Enhancing research with Plenary Labs

The two most evident crises in the advanced research ecosystem in the USA are scarcity of funds and scarcity of jobs. We argue that both of these are outcomes of a flawed resource usage model and propose an alternative approach that can help alleviate these challenges. Named ‘Plenary Labs’, this approach is designed to act as a counterpoint to the traditional schema wherein each laboratory acts as a self-contained silo with a full complement of equipment and personnel to advance the principal investigator’s research program. This schema results in redundancy across labs, as well as an inflated need for research assistants. Plenary Labs ameliorate both of these issues by consolidating equipment and technical manpower. By democratizing access to cutting edge resources, reducing the time and costs involved in experimental research, and reducing the imbalance between supply and demand for jobs, Plenary Labs have the potential to significantly enhance research.

[1]  Jon R. Lorsch,et al.  Maximizing the return on taxpayers' investments in fundamental biomedical research , 2015, Molecular biology of the cell.

[2]  Michael S Lauer,et al.  Predicting Productivity Returns on Investment: Thirty Years of Peer Review, Grant Funding, and Publication of Highly Cited Papers at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. , 2015, Circulation research.

[3]  Paul R Sanberg,et al.  UNDERSTANDING THE HIGH COST OF SUCCESS IN UNIVERSITY RESEARCH. , 2013, Technology and innovation.

[4]  Arturo Casadevall,et al.  Why Has the Number of Scientific Retractions Increased? , 2013, PloS one.

[5]  Clive Slaughter,et al.  A bright but demanding future for core facilities. , 2005, Journal of biomolecular techniques : JBT.

[6]  Heidi Ledford.  Indirect costs: Keeping the lights on , 2014, Nature.

[7]  Alexander Camarota.  COMMENTARY: HACKING FOR CHANGE AT THE USPTO , 2013 .

[8]  A. Casadevall,et al.  Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications , 2012, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[9]  David Cyranoski,et al.  Education: The PhD factory , 2011, Nature.

[10]  Wayne P. Wahls,et al.  Biases in grant proposal success rates, funding rates and award sizes affect the geographical distribution of funding for biomedical research , 2016, PeerJ.

[11]  Jennifer Rohn.  Give postdocs a career, not empty promises , 2011, Nature.

[12]  M. Teitelbaum,et al.  Structural Disequilibria in Biomedical Research , 2008, Science.

[13]  Bill Lindstaedt,et al.  Tracking Career Outcomes for Postdoctoral Scholars: A Call to Action , 2016, PLoS biology.

[14]  John F. Sargent,et al.  Federal Research and Development Funding: FY2010 , 2009 .

[15]  Julie Gould.  Core facilities: Shared support. , 2015, Nature.

[16]  Nicholas Graves,et al.  On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers , 2013, BMJ Open.

[17]  Arturo Casadevall,et al.  Lost in Translation—Basic Science in the Era of Translational Research , 2009, Infection and Immunity.

[18]  Ronald J. Daniels,et al.  A generation at risk: Young investigators and the future of the biomedical workforce , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[19]  Walter C. Patterson.  Keeping The Lights On , 2007 .

[20]  Paula E. Stephan.  How Economics Shapes Science , 2012 .

[21]  Katalin Szaszi.  A basic scientist’s reflections on research funding , 2015, Canadian journal of kidney health and disease.

[22]  Adam Eyre-Walker,et al.  Research groups: How big should they be? , 2015, PeerJ.

[23]  Kendall Powell,et al.  The future of the postdoc , 2015, Nature.

[24]  Jeremy M. Berg,et al.  Toward a sustainable biomedical research enterprise: Finding consensus and implementing recommendations , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[25]  M. Lauer,et al.  Association of percentile ranking with citation impact and productivity in a large cohort of de novo NIMH-funded R01 grants , 2015, Molecular Psychiatry.

[26]  Ronald D. Vale,et al.  Accelerating scientific publication in biology , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[27]  Gloria Shontz.  The New Age of Accountability: Linking Activities to Outcomes and Cost , 2010 .

[28]  Gregory K. Farber,et al.  Core Facilities: Maximizing the Return on Investment , 2011, Science Translational Medicine.

[29]  Harold Varmus,et al.  Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[30]  Bruce Alberts,et al.  Opinion: Addressing systemic problems in the biomedical research enterprise , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[31]  I. Cockburn,et al.  The Economics of Reproducibility in Preclinical Research , 2015, PLoS biology.

[32]  Vivian Ho,et al.  The Aging of Biomedical Research in the United States , 2011, PloS one.

[33]  John McGready,et al.  Career Development among American Biomedical Postdocs , 2015, CBE life sciences education.

[34]  Naomi Lubick.  Working for a Contract Research Organization , 2012 .

[35]  Vito Latora,et al.  Anatomy of funded research in science , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[36]  Bruce M. Alberts.  Limits to growth: in biology, small science is good science , 1985, Cell.

[37]  Ted von Hippel,et al.  To apply or not to apply: a survey analysis of grant writing costs and benefits. , 2015, 1503.04201.

[38]  Maximiliaan Schillebeeckx,et al.  The missing piece to changing the university culture , 2013, Nature Biotechnology.

[39]  Aaron A Hoskins,et al.  Strategies from UW-Madison for rescuing biomedical research in the US , 2015, eLife.