Does project management stifle innovation and run contrary to the serendipity of the scientific process. This argument, perhaps valid 30 years ago, can no longer be justified with average laboratory budgets in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. These budgets are equivalent to revenue streams of the majority of small business in America. Moreover, at the departmental scale, tenure decisions and new faculty appointments are intimately tied in with success of bringing in NIH grants e.g. revenue. It seems that scientific research has recently acquired a bit of the industrialization.

So how can we save the creativity of the research process, while at the same time improving the efficiency of the results that process produces?

Clearly, significant improvements to existing processes are necessary if we are to achieve the kinds of results we hope for when NIH invests $30B into intra and extramural research efforts. For example, despite significant investment in cancer research, little has been achieved. Some studies suggest that mortality rates have fallen only 5% over the last 40 years. The reasons for the lack of progress can only be guessed. From a recent — New York Times Article

“There also are unnecessary roadblocks. Research lurches from fad to fad — cancer viruses, immunology, genomics. Advocacy groups have lobbied and directed research in ways that have not always advanced science.”

Clearly, more has to be done to increase accountability in research and follow through for projects that have already seen significant investment. Increasing funding to high-risk research would also help. Still, I propose that the first step would be to take stock in the “inventory” of research which is being funded and perhaps even how successful past research efforts have been.

The problem, as any NIH program director will tell you, is that no such record is available. In fact, we can’t programmatically extract that knowledge because it doesn’t exist in any database. Most programs directors get several pages reports at the end of the year outlining the results from a particular grant. These are clearly not sufficient to draw any measurable conclusions about the history of success for research programs.

How can we dramatically improve this situation? We need a database of research. We need a national equivalent of an electronic lab notebook. Perhaps, project management can help scientists reach conclusions faster, and get more money for future studies. Perhaps, project management can help NIH program directors take stock in the science being funded and how successful these projects are over time at producing drugs that extend life-spans and decrease mortality of patients. Perhaps…