I found the discussion that we had in class on Tuesday about research funding to be rather interesting and a little frustrating. I found an article from 2011 on Scientific American discussing “The Broken Science Funding System”. This article points to a 2007 study that showed that U.S. university faculty members spent about 40 percent the time they had for research “navigating the bureaucratic labyrinth”, which I understood to mean applying for grants, although I suppose it may also include some other activities such as reviewing other articles or trying to get published. It also points out that the National Science Foundation found that between 1997 and 2006, an average applicant had to submit 30 percent more proposals in order to earn the same number of awards. This seems like a very large increase in the amount of time and effort that must be dedicated to being funded over a ten year period, and I wonder how much it has changed in the eight years since.
To quote the article, this funding system “not only…makes inefficient use of scientists’ time, it discourages precisely the kind of research that can most advance our knowledge”. I could not agree with this point more. One example of this is what Dr. Duffin pointed out in class the other day: the old, well-known professor is much more likely to receive funding than their younger, less-connected counterpart. This to me seems like an entirely skewed system. For one, it seems to me like this may discourage young people from wanting to be researchers, as it seems so difficult to be funded and be able to pursue their ideas. Also, this seems to be an issue because it may prevent people from doing truly risky and innovative research. If funding only goes towards “safe” projects (whatever safe means), why would researchers feel challenged to try something out of the box? While I understand that the people giving grants do not want their money to be wasted, to me it seems that any new research in which the experiment is conducted well and it produces results can be useful in teaching us something. If researchers are not encouraged to challenge themselves by doing something that seems a little bit risky, how are we supposed to learn? I believe that there has to be some way to change the funding system so that it encourages researchers’ curiosities instead of shutting them down.
Here is the link to the Scientific American article: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/dr-no-money/?page=1