Skip to main content

Science Funding in Developing Countries

I am sure that most, if not all, of you agree with me in that science is one of the most fascinating and exciting activities that we, humans, perform. Indeed, thanks to science we have been able to understand our universe, our world, and ourselves. What we know as science and the scientific method is a relatively recent human activity -“born” about 500 years ago- considering that our species is around 100,000 years old. During the last five centuries, science has moved forward, allowing us to improve our lives in many ways. And during the last six decades, science has been moving so fast, that it is really difficult to cope with all the information that is being generated. Every week, if not every day, we read of advances and achievements in different areas, such as physics, chemistry, biology and medicine. New discoveries are being reported at an incredible speed in hundreds of scientific journals. Today, a new galaxy; tomorrow, a new gene; the day after, a new genetic disorder; and next week, the results of a new clinical trial. It is simply amazing!

Now, I am sure that you all have noticed that the vast majority of the great discoveries that we hear and read about come from research groups from developed countries, and only a few come from groups working in developing countries. Why is that? There are, actually, several reasons, but clearly, one of the most important is funding. The amount of money that developing countries spend in science is, in general, dramatically less than that in their developed counterparts. And this makes a great difference.

In order to illustrate the points I want to make here, let’s take Mexico, my home country, as an example of a developing country, and the United States of America as an example of a developed one. In 2014, the population in the USA (just over 316 million people) was around 2.70 times larger than the one in Mexico (almost 117 million people). In that year, the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the USA was almost 14 times higher than the one of Mexico. Out of the total GDP in each of these two nations, the USA spent 2.71% for science and development, whereas Mexico spent only 0.43%; this means that the USA spent close to 90 times more money in scientific research than Mexico.

Let’s now consider the case of cancer research. In 2014, almost 127,000 new cases of cancer were detected in Mexico, whereas just over 1,660,000 cases were detected in the USA; that is a 13-fold difference. In that same year, almost 79,000 people died of cancer in Mexico, and 580,000 people died of cancer in the USA; that is a 7.3-fold difference. Considering these statistics, it would be interesting to know how much money these two countries spent that year for cancer research. Well, according to information from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), in 2014 the US government spent around 5,200 million US dollars. Unfortunately, there are no official figures for the exact amount of money the Mexican government spent for cancer research, but an estimate –based on the budget of the National Council of Science and Technology (CONACYT), the Research Council of the Mexican Institute for Social Security (IMSS), the National Institute of Cancer (INCan) and the National University of Mexico (UNAM) devoted to cancer research- such an amount would be around 350 million Mexican pesos. Considering that 1 US dollar equals 18 Mexican pesos, roughly. This means that for every single US dollar the Mexican government spent for cancer research, the NIH, alone, spent 250 US dollars.

The above figures consider only the money that comes from federal funding. Let’s not forget that in the USA, a great amount of money for medical research comes from the private sector. In Mexico, however, medical research receives very little funding from the private sector, which is even lower than the money coming from the government. Thus, what are the options for a well-established biomedical scientist working on cancer research in Mexico? She/he has to apply for funding through local programs from their own institutions (e.g. IMSS, INCan or UNAM) or from CONACYT, and compete with her/his peers for the small amount of money available. And how much money can she/he get to run her/his project? Well, a standard grant from CONACYT for a two-year project would be around 1.8 million Mexican pesos; that is to say, 100,000 US dollars (50,000 US dollars per year). Numbers and figures for biomedical research funding in other developing countries may be similar.

Considering the limited funding for biomedical research in countries like Mexico, is it possible to perform good-quality research? My answer is a big yes! In my opinion, good quality research is not synonymous with expensive and/or sophisticated research. You can always ask good unanswered questions, you can always design good experimental approaches to respond them, and you can always write good articles. They may not go to the top journals (nowadays, top journals in the biomedical field want innovative manuscripts with mechanistic approaches that may require sophisticated technology), but they will contribute new, relevant information that may bring some light to a particular problem. Of course, a scientist doing research in a developing country can also look for collaborations with colleagues in developed nations. That is always a good option that should be kept in mind. This, indeed, is one of the actions that international scientific societies should promote and favor.

Doing research is not only wonderful, but essential. Science is, in fact, the driving force that has positioned countries like the USA, Great Britain, Germany and Japan, to name a few, as world leading nations. However, getting funding is hard. It is hard in developed countries, and it is even harder in developing ones. All of us doing research in countries in which science is regarded as a low-priority activity, hope that our governments’ policies will change in the near future, and scientific research will be regarded as a fundamental activity that will help to move our countries forward. In the meantime, we have to keep working hard and enthusiastically in order to contribute to the generation of new knowledge.

 
Hector Mayani, PhD
ISEH Publication Committee Member 
Head of the Oncology Research Unit
IMSS National Medical Center
Mexico City, Mexico

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How to Make the Most Out of Your Lab’s Move

“The lab is moving!” I must confess, when I heard these words from my mentor about a year and a half ago, my heart dropped. Lab relocation experiences are some of the worst horror stories that you hear from fellow researchers: precious samples lost, mouse colonies never recovered, months spent re-establishing protocols. Moreover, it also meant I would have to leave San Francisco, a beautiful city that I loved to live in, and where I found many friends. Being a scientist often means not having much choice of geographic location of your work. The choice of a particular subject or even broad field usually requires a move to a new city, or even a new country. Moving with the lab means making this choice again – do I leave my project and all the progress behind, or do I accept the delay in my research and go ahead. Now, two months after our move to New York, I would like to reflect on my experiences and that of my fellow lab members on our cross-country relocation from the trainee perspect…

The cost of a postdoctoral experience and its impact on STEM diversity

Academic diversity in the biological sciences isn't what it should be.  At the most basic level, representation by underrepresented groups in the top research universities in the United States is less than 5%1.  Despite gains in enrollment of underrepresented students in the biological sciences at the undergraduate and doctoral levels, these gains do not extend to the tenure-track realm, where representation has changed very little over the past three decades. 

At another level, because of the ferocious degree of competition in science today - for publication in high impact journals, for limited grant funds, for fewer tenure-track positions -- one might argue that academic diversity is slowly been shaped by a "1%" mindset.  Perhaps more than ever before, the institution you come from-- even the lab you come from-- influences where you will publish, whether you will attain funding, and ultimately whether you will succeed. My purpose here is not to grumble; I'm sure th…

When people can…

As long as I can remember, there were people marching on the streets, either protesting or celebrating or even supporting the topic of the manifestation. It always fascinated me how powerful people can be, when they come together. In cases of manipulation of the public opinion this is of course not good. However, many times this can influence things in a positive way. Coming from a country like Greece, I have to admit that it was fairly frequent for me to see people getting together on the streets for a variety of reasons. Then, when I moved myself and my life to Boston, these events happened less frequently. I remember that I joined a protest in Boston once (although maybe this is not the right time to admit such a thing). It was about the Gulf war and people wanting their children to come back home. The subject of the protest was noble, however only a few people participated. Thus, it was to my great surprise and satisfaction when on April 22nd, 2017 the March for Science was organi…