|
 From Anger Management to Anger Transformation
By Paul T. P. Wong, Ph.D., C.Psych
"I am very angry. God knows that I try, but I can't help it - I have every reason to be mad." If this sentiment sounds familiar, it
is because all of us have experienced similar inner struggles with respect to anger.
Wouldn't you be angry, if what you have built with sweat and blood is snatched away from you by force and handed it over to someone else?
Wouldn't you be furious, when your trusted friend stabs you in the back and turns against you?
Wouldn't you be filled with righteous indignation,
when religious leaders abuse their subordinates spiritually and psychologically, all in God's name?
Wouldn't you be filled with rage and pain, if your house was destroyed and your family killed by bombing?
Wouldn't
you be mad, if you were arrested and imprisoned for interrogation for no other reason than your ethnic-racial background?
Wouldn't you be fuming, if your country was occupied, and your freedom and rights were taken away from you?
Wouldn't you be furious, if you were dismissed
in spite of your many years of contribution, whereas your incompetent and lazy co-worker was promoted simply because he was
related to the boss?
There are enough legitimate reasons to make people burn with
righteous anger all the time: Abuse of power. Corruption. Hypocrisy. Poverty. Deprivation. Inequality. Injustice. Senseless war. Violence.
Atrocities. Terrorism. Oppression. Humiliation. Betrayal. Discrimination. Mistreatments.
Of
course, people can also get angry over trivial matters: A thoughtless remark. Being slighted. Failing to get proper respect.
Misunderstanding. Petty jealousy. Sometimes even the slightest provocation can set off an outburst.
In short, we are a nation of angry people and we are becoming an increasingly angry society. We live in a world filled with enough anger and hate to blow it into pieces. Everyone seems to be angry with someone for some reason. Many have acted out their anger. Terrorist bombing is simply the extreme expression of anger.
How do you react in each of the above scenarios? How do you cope with angry feelings?
Anger-in and anger-out
These are the two natural ways of coping with anger: but both methods have their drawbacks. The insecure, mild-mannered Dave Buznik (Adam
Sander) in Anger Management is the implosive "anger-in" type. His anger management guru Dr. Buddy Ruydaell (Jack Nicholson)
is the explosive "anger-out" type. Both need anger management because they represent the extreme cases.
When anger is turned inward, it will be disguised as self-loathing, passive aggression, and sarcasm. In rare cases, implosion
may result in suicide. When we ruminate over unhappy events and brood over past hurts, we become susceptible to depression.
Another danger of bottling up is that our inner tumult may gradually build up until it eventually erupts like a volcano.
When we let our anger out and direct it to others, we may feel good temporarily. But releasing anger inappropriately may also get us into trouble. Frequent temper tantrums may result in getting fired, while fistfights and
assaults may land us in jail. Office rage, road rage, vandalism, and random violence are examples of anger out of control.
Like any other emotions, anger is also accompanied with physiological changes, such as an increase in heart rate and blood pressure. Therefore, frequent
and intense anger may contribute to a variety of illnesses, such as, hypertension, heart attack, ulcer and cancer.
What do we do about the prevalent problem of anger, which threatens not only our personal health but also the quality of our community?
Anger management
Anger management appears to be the answer because it helps us do a better job in coping with anger. Often courts prescribe anger management as part of sentencing for thousands of abusive spouses, violent people, and aggressive teens.
Anger management workshops have become a cottage industry for counselors, therapists and psychologists. Anger management
therapists come from different theoretical orientations. However, most of them rely on cognitive-behavioral techniques.
However helpful, anger management cannot solve all our anger problems for three obvious reasons:
- You cannot mandate every angry person to attend an anger management workshop.
- There are not enough anger management therapists to go around, if all the angry people ask for help.
- Traditional anger management is simply not very effective in certain situations, such as systemic and persistent oppression.
Is anger controllable?
The basic idea behind anger management is that if you don't control anger, it will control you. Thus, the emphasis is on control - on our ability to manage anger and regulate its frequency, intensity and expression. From this perspective, problems of anger and aggression are regarded as anger-control problems.
But anger is a natural and normal reaction to negative situations that inflict pain or frustration. Therefore, angry feelings and reactions are difficult to control.
