Competitive stumbling

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/445126a

IF: 64.8

2007-01-01

Nature

Abstract:Promised investment in the physical sciences is held up in a US budget jam.

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Sticky Policies, Dysfunctional Systems: Path Dependency and the Problems of Government Funding for Science in the United States

Frank N. Laird

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-020-09409-2

IF: 2.356

2020-06-11

Minerva

Abstract:Abstract Leaders of the scientific community have declared that American science is in a crisis due to inadequate federal funding. They misconstrue the problem; its roots lie instead in the institutional interactions between federal funding agencies and higher education. After World War II, science policy elites advocated for a system of funding that addressed what they perceived at the time as their most pressing problems of science-government relations: the need for greater federal funding for science, especially to universities, while maintaining scientific autonomy in the distribution and use of those funds. The agencies that fund university research developed institutional rules, norms, and procedures that created unintended consequences when they interacted with those of American higher education. The project system for funding, justified by peer-review and coupled with rapidly increasing R&D budgets, created incentives for universities to expand their research programs massively, which led to unsustainable growth in the demand for federal research money. That system produced spectacular successes but also created the unintended longer-term problem that demand for science funding has grown more quickly than government funding ever could. Most analysts neglect potentially painful reforms that might address these problems. This case demonstrates that successful political coalitions can create intractable long-term problems for themselves.

education & educational research,history & philosophy of science,social sciences, interdisciplinary
Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions

Kevin Gross,Carl T. Bergstrom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000065

IF: 9.8

2019-01-02

PLoS Biology

Abstract:Scientific research funding is allocated largely through a system of soliciting and ranking competitive grant proposals. In these competitions, the proposals themselves are not the deliverables that the funder seeks, but instead are used by the funder to screen for the most promising research ideas. Consequently, some of the funding program's impact on science is squandered because applying researchers must spend time writing proposals instead of doing science. To what extent does the community's aggregate investment in proposal preparation negate the scientific impact of the funding program? Are there alternative mechanisms for awarding funds that advance science more efficiently? We use the economic theory of contests to analyze how efficiently grant proposal competitions advance science, and compare them with recently proposed, partially randomized alternatives such as lotteries. We find that the effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports, especially when only a few proposals can be funded. Moreover, when professional pressures motivate investigators to seek funding for reasons that extend beyond the value of the proposed science (e.g., promotion, prestige), the entire program can actually hamper scientific progress when the number of awards is small. We suggest that lost efficiency may be restored either by partial lotteries for funding or by funding researchers based on past scientific success instead of proposals for future work.

biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Why the US Needs a Deep Domestic Research Facility: Owning rather than Renting the Education Benefits, Technology Advances, and Scientific Leadership of Underground Physics

Kevin T. Lesko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1304.0402

2013-04-01

Instrumentation and Detectors

Abstract:I summarize the status of the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota and present connections to Energy and Intensity Frontier that benefit from the establishment of SURF and the staging of US-funded experiments in a domestic facility.
The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds

Gerald Schweiger,Adrian Barnett,Peter van den Besselaar,Lutz Bornmann,Andreas De Block,John P.A. Ioannidis,Ulf Sandström,Stijn Conix

2024-03-26

Abstract:Research funding systems are not isolated systems - they are embedded in a larger scientific system with an enormous influence on the system. This paper aims to analyze the allocation of competitive research funding from different perspectives: How reliable are decision processes for funding? What are the economic costs of competitive funding? How does competition for funds affect doing risky research? How do competitive funding environments affect scientists themselves, and which ethical issues must be considered? We attempt to identify gaps in our knowledge of research funding systems; we propose recommendations for policymakers and funding agencies, including empirical experiments of decision processes and the collection of data on these processes. With our recommendations we hope to contribute to developing improved ways of organizing research funding.

