I recently encountered a job ad for a grant-funded job at a lab. I am intrigued by both the job itself and the lab that it's with, but I was curious what the risks are of accepting a grant-funded position, since I assume that there's a significant risk of it ending abruptly.
Can someone explain what the risks are of taking a job like this? What kinds of questions should one ask in order to find out more about the risk?
Can someone explain what the risks are of taking a job like this?
In broad terms, a grant-funded position means there is money allocated for X years to fund you. Usually, grants aren't terminated abruptly, although the current US administration is doing so. However, without executive interference, these grants don't usually evaporate without warning.
That is, when you are hired, you'll likely be told that there are two years on this grant, and there should be a long horizon. No competent PI would hide the date the grant ends from you.
What kinds of questions should one ask in order to find out more about the risk?
Nowadays: Have grants in this area been terminated recently?
In normal times:
Who is the funder?
How long does this position have funding for? What happens to the position when that funding runs out? Will this grant be renewed?
What happens to the position if the funder decreases the award or cuts the grant entirely, are there alternative sources of funds to complete the project?
After this project is over, could I possibly continue on new grants? Are there internal funding opportunities to stay past the funded period?
It is not rude to ask about funding, people understand that you need money to live.
Assuming this is in the US (as tagged) there is some (probably a lot, depending on field) risk under the current administration. Many grants have been terminated without notice or apparent cause. There seems to be hostility toward science at the moment. Opinion seems to trump actual scientific knowledge (pun intended).
In "quieter" times there is also risk that a grant will end at some date certain and not be renewed. That might serve your interests or not, but it is risky to try to build a career on such things.
Don't give up on other options and consider the risk. If you get an offer, or close to one, try to work out the consequences of early termination of the grant and whether alternate funding would be available. Even if it isn't terminated early, ask about continued funding possibilities for the end of grant funding. In particular, try to explore the possibility of a transition to a permanent position. This might be possible if the lab has projects that extend beyond the life of any particular grant.
And, develop a career plan that depends less on the unknown if you can, and work toward it continuously.
There is risk in everything, of course; even tenure track positions. But a position for which there is some long term funding plan by the institution is preferable to alternatives.
In my world this is termed a "soft money" position and is normal. Many people start on soft money, before securing a continuing position. In my field almost all people in continuing positions came in this way. Many others are on soft money for X years (typically 2<=X<=15) before being unceremoniously cast aside.*
A better question for you is what are you comparing to, what is the alternative route?
*By unceremoniously cast aside I mean not being able to secure a new soft money or continuing contract when their final contract ends. They thus need to give up on the idea of an academic career and go and do something else. So cast aside by academia collectively, not necessarily through the actions of any particular person or institution.
A particular aspect that I have not seen touched on is status within the greater institution. Where I work, if you are in specific kinds of grant-funded positions, as I am, you are not allowed to apply for other internal or external funding. These jobs might also have a time limit, after X years you need to secure a permanent position or you have to move on.
You should ask about the difference in privileges between grant-funded and permanent employees. Getting a good answer to this question could be nearly impossible, though. Nearly everyone I work with is shocked to find out I am not a normal employee who can do the things that they do.