Experimental studies have shown
that if you deliver an aversive stimulus to animals, they will respond aggressively. We also have the same instinct to fight
back when others cause us pain. However, in a civilized society, we cannot lash out every time we feel frustrated and angry. Hence, the need for control.
There are four basic ways of anger-control:
- Avoid people and situations that are likely to trigger anger.
- Suppress you angry feelings.
- Express your anger in a measured and appropriate manner.
- Reduce and regulate the intensity of your anger by calming it.
Anger management techniques
Most of the anger management techniques are designed to achieve one or more of the above four types of control. Here are some of the
commonly known anger-control techniques:
- Relaxation - Breathing exercise, muscle relaxation,
imagery, etc.
- Cognitive re-framing - Changing the way we think
about the situation
- Humor - Seeing the humorous side of a bad situation
- Talking to someone - Talking about your problem
& feelings
- Redirecting your anger - Hitting a pillow or throwing
darts
- Changing your situation - Changing
your job or moving to a different place
- Assertive training - Learning to assert yourself
and communicate your feelings
- Problem-solving - Trying to
resolve the problem that makes you angry
The British Association of Anger Management proposes that the formula to control anger is Recognition + Understanding. In other words, anger-control
begins in our head; if we recognize the trigger and symptoms and understanding what is happening to us, we are then better
able to cope with anger.
Limitations of anger management
There are limitations to anger management techniques, because they place too much burden on the individual.
Often, anger requires an interpersonal or systemic solution.
When people are trapped in
a dysfunctional family, it takes more than self-control to resolve the anger problem. In such systems, people may actually reinforce each other's angry feelings and aggressive behaviours. All members involved in anger-saturated relationships need to change.
When they live under a brutal and oppressive regime,
life is an endless series of problems, frustration and pain, from which there is no escape. The ever-present system of injustice
and abuse is enough to make many citizens angry. Anger-control techniques are helpful to a certain extent, but ultimately regime-change is needed to remove the source of anger.
In oppressive, dysfunctional systems, anger management can become a form of "social control" that teaches people to be better "prisoners" and willing "victims". Therefore,
we need an alternative approach that can harness anger and empower people to use this powerful emotion for positive systemic change.
Anger transformation
From the perspective of anger transformation, anger is a powerful emotional energy that needs to be harnessed and channeled to positive goals. The focus is not on anger-control, but on the psychological processes of transforming anger into positive energies.
There are four basic processes of transformation:
1. Creative transformation - Anger feelings are transformed into something new, such as artistic works, scientific inventions, and the creation of new products.
When imagination is fueled and powered by anger, anything could happen.
The creative process provides
both an outlet and a goal for one's pent-up emotions. Some of the most memorable poems and music have been created out of
the depth of suffering and anger. Some of the best ideas have been born in the crucible of despair and frustration.
Don't
get angry, don't get even, but get ahead, because success is the best revenge. Anger can be beneficial, because it frees us from illusion, confronts us with the real enemy, and gives us a laser-sharp vision
of what needs to be achieved.
Often, just a glimpse of the impossible dream is enough
to lift one's spirit. To be able to capture the heavenly vision for posterity will fill one's heart with joy and hope.
2. Social transformation - Rage is transformed into social reform through activism and political
struggles. Social interest and acts of altruism can indirectly reduce one's angry feelings.
Often, social transformation is a group effort, as oppressed individuals
are galvanized and organized to fight for justice and freedom. When they no longer want to be model "prisoners", they band
together to overthrow the oppressor and break down the "prison walls" of fear, doubts and apathy so that they can make a difference
in this world.
Resignation, cynicism, and bitterness can fester and destroy a person.
But smothering anger can also spark the spirit of reformation to fight against injustice, oppression and abuse.
3. Existential transformation - Bitter despair is transformed into wisdom, serenity and a higher
purpose through enlightened acceptance, detachment and self-transcendence. Personal hurts often fade away when viewed against
the backdrop of inevitability and immensity of human suffering. To affirm the goodness of life in the midst of misfortunes
can also make pain more bearable.
Anger can awaken the defiant human spirit and propel one to heroic efforts in serving a cause greater than oneself. To be able
to discover or recover a passion for living can set one free from the bondage of self-pity and self-destruction.
