This post is really a post-scriptum to the previous blog entry, namely, ResearchScorecard now provides full-functionality coverage of the University of California, San Diego (UCSD):  Expertise Searching, Researcher Ranking, Comprehensive Researcher Profile, Funding Profile, Departmental Profile — it’s all working.  It’s also quite instructive (more on that later).

Although we’ve been quiet about it, ResearcherScorecard users may notice that a broader range of universities are now monitored. In the example below, you can see many more Life Sciences research institutions than what we’ve provided so far (Stanford and UCSF), including institutions that aren’t universities.

What’s missing presently are some of the comprehensive reports which are currently limited to Stanford and UCSF, especially the Comprehensive Researcher Profile (Tools → Researcher By Name) and its institutional counterpart (Tools → Organization By Name). However, very shortly we’ll be adding such reports, providing coverage way beyond Stanford and UCSF. First up will be UCSD, will many more to follow.

Example of broader institutional monitoring by ResearchScorecard

I’m pleased to announce that the latest GrantCard report for NSF biomedical fundees at Stanford is now available. As always, NSF reports for Stanford and UCSF are offered free of charge and can be accessed via Tools/Create sales lead report. An account (also free) is required.

Stanford University NSF grantees for week of April 13 2009

It’s interesting to see how few UCSF NSF fundees there are, compared to Stanford (see table below), even though UCSF is a much larger institution than Stanford. This is why UCSF receives far more funding overall in the life sciences, even though in 2008 the average funding per PI was $147,080 vs $32,789 for Stanford and UCSF, respectively, according to ResearchScorecard’s data.

This difference in NSF funding presumably reflects the greater extent of basic research life sciences research at Stanford, whereas UCSF is presumably more clinically oriented. I emphasize the presumptive nature of those statements because I must confess that I have yet to scrutinize the nature of biomedical research between the two institutions, but when I do I’m sure I’ll find all sorts of interesting differences.

I’ve always been impressed with the research sponsored by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and as of today ResearchScorecard displays life sciences researchers at Stanford that have been funded by DARPA after 2000.

Granted, there aren’t many of those in the bio realm (see bottom table). So why bother? Well, it’s safe to say that these scientists are likely to become trendsetters if they aren’t already. This is based on the notion that DARPA will fund you because your project is both ambitious enough AND just might work, a combination that is typically difficult to achieve with conventional funding. This is because DARPA doesn’t work via a review committee as do NSF or NIH. Instead, you have to get approval from a program manager (a very senior and experienced scientist) to submit a proposal following a DARPA RFP. This proposal has to convince the program manager, who then has to convince the head of DARPA for things to move forward. As long as the administrators are smart and schrewd, this can lead to surprising results, as this process diminishes barriers to creativity often encountered when trying to convince committees (the more folks to convince, the more likely one of them will object to your proposal). And sure enough, the results speak for themselves: the Internet, desktop graphical user interfaces, stealth, GPS and cars that drive themselves are several among many examples.

Note that the dollar amounts for those grants or contracts aren’t listed in our database, as the amounts are not easily decipherable. Furthermore, I don’t believe the number is critical for the goal here: The imprimatur given by DARPA is sufficient to indicate that the recipient is a markee scientist, in my opinion. Let us know if you think otherwise.

DARPA funding data can be found in Researcher Profile and Department Profile reports for biomedical researchers at Stanford University for 2001 onward.  Use Tools Researcher by Name to get details for individual scientists. You can also use Tools Funding History.