With the exception of two years on the dark side1, my entire career has been spent in cancer research. Both the Beatson Institute for Cancer Research, where I did my PhD, and the place in which I did my postdoc and now find myself working once again2, are funded primarily through charitable donations.
People in both places are exceedingly grateful for the support they receive, but staff attitudes to reciprocal funding differ enormously.
Back in Glasgow, any attempts to organise an event benefiting Cancer Research UK were doomed to failure. On the other hand, try to raise money for, say, heart and stroke research, or for a local cancer hospice, and people would be more than happy to donate money, bake cakes, bring in their used books for sale etc. The argument was that it was pointless for people paid by the CRUK to give money back to the charity, who would use it to pay our salaries, which we would then give back to them, so they could pay our salaries. A cycle of futile generosity.
Here in Vancouver, staff members from PIs down to students are constantly raising money from their colleagues to give to the Foundation that funds our work. Not one person I’ve spoken to sees any kind of problem with the situation.
So what’s the difference? I think a large part of it is that fundraising events here are much more conducive to participation – sponsored runs, walks, lotteries etc. Participants raise money from their colleagues, but also from their family and outside friends.
I still retain some cynicism from my days in Glasgow, but I don’t want to look like a miserable Scottish git3. So when I realised that the biggest event that funds my department’s work happens only a couple of weeks after the MS Society’s 60 km cycle ride, to which I had already verbally committed (my friend works for the Society), I had a decision to make.
So I’m going to cycle and raise money for the MS Society, and volunteer at the event that benefits my department.
Good compromise, eh? I won’t be feeding the hand that feeds me, but I’ll be showing them my appreciation and helping the actual fundraisers to get the most out of the event.
I’m hoping my boss agrees.
____________________________
1. Does it get much darker than marketing for a biotech company?
2. The convoluted wording is to avoid Google bringing up this post if someone searches for my institute’s name. It’s not exactly hard to work out, but I don’t want to make it any easier.
3. I’m actually English, but North Americans tend not to distinguish between the two.
OK I’m curious. Do you think that charity money, intended for Cancer Research (in any country) should be used to fund PhD students?
I’ve always taken the view that cancer charity money is donated in hope and should therefore be treated with great respect by the recipient, be it as a research grant or salary fellowship. I’m not sure that training PhD students with such money is as economical/sensible as providing career research associate positions where someone who is already trained to PhD level holds the position and is more productive as a result. I’m not sure all PhD students have the maturity to contemplate the way in which their research is funded and act more diligently as a result. To me there is a vast difference between a government grant (from tax payers money) and a charity grant (from donations given freely). I would apply the same logic to any medical research charity funds.
I appreciate that this sentiment may be making a few generalizations that (1) PhD students are not worth training (they are but perhaps not by charity money); and (2) that by hiring a research associate there is some guarantee of quality research which there is not.
I didn’t quite anticipate this subject arising from that post, but it’s an interesting one and definitely worth discussing!
If you consider research output as a whole (publications, conference presentations, assisting others with their own output etc), then the vast majority of postdocs and other senior staff give much better value for money than do most students. There are obviously some rare exceptions, but your argument addresses the rest of us mere mortals who don’t publish in Nature as students.
I guess the question is, what long-term scientific benefits are gained by training students? If they finish their PhD and go and work in, say, retail management, then not much. But almost all the students I’ve known have stayed in science in some capacity or another, even if they didn’t stay on the traditional academic research track. Their PhD training prepared them well for their various roles, and hence benfits science in general for many years after they’ve finished their formal training.
Of course, in the biological sciences, removing charitable funding for students would drastically cut the number of PhDs awarded. Some would argue that that’s a good thing since most graduates choose or are forced to drop out at some point before full professorship anyway. But it wouldn’t exactly push research progress forward if only government funds were available at this first and crucial stage of training.