4. Spiritual transformation - Pain is transformed into transcendental experiences through spiritual
exercises, such as prayer, meditation, forgiveness and reconciliation. We perceive that we are no longer alone in our efforts
to control anger, because we can solicit divine help according to our beliefs and faith traditions.
When
spirituality is an important part of our lives, and faith is one of our core values, we are more likely to succeed
in transcending our plight and enter into a blessed realm in which anger gives way to praise. The development of spiritual maturity may lead to a state of total surrender to divine guidance. Different
from other anger management techniques, spiritual transformation needs to take place in the person first, before it can be practiced effectively.
Two contrasting approaches to coping with anger
Do you see the differences between anger management and anger transformation? Try to work through the scenarios listed in the introduction and see which approach is more effective for
which situation.
Imagine you are having a conversation with someone who has just
completed a six-week long anger management workshop.
- "Are you still angry?"
- "You bet I am!"
- "Don't you find anger management training helpful?"
- "Not really. Some of the techniques are quite helpful in some situations, but
overall, anger management has not been very useful to someone like me in my situation."
- "Tell me something about yourself and your situation."
- "Well, I am just a very intense person, and I feel very passionate about certain
things. It never fails to incense me, when I see injustice or hypocrisy. Unfortunately, I happen to work in an organization
where injustice and hypocrisy are its trademark."
- "But why don't you quit and find another job?"
- "I did try, but in my field, there are very few openings these days. I just
have to learn to put up with a lot of crabs everyday and try not to blow up, because I have to support a large family. It
has been very hard on me. I still feel like screaming or punching up some one."
What else can you say to help this poor fellow? Based on what have learned about anger transformation, what type of transformation would be most helpful?
One of my students
Bill Angus incorporates existential-spiritual elements with cognitive-behavioral techniques in his Anger Management Workbook. His appeal to meaning and spirituality focuses on affirmation of what is good and pursuit of positive
goals. Information on his Workbook is available by clicking here.
Another of my students
Diane Currie has developed a Poetic Workshop, called "Becoming a Radical Poet: Transforming Anger into Freedom". This workshop explicitly addresses anger as a potentially energizing emotion that can be healed and transformed through creative poetry making.
Between two worlds
All of us live between two worlds - idealism versus
realism, heaven versus earth, City of God versus City of Man, love principle versus power principle. No matter how we conceptualize this duality, we find ourselves caught between the pulls
of two different worlds.
Anger management only addresses issues of life-in-the-world. It deals with the practical concerns of
daily living. It is concerned with survival and adaptation to reality without any attempt to change it. Anger management can be achieved by mastering a set of cognitive-behavioral techniques.
Anger transformation addresses issues of the ideal life. It deals with what makes
life meaningful and worthwhile. It is concerned with the quest for beauty, truth and goodness. Anger transformation can be achieved only through the dialectic and dynamic process of maintaining a precarious
balance two worlds.
We need both anger management and anger transformation to live in the present world without losing hope for a better world. Ultimately,
long-term success in anger management depends on anger transformation.
Good Friday and Easter Sunday
This
morning at the Good Friday service, in a comfortable auditorium, along with a thousand others, I joined in singing
songs of celebration, and looked at the crucified Jesus on a giant screen. There was a surreal feeling to the whole service
and I was lost in thoughts.
Falsely accused, wrongly convicted, and barbarically
executed, the crucified Christ represents all people who are persecuted, oppressed, and victimized. The cruel Cross symbolizes
all that is wrong in this present world.
The forces that contributed to the horror
of the Cross are still with us: the self-righteous religious leaders and their blind followers, the ambitious political leaders
and their hatchet men, and the ruthless "power" games of deception, manipulation and control. No wonder the world is full
of angry and hurting people.
But the glory of Easter Sunday transforms the Cross into a symbol
of convergence of duality - Heaven and Earth, life and death, and righteousness and evil. The risen Jesus represents not only
the overcoming of anger, hate and death, but also the returning of the hero to the world in order to transform it.
Thus,
Good Friday and Easter Sunday symbolize two fundamental realities. Crucifixion without resurrection represents a closed system
of suffering, death and anger. But resurrection turns it into a mystical open system, which is being renewed by the power of forgiveness, redemption, and
love. Herein lies the secret of an ultimate cure for anger.
