Neuroscience researchers are facing a shifting financial landscape: U.S. federal grants have been canceled; fewer new ones have been awarded; and fellowships have been discontinued. Meanwhile, researchers are increasingly relying on alternative avenues of support, such as philanthropic organizations. In light of this, The Transmitter sought to assess the current funding situations for principal investigators.
To this end, we surveyed neuroscience researchers who have their own labs and asked them to break down the percentage that each of their funding sources contributed to their budget this year. Researchers reported the percentage of their funding that came from federal or governmental agencies; nongovernmental sources (private companies, associations, institutes and nonprofits); startup funds from their institution; and other sources. We collected data between 18 July and 6 October from 33 respondents, 23 of whom are based in the United States; others are based in Canada, Switzerland and Nigeria, among other countries.
On average, these neuroscientists received 59 percent of their funding from federal and government sources, 22 percent from nongovernmental sources, 16 percent from startup funds from their institution and 4 percent from other sources. Among our respondents, government sources are the largest contributors to neuroscience research, but private and institutional sources are still crucial in supporting lab infrastructure.
Although, on average, government sources contributed most to neuroscience labs, the contribution from each source differed dramatically across labs. Some principal investigators said they received 100 percent of their funding from federal and government sources (see lines A through G in chart below); others were fully funded by private organizations such as nonprofits or startup funds from their institutions (see lines AG and AG).
These differences could be due in part to geographic location. One respondent, Emily Cross, professor of humanities, social and political sciences at ETH Zurich, explained that in Switzerland, the funding system is “wildly different from other places.” In Switzerland, professors have healthy startup funds, which is more common than in the United Kingdom and Australia, where she worked before, and “there is more access to private sources of funding,” she wrote.
The differences could also be due to the researcher’s career stage. Predictably, early-career researchers (defined here as those who started their lab in the past five years) said they obtained about 40 percent of their funding from startup funds from their own institutions. Once researchers reach the middle of their career (6 to 14 years after starting their lab), government funding stabilizes, making up about two-thirds of their support. As startup funds fade away for senior scientists (who have run their lab for 15 years or more), nongovernmental sources start to fill in. However, there was a note of uncertainty among early-career researchers about getting federal funding in the current landscape. “I’m applying for NSF and NIH grants, but I’m not optimistic,” wrote Hannah Schoenhard, assistant professor of biology at Bryn Mawr College.
A neuroscientist’s research focus may also influence where they get their support from. Our survey asked respondents which subfield of neuroscience they worked in (respondents could report more than one subfield): 15 researchers said they worked in systems neuroscience, 13 in behavioral, 11 in molecular, 11 in cognitive, 9 in sensory, 5 in computational/AI, 5 in imaging, 3 in social and 2 in clinical. Systems and computational neuroscience respondents had the largest contribution from government funding, whereas the clinical and imaging subfields had the largest contributions from nongovernmental funders.
These responses are just a snapshot of how different funding sources currently contribute to neuroscience labs; we also wanted to know how this picture has changed throughout the years. When asked, about half of respondents—16 out of the 33—said that their funding sources have not changed significantly and have remained stable in the past five years. Meanwhile, among those who did report changes, about half reported shifts associated with transitioning career stages, such as using up the startup funds from their institution. The other half reported that they were receiving less federal funding and more foundation and charity funding now than they were five years ago.
One researcher, Joel Snyder, professor of psychology at the University of Nevada, noted that his federal funding has dropped to zero percent; by contrast, five years ago, 90 percent of his lab was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Janel Le Belle, associate adjunct professor in the neurosurgery department at the University of California, Los Angeles, noted a similar trend and said that NIH R01 grants have become more competitive. Five years ago, she wrote, paylines were at 8 percent, meaning that 8 percent of submitted grants would be funded. Now that number stands at 4 percent. Other respondents told us that in the past five years, they have had “increased non-federal funding,” with some noting more funding—or efforts to gain more funding—from foundations and fellowships.
The Transmitter plans to track how neuroscientists adapt to fund their research as the landscape continues to shift.
