion of the work has great publication potential in several top journals. When those papers go in (that describe my portion of th research), I will be listed as first author. And she won't have any say-so in the matter either.


> 2. get fired (likely if you are seen as "not collegial" enough
> to be a sidekick)
>

I have tenure, so not a problem in my case.

> 3. leave
>

Again, I don't have to worry about that.

> I am wondering if this reflects the NIH funding right now,
> which seems to reward the superstars and is hesitant to fund
> the more junior investigators. Not to mention the
> offer/counteroffer culture at universities, where the superstar
> salaries are so much higher than everyone else. Comments?
>

I have noticed an incestuous relationship with many of the federal funding agencies. They continue to fund the same people over and over and over again. What really irks me is two things:

1. The significance of the work produced by these "superstars" is often questionable.

In other words, it doesn't seem to be seminal work that heavily influences the field. Yes, these people are well known, but their work doesn't have a whole lot of impact.

What I base this on is citation records. Although these "superstars" are published, those publications aren't cited very often. Makes you wonder how important that work was in the first place, doesn't it?

2. Its not what you know, its who you blow.

Continued funding is based on being known by the program directors and not necessarily on having one great idea after another. In other words, once you "get your foot in the door", you're set for a long time.

I am convinced that blind, unsolicited proposals submitted to NSF and NIH, even if in response to a issued broad agency announcement, is a waste of time and effort. The fix is in. If you don't personally know the program director, you're screwed.

It really is a winner take all environment. And the "superstars" hold all of the chips.

[%sig%]

[I agree]

The system is most definitely broken. I too have noticed the same people seem to have continuous funding. In fact, I am really surprised at some of the crap that actually does get funded. I refuse to believe some of this stuff was submitted on an open competition to some CFP. I seriously doubt those ideas would have been funded if the grant proposal was submitted from some junior researcher.

What really bugs me is the arrogant, "holier-than-thou" attitude taken by some of these superstars. "I can get funding, so why can't you? Obviously you must be doing something wrong". Yeah, right.

The key is to get your foot in the door to get that first grant. Thereafter you are set for life.

Superstar status is based on personal contacts. I don't believe it has anything to do with having great ideas.

[wondering]

Unfortunately, in my case it is not about just getting that "first grant". The problem is, at the research institute that is part of my current academic institution, I have "only" one 800K grant that I am PI on now, plus a 300K grant that ended a while back, so a total of 1.1 million in funding so far--but the superstars are in the range of 8 million to 12 million. And they have 70-100 publications, while I have only 9! As a consequence, I am on the brink of losing my job, and unfortunately I am not tenure track. Never again! I am pleased to see that there are academic departments where my record is actually seen as fairly strong, and hopefully I can get a tt job soon. But on my job interview day for one place (a regular tt job in a department)  they want me to meet with a research institute on campus. The place sounds just like my current gig--2 major superstars with millions in funding and 100+ publications, a few PhD sidekicks doing admin stuff, with probably little time for research. I didn't even see *any* junior people on their roster! I am just glad that I will be expected to have no more than a "courtesy appointment" at this institute, and they won't be deciding on my tenure. They may be great people with exciting things going on. More likely, it is a pressure cooker like my current place.  But in any case, I refuse to live with the anxiety of "soft money" anymore. Undergraduate teaching--no problem!

[%sig%]

[reality check]

Your funding is actually excellent. But your publication record is extremely poor, which mitigates your success with attracting grant money.  (I sincerely hope when you said "9" publications those were JOURNAL publications. Weren't they?)

I fear moving on is going to be difficult for you. Good luck.

[cathy, MSU]

We have got one of those (supposed) superstars in my department. They tend to be very arrogant and self-righteous.

Their attitude towards people who haven't had success at attracting research dollars is very similar to how people look at overweight people. You know, if someone is overweight then its just because they eat too much. All you have to do is put down the fork more often fatty. Well the attitude of these superstars is "the only reason you don't have money is you don't try hard enough". That's bull and they know it.

Everyone knows it is easier to attract research money if you are at certain institutions. (Getting money for biomedical research is a heck of a lot easier if you are at John Hopkins University than if you are the California State University at Humbolt.)  Everyone also knows follow-on money is a lot easier to get than initial funding. I notice these superstars at lower-tier universities, like mine is, got that initial funding while they were at previous high-tier institution. In other words, if they had those same ideas at my institution, they never would have gotten that initial funding to begin with.

I may have difficult attracting research money, but at least nobody can accuse me of being sanctimonious...

[%sig%]

[Hum Asst Prof]

cathy, MSU,

Do you mean Johns Hopkins University and Humboldt State University? Or are there universities that I don't know about named "John Hopkins University" and California State University at "Humbolt"? Inquiring minds want to know.

[moremice]

Oh yes, this is the culture now.  It is all about the indirect costs you can provide to your Dept/Univ. and only the PI gets credit for that.  Many superstars were made when funding levels were higher, but the NIH does indeed disproportionally reward those who have a strong track record, since they can most easily show that they will be productive with the money.  Hard times for the new investigators - all or nothing, and those who have made it already either rarely remember that times were easier when they earned themselves their first grants, or if they do, they are also still in the same game and fighting for their own funding today.  But ya gotta keep playing to win...