Author's Bio: Dr. Wong is the president and founder of the International Network on Personal
Meaning (INPM), located on-line at http://www.meaning.ca.
source site: click here
Negotiate to get what you want out of life
by John McKee
Everything is fair
game; whether you covet a new job, a raise, a business deal, a new car, some new bling, or need to rectify a problem with
a loved one, the “art of negotiation” is your secret weapon to achieving the result you want. Indeed, among
the greatest strengths of very successful business people is their ability to out negotiate with others to achieve their desired result.
Negotiating need
not be back and forth, point-counterpoint banter. Rather, the most proficient negotiators manage these conversations in such
a way that the other party likely does not even know they are engaged in a bargaining process. The bottom line is simple:
if there is something you want that is in someone else’s control, knowing how to negotiate will stack the odds in your
favor.
With this in mind,
here are my top seven tips on turning business negotiation skills into a life skill:
•First and
foremost, be prepared to walk away. This is single most important strategy to getting what you want out of life. If you aren’t
prepared to say, “No” and mean it; then you are likely to end up settling for a lesser outcome. Before entering
into the negotiation, know in advance exactly what you are and are not willing to concede, so that you do not need to process
this information on-the-fly without adequate time to weigh the pros and cons of each.
•Know when
to forgo all together. A good deal comes together quickly – a bad deal takes way too long. Take a clue from the
amount of time it’s taking to get what you want and, if exceedingly long, don’t waste valuable time and effort with the misguided notion that “just one more” give or take will make the deal work. If
you have to “force it,” chances are it will come back to bite you later on.
•Deal at
the right level. Nothing is more frustrating than trying to do a deal with an individual who can’t make the final decision.
It’s like negotiating against yourself – you address an issue and try to come to a conclusion and then the other
person takes that to someone else “behind the scenes” only to come back and say it can’t be done on those
terms. It’s far more efficient and effective to find the right person to negotiate with directly. If you don’t
know or if it’s not obvious if you’re dealing with the right person, directly ask up front if they have authority
to make a final decision on the matter.
•Due diligence
to come prepared. The more information you have surrounding the circumstances of your endeavor, the “marketplace,”
for example, the more likely you are to not only prevail, but also get the best deal possible. While you may actually prevail
by shooting in the dark, not knowing the extent of the opportunity could result in your leaving a lot on the table. Whether
it’s the average pay for a given job, the price typically paid for a product or a service, or who you are in competition
with for a new position – knowledge is truly power.
•Don’t
take anything personally. To maintain objectivity, treat every negotiation as if you are doing a deal for someone else who
has hired you as the professional “closer.” When you allow yourself to get emotionally involved, rational thought
often goes by the wayside and you’re far more likely to concede to your later regret. Cool heads get the best, and most,
out of what they are seeking.
•Anticipate
objections. Prior to the negotiation, brainstorm all the reasons or objections that may prevent you from getting what you
want – and prepare a thoughtful counterpoint for each, one at a time. During a negotiation, people conjure all sorts of reasons why something can’t
be done, many of which are often bogus. Until you know the valid sticking point, you are just spinning your wheels.
•Don’t
underestimate Karma. What goes around indeed comes around. The best deal is one where both parties walk away feeling positive
about the result of the negotiation. The worst deal is that where one side leaves the table feeling
slighted with the short end of the stick. If you’re the kind of person who “has” to win and is prepared
to humiliate or otherwise make someone feel bad as a result, sooner or later the gain is likely to come back to haunt you.
Accordingly, consider in advance what would satisfy the opposition and be prepared to pull those “cards out of your
pocket” strategically during the course of discussion.
In my 30-plus years
as a corporate executive and as a business success coach for others , I have learned what works and what does not work in striving toward a desired outcome both in the workplace
and in one’s personal life. Interestingly, the process is very much the same in both environments. The key is to be
tough but fair in such dealings, come prepared, and know when to walk away.
John McKee, a certified
business and executive coach and Author of “21 Ways Women in Management Shoot Themselves in the Foot”, is the
expert and visionary behind BusinessSuccessCoach.net, an online destination for professionals who aspire to maximize their
success in business. He can be reached through his Web sites at www.businesssuccesscoach.net
and www.businesswomanweb.com.
source site: click here
|
 |
|
Treatment at Work May Affect Heart Attack Risk
by Chris Sparling
Feeling slighted
these days? Like your boss just doesn't notice or appreciate your hard work? Well, our only suggestion is to either
find a new job (which isn't exactly easy to do in our current economic climate),
or do your best to grin and bear it. Or else.
