The Emergence of Resourced Research Services

Sandra Lawson1*, Susan Seroskie1 , Tess Mayall2 , Brian Douglas3 and Les Jebson4

Introduction An integral component of many institutions of higher learning is that of a robust scLentLfic mission. Historically, universities and research foundations have attempted to recruit established scientists from other institutions or attempted to incubate and develop new post doctorate researchers or research teams, oіen referenced as ‘junior faculty’ or ‘promising faculty’. Нese eوٴorts are oіen with the intent of making scLentLfic advancements in basic and translational research, and to strengthen the overall funded research portfolio and rankings of the respective university. However, more oіen than not, organized scLentLfic research can be a financLaO and overall resource intensive undertaking. Millions of personnel hours and hundreds of millions of dollars are spent annually, in providing and supporting organized ‘start-up’ packages from the sponsoring institution, colleges and departments for researchers. Unfortunately, it is not unusual for some of these programs to sputter or not achieve the financLaO or scLentLfic returns that may have been anticipated. It is not unusual for a ‘start up’ or ‘recruitment’ package for an individual researcher or their team to be anywhere from $500,000 to $1,000,000 or more annually over the life of the agreement. Ironically, the science behind incubating and developing such programs in these settings has historically, been less than scLentLfic in means and management. Нese ‘start up’ monies are oіen outlined in the new program or researcher start up agreement, and the funding is intended to allow the new faculty and team members to purchase the basic instrumentation and equipment as well as support employees in the form of grant writers, assistants and postdoctoral researchers. НLs funding is finLte, with the understood expectation that the faculty member and research program will seek and obtain funding from an outside agency, such as the NIH or other foundational funding, and thus reduce or ultimately eliminate the need for sponsoring institutional funding. It oіen includes the provision for administrative oٹce and lab space, for which the costs of construction or maintenance are not included, but are frequently a sizable component. Нe National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF) are the two major government funded bodies that provide research funding to scientists, with the NIH spearheading grant allocation to research that has health relevance and the NSF funding basic science. In the most recent funding numbers, the NIH was allotted $31.2 billion dollars while the NSF was allotted $6.5 billion. According to the NIH, one in five grant applications secure funding. Нe lag period from grant application, to approval of funds being released can reach almost a year in duration.

---

1RN, Executive Vice President, Strategic Resourcing, Advanced Clinical, USA 2Community Manager, Science Exchange, USA 3CFA, CFO, ProofPilot, USA 4Administrator and Adjunct Lecturer, University of Florida Diabetes Institute, USA *Corresponding author: Sandra Lawson, RN, Executive Vice President, Strategic Resourcing, Advanced Clinical, USA, Tel: 352-281-3911; E-mail: lawsones@ufl.edu Rec date: Nov 12, 2014, Acc date: Apr 01, 2015, Pub date: Apr 05, 2015