Skip to Navigation
University of Pittsburgh
Print This Page Print this pages

November 20, 1997

Pitt cautiously optimistic despite decline in federal research funds

It's not all gloom and doom in Pitt's hunt for sponsored research funding — even though a growing number of researchers nationally are competing for a shrinking pool of federal research dollars, Vice Provost for Research George E. Klinzing told a University Senate committee recently.

"Like most other research universities, we have seen a slight decrease in federal funding, a little bit in each of the last few years. But we've been ratcheting up on industry and business [funding] sources and exploring new opportunities," Klinzing told the Senate's budget policies committee Nov. 7.

Pitt annually attracts nearly $250 million in sponsored research funding, up from about $200 million just five years ago, he said. Federal government sources account for more than three-quarters of the current total.

Klinzing noted the following successes and promising signs:

* Even in "hard times," he said, the University continues to increase its funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) by 6-7 percent annually. Pitt ranks 10th nationally among all universities in NIH funding.

* Pitt ranks 19th among all universities in federal research and development expenditures in science and engineering. While dramatic increases in federal funding for science and engineering are unlikely, Klinzing said, "there's still a strong sentiment in Congress that recognizes that this kind of activity does help the health and wealth of the country, and that it's a good investment to make." A recently introduced U.S. Senate bill proposes doubling federal funding for science and engineering research over the next decade, he pointed out. "It's been supported by many professional organizations, although I don't know how likely it is to be approved," Klinzing said.

* Pitt's Office of Technology Management has been "very pro-active" in working with faculty to create spinoff companies and market faculty inventions, Klinzing said.

Research that cuts across traditional academic borders often stands the best chance of attracting outside funding, Klinzing said. "That's the name of the game anymore, to have more interdisciplinary collaborations. The funding agencies like that, the reviewers [of funding proposals] like that. I personally think it's healthy because you get a lot more ideas on the table and it's addressing more complex problems." Klinzing cited environmental and materials sciences as "hot" interdisciplinary fields that are attracting increasing amounts of federal and private industry funding.

"Another thing we've been doing lately — [Associate Chancellor] Vijai Singh has been active in this effort — has been trying to get more funded research in the social sciences," Klinzing reported. Traditionally, social sciences such as economics and sociology have attracted far less external funding than the health sciences, he noted.

Klinzing said he met with representatives of the World Bank in Washington, D.C., last month to discuss how Pitt faculty could contribute to a bank project aimed at promoting peace and economic development in Guatemala. The project's head economist is a Pitt alumnus. "He [the economist] gave us a number of insights on the project, and I'm sharing this with some faculty members now," Klinzing said. "Hopefully, this could be a model for similar efforts." Last summer, Klinzing said, the Provost's office told Pitt deans that it would begin covering travel expenses for professors to visit funding agencies in Washington. "This allows our faculty to meet people and introduce themselves so [federal] agency officers know their interests and keep them in mind," Klinzing said.

By hobnobbing with agency officials, serving on peer review panels and participating in agency seminars, professors gain useful contacts and early notice of funding opportunities, he said. "Despite the fact that this [competition for grants] is all supposed to be determined by peer review, if they've seen your face before it's probably going to get your proposal a better reaction than if you go in cold." Under federal guidelines, universities doing sponsored research are entitled to additional "overhead cost recovery" monies amounting to 48-53 percent of the original grant. These funds are meant to compensate schools for lab equipment, electricity and other university expenses related to research. But on average, Pitt and most other research universities collect only about half of the overhead monies to which they are nominally entitled, Klinzing said. For a variety of reasons, agencies regularly warn universities not to expect full reimbursement for overhead costs on certain grants, he noted.

Professor Phil Wion, of the budget policies committee, pointed out that research universities can end up increasing their costs at least as fast as their revenues, by accepting sponsored research projects. Klinzing agreed that "the hidden costs of sponsored research need to be looked at carefully. They need to be weighted and compensated for" in Pitt budgeting.

Robert Pack, vice provost for Academic Planning and Resources Management, said it's nearly impossible to calculate the full overhead costs of sponsored research. "By far," he said, "the greatest cost of research is faculty time, the time during which the University releases the faculty member from other activities in order to pursue research.

"It's like saying, what's the cost of teaching a student? Well, that depends on how well you want to teach that student, how much you're committed as an institution to teaching." High-quality research isn't cheap — for funding agencies or universities, Pack said. "You're either going to do research or you're not. It's sort of an absolute world in which you exist. You can declare yourself to be a non-research institution, which our regional campuses, for example, have done. Or you can declare yourself to be a research university. We [at Pitt] are committed to the conduct of research at a very high level."

— Bruce Steele

Filed under: Feature,Volume 30 Issue 7

Leave a Reply