Last year, British researchers found that people who feel
as though they are always being treated unfairly at work or at home are at an increased risk of heart attack. By asking a
few thousand civil service workers to rate how they feel in response to the following statement: "I often have the feeling
that I am being treated unfairly," the researchers discovered that feeling unappreciated has a significant effect on a person's
risk of heart attack.
In the study, the participants were asked to rate how they felt
they were treated at work; based on a scale of 1 through 6 (1 being treated the most fairly and 6 being treated the least).
After tracking these participants for 11 years, the results revealed a much greater incidence of heart attack in the people
who believed they were treated unfairly at work than the results expressed by those who felt as though they were treated fairly.
In a time when people are losing their jobs by the thousands,
it may seem foolish to consider leaving a job because you feel unappreciated. However, if you're unable to get over these
feelings and, as a consequence, you place yourself at greater risk for heart problems, it may be best to take a look at the
bigger picture.
source site: click here
The More You Take the More You Lose
In everyday social exchanges, being mean to people has a lot
more impact than being nice, research has shown. Feeling slighted can have a bigger difference
on how a person responds than being the recipient of perceived generosity, even if the net value of the social transaction
is the same, the research on reciprocity - giving and taking - explains.
Newswise — In everyday social exchanges, being mean to
people has a lot more impact than being nice, research at the University of Chicago has shown.
Feeling slighted can have
a bigger difference on how a person responds than being the recipient of perceived generosity, even if the net value of the
social transaction is the same, the research on reciprocity - giving and taking - shows.
"Negative reciprocity, or taking, escalates," said Boaz Keysar,
Professor of Psychology at the University of Chicago and lead author of the paper "Reciprocity is Not Give and Take: Asymmetric
Reciprocity to Positive and Negative Acts," published in the December issue of Psychological Science. The study was
based on giving-and-taking games conducted on students and people in downtown Chicago.
The games provided data on how people respond to give-and-take
social exchanges.
"For instance in driving, if you are kind and let someone go
in front of you, that driver may be considerate in response. But if you cut someone off, that person may react very aggressively,
and this could escalate to road rage," Keysar said.
The situation can escalate when the person doing the slighting doesn't appreciate how strongly the slight is being experienced, Keysar said. "The one receiving
the slight cannot imagine that the slighter lacks that
appreciation. And so it goes, because of such differential perception, they respond more and more strongly. Small slights could escalate to unbelievable, irrational feuds," he explained.
Nicholas Epley, Professor in the University of Chicago Booth
School of Business, and University graduate students Benjamin Converse and Jiunwen Wang joined Keysar in the research. To
examine how people respond to situations involving reciprocity, researchers conducted experiments on campus as well as in
downtown Chicago with people on the street.
One such experiment tested 40 college students. The students
were divided into two groups and asked to conduct experiments that began in two different ways using money. In the first group,
one player learned that another player had $100 and was going to share it. In each situation, the player with the money gave
the other player $50. When the roles were reversed, the players who received the $50 received $100 which they could share
with the other players. In that exchange, those players gave their partners on average $49.50.
In a companion experiment, the scholars found that the act of
taking had a far bigger impact on people's responses than did the act of sharing. A player received $100 from which another
player was able to take as much as desired. That player took $50, leaving the first player with $50 just like in the sharing
experiment. But when the roles were reversed, the first players took back much more, leaving the partners with an average
of $42.
Another experiment confirmed the pattern, showing that taking
quickly escalated as players became increasingly greedy over repeated exchanges. In the college experiments, the players did
not keep the money, but the results were the same in an experiment in downtown Chicago, where $10 was exchanged and players
kept their money.
The study, which was supported by the National Science Foundation,
the National Institute for Mental Health, and the Templeton Foundation, shows various social exchanges differ from those in
the marketplace, where goods are bought and sold, Keysar said. "Acts of giving are perceived as more generous in social exchanges
than objectively identical acts of taking," Keysar said. "Taking tends to escalate. Reciprocity appears to operate on an exchange
rate that assigns value to the meaning of events, in a fashion that encourages pro-social exchanges."
source site: click here
Girl Talk: Left Out Grandkid
My parents doted on their first grandkids, but not my son. They rarely
buy him gifts and don't seem that interested in him. How do I stop feeling slighted and
resentful of my siblings?
