To supercharge science, first experiment with how it is funded

[phinds]

Interesting article from the Economist. To me it seems a bit long on vague ideas and short on specifics, but it would be very good to get the right people at least talking about the problems that they point out.

The article:

The transformation unleashed by increased funding for science during the 20th century is nothing short of remarkable. In the early 1900s research was a cottage industry mostly funded by private firms and philanthropy. Thomas Edison electrified the world from his industrial lab at Menlo Park, and the Carnegie Foundation was the principal backer of Edwin Hubble. Advances in science during the second world war—from the development of radar to the atom bomb—led governments and companies to scale things up. By the mid-1960s America’s federal government was spending 0.6% of gdp on research funding and the share of overall investment in research and development rose to nearly 3%. Inventions including the internet, gps and space telescopes followed.

That dynamism is fizzling out. A growing body of work shows that even as the world spends more on research, the bang for each extra buck has fallen. One explanation for this is that the way science is funded is out of date. Researchers must now contend with a daunting amount of bureaucracy. The rate at which grant applications are accepted has fallen, meaning more of them must be made. Two-fifths of a top scientist’s time is spent on things other than research, such as looking for money. One study found that researchers spent a combined 614 years applying for grants from a single funding body in Australia in 2014 alone. Risky ideas are often put aside.

<snip>

They go on to point out that the current system is, to use their description, "monolothic" by which they mean that it is very concentrated, mostly to universities. They are also clear that they have no specific solutions but they are calling for more discussion by policy makers to realize the existing problems and try to improve and streamline the funding so that scientists can spend more time on science and less on paperwork.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2...cience-first-experiment-with-how-it-is-funded

 

[Vanadium 50]

The Economist seems not to believe in economics.

They seem to think that if there were a higher grant success rate or the grant process were otherwise less onerous, we would have the same number of scientists just spending less time on proposals.

I also reject the idea that "science is at a standstill". I see no evidence for it. Certainly technology is not at a standstill.

 

[phinds]

I also reject the idea that "science is at a standstill". I see no evidence for it. Certainly technology is not at a standstill.

Huh? Where do they say that science is at a standstill? I don't see where they say it or even imply it.

As for the thrust of the article, do you think that the current methods for funding science do not need any improvement?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Where do they say that science is at a standstill?

They are saying it needs to be "supercharged".

do you think that the current methods for funding science do not need any improvement?

I am most familiar with how things work in the US. Apart from the argument "more is better", it seems to me that most of the problems come from funding science in a democracy: for example, a proposal that would not be supported in Massachusetts or California might be supported in Maine or Wyoming.

However, I like living in a democracy, and until it is replaced with the Science Council of Krypton, this is the price that needs to be paid.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed temporarily for Moderation...

 

[berkeman]

Mentor Note -- the full article in the OP is behind a paywall, but the quoted portion is available free by clicking the link in the OP.

Thread is reopened. Thanks for your patience.

 

[BillTre]

Almost all funding is and will be acquired from grant writing. That is not going to change. Its a competitive business and competing solicitations for money have to be compared. In theory, this process results in better use of money and advances, but other factors and counter-act this.
There are many non-government sources of funding, but almost all require grant writing. Perhaps in a goal directed private business, it could be run differently. It would still required checking out how good an idea is before sinking a lot of money into it.

The only people not having to do this are already established big-shots (whom it could be argued went through the process earlier), like a MacArthur genius grant.

An excess of PhDs compared to available research positions and funding for them are probably behind some of the issues they are concerned about.

That dynamism is fizzling out.

Well, I'm retired now.

 

[topsquark]

Well, I'm retired now.

Awesome comment! I love it!
-Dan