Of course I’m biased, having been funded by the CRUK myself, but I have no major problems with the status quo. As long as charities aren’t misleading donors about the destination of their donations of course. I think I’ll head off to Google and see if I can find the percentage of research funding by the big cancer charities that goes to students as opposed to postdocs and specific projects…
Interesting. I don’t think you need to publish in Nature as a PhD student to make a tangible contribution to the field of cancer research. I also don’t believe that big name publications are an indication of donor money being well spent (because many small steps can add up just as significantly over longer periods than one big flash in the pan). I agree with all the training for science stuff and believe that charity funding is important in research. I’d question the notion of whether donors really do understand how their money is being used. The general population is not known for in depth understanding of ‘how research works’ and that concerns me a little (and provides yet another excuse for researchers to get out there and publicize what they do).
Did you feel like you had to take your PhD research more seriously than some of your peers because of how it was funded?
I find this interesting too. I am not sure why up in Scotland things went differently from what you see in Vancouver. Trying to view it from a different perspective, is heart disease in Scotland a bigger concern than cancer?
On your bike ride, go for it. It will be a wonderful experience. Back in September 2005 I ran in two mid-marathon bike rides raising money for a charity called The Children’s Cancer Fund. Getting it organized with them was bliss. They may help you out with spreading the word in the local press and on the local radio stations, too.
Katherine, publishing in Nature was just an example of how a lowly student might manage to be more productive than a research associate. I agree there are many ways to define productivity, but a Nature or other high profile publication is a pretty good indicator of research success, at least in the short term of an average studentship.
I looked at a couple of charity websites after my last comment, and I couldn’t find any that explicitly say how much money goes to students vs. other researchers and projects. I agree that funding agencies and scientists alike need to do a better job of explaining how science gets done and how it’s funded. On the other hand, most non-scientists I spoke to during my PhD and postdoc years were astonished at how little money I was making and said we should all get way more!
I can’t really answer your final question because I’m racking my brains and can’t think of any of my peers who didn’t have at least some charitable funding, direct or indirect. I would say that all students I’ve known have taken their research very seriously, but the most passionate and driven students have been those who felt their work to be the most relevant and useful. In an ideal world, charities would only fund relevant and useful projects, but we all know that isn’t always true! I would hope there’s some correlation between charitable funding and relevance though. In addition, many cancer researchers chose their field because of personal experience with cancer. I don’t know if that answered your question!
Massimo, it wasn’t anything special about heart disease in particular. Scotland has one of the highest heart disease incidences in Europe, but the same goes for cancer too. That was just an example of how my former colleagues were more than happy to support both medical research and cancer care, but just not if it meant giving their money back to their employer.
I’m definitely looking forward to the bike ride! I did the 5 km MS Society walk last year, but it was way too easy! I’m volunteering at this year’s event (on Sunday) instead. The bike ride won’t be too difficult given that I cycle about 8 km every day, but it will definitely be more of a challenge than last year’s efforts!
I can remember a period of time in Scotland when people I knew seemed more suspicious of medical research charities. There was a feeling that giving to (for example) palliative care or support group charities was a more direct way of helping people. There was also a period of time in the mid 1990s when every single week was a different charity week and the town centres were full of people collecting change. I much prefer the big fundraising events like the one you are doing. I’m not against charities (although it may come across that way). They do incredible work but how do you choose which ones to give to when there are so many worthwhile causes out there?
I don’t think I’d donate to a charity that funded me, perhaps because I’d feel I was already supporting that charity in some way (by working for them), and would give my money to a different cause (but not a ‘competitor’ charity).
On another note, you’ll be pleased to know that UK town centres are as full of charity shops as ever…
“I don’t think I’d donate to a charity that funded me, perhaps because I’d feel I was already supporting that charity in some way (by working for them), and would give my money to a different cause (but not a ‘competitor’ charity).”
So it is a Scottish thing! I totally agree though. I’m happy to give them some of my leisure time, but giving them money does seem a bit pointless.