By Kitty O'Callaghan, Babytalk
Q. My parents doted on their
first grandkids, but not my son. They rarely buy him gifts and don't seem that interested in him. How do I stop feeling slighted and resentful of my siblings?
A: They say that counting
blessings always helps, so let's give it a shot: Be thankful that your son wasn't spoiled rotten and that you, with your infinitely
better taste, get to pick out his cuter-than-cute clothing. Feel any better? Well, it was worth a try.
It's normal for moms in your position to feel slighted. To lessen the resentment, reflect on what you know is true: Gifts or no gifts, your parents
love all of their grandchildren with all of their hearts. You will repeat this truism to your son someday when he wonders
why you didn't send something on his kid's first Valentine's Day.
If attention rather than stuff is what you're after, you have
to give to get. Your parents will share more of themselves with your son if you share more of your son's life with them, like
the intricate details of his first checkup and his delight at his first Cheerio. And ask their advice when you're at a loss.
It's not only helpful to you, it'll make them want to become more involved. Then when they start showing up unannounced or
with a "vintage" toy that's clearly unsafe, you can stop resenting your siblings and start commiserating with them.
source site: click here
The Job Market
Be Careful What You Wish For
By Beryl Lieff Benderly
July 13, 2007
Between 1998 and 2003, the budget of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) rose from $13 billion to more than
$27 billion in a plan known as "the doubling.” Now that the tsunami of cash has receded, many life scientists - especially
those in the early phase of their careers - have found conditions no better, and in some ways worse, than before the process
began.
This unwelcome outcome
has not dampened politicians’ enthusiasm for the symbolism of multiplying by two. The American Competitiveness Initiative
(ACI), a presidential plan aimed at retaining the nation’s technological edge, foresees just such a burst of largess
for three agencies active in physical science: the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s (DOE's)
Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). But will the blast of cash bring the same
problems and disappointments experienced in the life sciences?
Too much too soon
The NIH doubling did do
a lot of good, providing billions of dollars for basic and clinical research and establishing a new, much higher baseline
for funding. Still, “both the way Congress has expanded the NIH budget and the way NIH has made use of its new funds
offer important cautionary lessons,” writes Yuval Levin, a former associate director of the White House Domestic Policy
Council, in an article in The New Atlantis . He writes that the infusion of money was “far too rapid, and
not adequately tied to structural reforms that might enable NIH to best make use of its growing resources.” Fifteen
percent hikes for each of 5 years “built expectations and momentum that set the agency up for disappointment when the
doubling was done,” he writes.
The number of academic
positions in the life sciences increased, especially at medical schools, and nonacademic employment grew even faster, according
to an analysis by economist Paula Stephan of Georgia State University in Atlanta. The likelihood that a young American-trained
Ph.D. would land that coveted tenure-track job was the same in 2003 as it was a decade earlier; however, the new academic
posts are supported mainly by soft money and are off the tenure track. Many are good jobs in terms of income and opportunities
to do research, but they are dependent on grant renewals.
Meanwhile, the number of
life scientists unemployed, out of the labor force, or in part-time posts also grew. For scientists in academe, universities’
expectations about the number of grants they should win increased, as did the number of proposals submitted to NIH. Many established
researchers hiked the number of grants they receive and the number of scientists working in their labs, but newer investigators
saw virtually no rise in funding through the Research Project Grant Program (R01) grants considered crucial to establishing
an independent scientific career, Stephan found.
“When everybody heard
the budget was doubling, … many medical schools and arts and sciences programs with strong and not-so-strong biomedical
programs … really decided to invest in their programs,” Stephan says in an interview. “As a country we really
over-responded.” The result? It became “harder … to get money. … Success rates have really fallen”--especially
for new investigators, Stephan says. Those “really hurt…are young people,” as an increasing share of NIH
support has gone to older researchers, she says.
