Should a Researcher Pursue a Federal Grant or a Private Contract for Funding

HEALTH -- RESEARCH SITE'S PERSPECTIVE ON FUNDING - ESSAY

As the CRA of a large orthopedic clinic specializing in advanced joint reconstructive techniques for athletes, I occasionally recommend funding streams that might be pursued for research. A principal investigator at the clinic is interested in some promising new research that could lead to an improvement in patient recovery times. The question is whether a federal grant or a research contract from a pharmaceutical company should be pursued as the funding stream for the new research.

As a CRA administering clinical trials for a large orthopedic clinic, I would recommend obtaining a federal grant for the promising new research. The key differences between a federal grant -- or any grant, and a private contract -- or any contract, are in the concept and consequences of default (DeMaio, 2015). A grant is a formalized decision to give fund for research or some other action in the hope of reaching a desired goal (Brown University, n.d.). Here, the desired goal would be to improve patient recovery times because of the funded research. In the case of a grant, the goal is desired but not required (Office of Research, University of Pittsburgh, 2010). If the goal is reached, that's wonderful but if it isn't reached, that is still acceptable. Whether or not the clinic is able to reach the goal of improving patient recovery times, the clinic gets to use the money and does not need to repay it (DeMaio, 2015). The point of a grant is that the attempt is funded.

A contract, on the other hand, is a legally binding document that requires the parties to fulfill promises, not just attempt to fulfill them (DeMaio, 2015). One party, here it would be a pharmaceutical company, will offer funding in exchange for the clinic's promise that it will fulfill an obligation (Brown University, n.d.). In this case, that obligation would be to improve patient recovery times because of the funded research. If the clinic agreed to this contract with the pharmaceutical company, accepted the funding but then failed to improve patient recovery times because of the funded research, then the clinic would have failed to fulfill its contractual duty (Office of Research, University of Pittsburgh, 2010). The clinic will breach the contract, no matter how hard it tried to fulfill the contract, and will be liable for the consequences of breaching the contract. Here it is quite logical that the consequence would be repayment of the money to the pharmaceutical company, plus possibly even more money to compensate for the pharmaceutical's damages in paying the money but not getting the desired result. Given the current circumstances, the clinic will be farther ahead pursuing a federal grant than a contract with a pharmaceutical company.

3. Conclusion