Which came first, the funding or the data?
There are a series of difficult Catch-22 scenario in doing research. I previously talked about the funding cycle:
1. Get funding
2. Do the work
3. Make discoveries
4. Apply for funding using these new discoveries
5. Do more work etc…
The problem comes that it is difficult to get the first funding without existing preliminary data. You either need data that can be generated free of charge (e.g. publicly available data, routinely collected data) or someone to give you data. Alternatively, you get into a program or someone office to give you funding to let you make that start. [However very often getting in to such a program also requires some preliminary work.]
One attractive option is to apply for funding that specifically to generate pilot data, where they may not expect you to have very much preliminary data at the point of applying. However, my experience here is that these are often quite small pots of money and therefore it makes it difficult to plan experiments that we will suitably generate preliminary data for the amount of money that is offered. And, you guessed it, you are more likely to be successful if you apply with some preliminary data.
Another example is getting clinical academic jobs:
1. In a clinical academic job
2. Do the work
3. Publish papers and get grants
4. Develop a strong CV for clinical academic positions
5. Apply for next clinical academic job
The challenge is getting the first job. This is almost always navigated by doing work on top of the day job in order to build your CV to help get that first foot of the door and dedicated time to do research.
More recently, I have been struggling with the time vs. funding problem. Over the last couple of years I have been lucky enough to receive some research grants that will pay for consumables (i.e. stuff to do experiments, reagents, sequencing), however I do not have enough time to do all the experiments. Hence I have felt somewhat stuck by having ideas and money, but no time*. And I say this from the privilege position of having (on paper) 50% research**. It must be extremely difficult for people who have even less time dedicated to research to deliver on projects.
The ideal solution would be to have support from other researchers to conduct experiments, preferably someone working with me “in my lab”. The difficulty is, people are very expensive. Because people cost more than just their salary, particularly to the employing organisation. The exact extra amount that goes onto the bill depends on the funder (sometimes it is zero). However, you are almost always looking at a grant of £100k or more if you are looking to employ someone to do research with you.
I think that this is a logical and typical order of events when being an early career researcher and setting up a lab:
1. Have some ideas
2. Generate preliminary data for free
3. Get some consumable funding
4. Do the work yourself
5. Make some (early) discoveries
6. Apply for larger grants
7. Hire a team member to do research with you
8. Make more discoveries
etc..
In summary, I think that we will pass through these various phases at some stage. Usually the solution is just to keep going, keep working, follow-up on interesting observations, and keep on applying to grants.
*Occasionally I feel guilty as I do have more time in my life than I am dedication to research. I rudely do things like spend time with my children, sleep, exercise, and see friends. On average I spend 50 to 60 hours a week working (including both clinical and research), which I currently feel is enough, but if we are being really technical, then I do have more time I could devote to research.
**The on paper bit is important and is likely to be a topic for a future blog.
