{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03969465648854962, 'fraction_numerical': 0.019083969465648856, 'mean_word_length': 4.7, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Tenured Faculty on Soft Money

The vulnerability of nontenured faculty whose salary comes from “soft money” is examined by Marcia Barinaga in her News Focus article “Soft money's hard realities” (22 Sept., p. [2024][1]). This situation is wide-spread in the academic community, but there is another group of faculty who is vulnerable that Barinaga does not mention: Ph.D. scientists (full-time, nonclinical faculty) in clinical departments of medical schools. These faculty are tenured, yet they receive all or most of their salary from their grants (that is, soft money).

A case in point is the situation at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in Cleveland, Ohio. Academic advancement and the award of tenure for such faculty are subject to the same rigor as for faculty elsewhere in the university, and in all various degrees participate in the teaching programs at Case Western. The university has taken the position that it will not be beholden for the salary of faculty whose support comes from soft money such as grants in the event that such ceases, tenure status notwithstanding. Thus, obtaining tenure does not always solve the problems associated with soft money. The “security” held implicit in the concept of tenure is not universal.

 [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.289.5487.2024