The 5-year doubling period
left many younger scientists stranded because, Levin notes, it was too short a time period for them to earn a Ph.D., win tenure,
or bring a newly funded research program to fruition before money became tight. “The glut of graduate students"--and
postdocs--"enticed by the growing support a few years ago have since found it difficult to get their own work funded …
and the sudden deceleration in funding has left many researchers feeling slighted even though
their funding grew by leaps and bounds in the past decade,” he writes.
Still, “it’s
hard to blame the NIH just because of the way it has to be answerable to Congress,” Levin says in an interview. NIH’s
plethora of institutes and centers mostly exist because “some member of Congress has a pet cause and says that NIH should
focus on it,” explains Levin. The idea for the doubling also seems to have had more to do with political symbolism than
with any reasoned analysis of the long-term needs of American science. “Medical research is the sole hope we can provide
to millions of Americans,” wrote Senator Tom Harkins (D–IA) in 2002, explaining why he and Senator Arlen Specter
(R–PA) “set the ambitious goal of doubling America’s investment in … the life-saving research supported
by NIH and conducted at leading research institutions like the University of Iowa and Iowa State.”
But the doubling missed
the opportunity to rationalize NIH’s tangle of entities, Levin notes. Reorganizing the vast agency around broad scientific
themes rather than historic happenstance would cut confusion, increase flexibility, and save money that could move from redundant
bureaucracy to research, he says. Also needed, Stephan suggests, is new thinking about how to staff labs so that fewer frustrated
new job seekers are produced.
Protective factors
As the doubling of the
budgets of the three ACI agencies gets underway, several factors may protect the physical sciences from a troubling denouement.
First, it is planned for 10 rather than 5 years, providing less abrupt growth and more time before the acceleration ends,
allowing grad students to finish degrees, postdocs to find jobs, new faculty to achieve tenure, and newly established labs
to build track records. Second, the sums involved are less massive and therefore can’t lure as many young people into
a potentially futile effort to launch scientific careers. The total NSF budget request for fiscal year (FY) 2008 is $6.4 billion,
up 8.7% from last year. For the Office of Science, the 2008 request totals $4.4 billion, and for the core programs at NIST
that will undergo doubling, the 2008 request is $600 million.
The way two of these agencies
spend their money, furthermore, is less likely to flood the job market. Eighty percent of NIH’s funds go to 50,000 competitive
grants to principal investigators who staff their labs with temporary labor--grad students and postdocs who become part of
a constant stream of new scientific-job seekers. Although smaller, NSF works the same way as NIH; NSF expects to make about 10,400 competitive awards in FY 2008, according to the American Association for the Advancement
of Science.
But DOE's Office of Science
will spend only half its budget on work by university researchers, with much of the rest going to its ten national laboratories
and research facilities, from Brookhaven in New York state to the Pacific Northwest National Lab in Washington state. NIST’s
Scientific and Technical Research Services is slated for a 12.8% increase, to $420 million, all of it going to support NIST’s
own labs and facilities in Maryland and Colorado, with additional money for construction and new equipment. Both of these
agencies have postdocs--who, incidentally, are paid much more than those dependent on NIH grants--but their facilities are
staffed by mostly long-term employees.
Which leads to a third
major difference: the job market is stronger for physical scientists than for life scientists, at least for now. New physical
science Ph.D.s are considerably less likely to be postdocs, unemployed, or out of the job market than biomedical Ph.D.s--and
substantially more likely to get faculty or industry jobs. Creating “a job market at least as large as the added influx
of graduate students you’re creating” is vital to building the next generation of scientists, Levin says. Otherwise,
“you’re setting yourself up for the kind of deflating experience that the NIH has, their recipients … genuinely
angry about declining budgets at a time that they’ve got enormous budgets. And they’re not wrong,” he adds.
Whether a good result will
emerge is as yet unclear. Apart from the three ACI agencies and a few others, the outlook for federal research and development
funding is bleak, with the president’s 2008 budget proposing a drop in real dollars and substantial cuts at a number
of agencies. Some critics call the ACI doubling a diversion to mask the overall decline in science spending. The key to fostering
research and nurturing a new generation of talent is not, as the NIH experience shows, simply large infusions of long-wished-for
but short-term cash. Rather, it is steady commitment over the long term. Once again, the former is underway. The latter remains
to be seen.
source site: click here
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