General Economics
Who cares about physics today? A marketing strategy for the survival of fundamental science and the benefit of society

Umberto Cannella

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1210.0082

2012-09-29

Popular Physics

Abstract:It would seem that the present dry economic times impose a very precise focus for science in general and physics in particular: research, possibly of applied type. However in doing so two basic pillars of a healthy future for science are being undermined: fundamental research and public engagement. The first is what makes applications possible in the first place, many times with a path from inception to implementation that is as long and indirect as poorly advertised. The second pillar, public engagement, is mostly regarded as a commodity: if there is good level of funding scientists can consider spending money for public relations otherwise this is the first thing scientists cut because it is the least necessary. On the contrary, public engagement in science is very much needed, at the very least because the public is either an enemy or an ally, as testified respectively by the climate change denial and the 2009 Shuttle mission that people wanted in order to service the Hubble Space Telescope for the last time. In this article I will make the case for why popularizing science should be a funding priority, instead of a commodity, for both nation-wide organizations and local research institutions. I will take examples from my personal background with the hope that they will serve to enlighten a more general picture and to frame the discussion around concrete issues and practical avenues to be pursued immediately.
Impact of Declining Proposal Success Rates on Scientific Productivity

Priscilla Cushman,J. Todd Hoeksema,Chryssa Kouveliotou,James Lowenthal,Bradley Peterson,Keivan G. Stassun,Ted von Hippel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1510.01647

2015-10-10

Abstract:Over the last decade proposal success rates in the fundamental sciences have dropped significantly. Astronomy and related fields funded by NASA and NSF are no exception. Data across agencies show that this is not principally the result of a decline in proposal merit (the proportion of proposals receiving high rankings is largely unchanged), nor of a shift in proposer demographics (seniority, gender, and institutional affiliation have all remained unchanged), nor of an increase (beyond inflation) in the average requested funding per proposal, nor of an increase in the number of proposals per investigator in any one year. Rather, the statistics are consistent with a scenario in which agency budgets for competed research are flat or decreasing in inflation-adjusted dollars, the overall population of investigators has grown, and a larger proportion of these investigators are resubmitting meritorious but unfunded proposals. This White Paper presents statistics which support this conclusion, as well as recent research on the time cost of proposal writing versus that of producing publishable results. We conclude that an aspirational proposal success rate of 30-35% would still provide a healthily competitive environment for researchers, would more fully utilize the scientific capacity of the community's facilities and missions, and provide relief to the funding agencies who face the logistics of ever-increasing volumes of proposals.

Physics and Society,Cosmology and Nongalactic Astrophysics,Earth and Planetary Astrophysics,Astrophysics of Galaxies,High Energy Astrophysical Phenomena,Solar and Stellar Astrophysics
A new vision for American science

Sudip S. Parikh,Marcia K. McNutt,Darío Gil

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adu7982

IF: 56.9

2024-11-30

Science

Abstract:America's scientific success is no accident. It has been powered by a decades-long commitment to federal investment in fundamental research that, in turn, nurtured both domestic and foreign talent and prompted the translation of breakthroughs to fuel the economy, improve health, fortify national security, and inspire awe. The world has benefited from the proliferation of this model, and partnerships between the US and other countries have resulted in game-changing discoveries, from medicines to machine learning. Yet what got America to this point will not get the country to where it needs to go. A new vision is required to respond to an evolving global science and technology ecosystem.

multidisciplinary sciences
Accelerator and Beam Physics: Grand Challenges and Research Opportunities

S. Nagaitsev,V. Shiltsev,A. Valishev,T. Zolkin,J.-L. Vay,M. Bai,Y. Cai,M.J. Hogan,Z. Huang,J. Seeman,B. Dunham,X. Huang,T. Roser,M. Minty,J. Rosenzweig,P. Piot,J. Power,J. M. Byrd,A. Seryi,S. Lund,J. R. Patterson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2203.06816

2022-03-14

Abstract:Accelerator and beam physics (ABP) is the science of the motion, generation, acceleration, manipulation, prediction, observation and use of charged particle beams. It focuses on fundamental long-term accelerator and beam physics research and development. Accelerator and beam physics research has resulted in important advances in accelerator science, yet support for this research is declining. NSF has terminated its program in accelerator Science and funding by DOE through GARD and Accelerator Stewardship has been steady or declining. The declining support for accelerator research will slow advances and threaten student training and work-force development in accelerator science. We propose a robust and scientifically challenging program in accelerator and beam physics, which will position the field of US High Energy Physics to be productive and competitive for decades to come.

Accelerator Physics,High Energy Physics - Experiment
Rationalizing risk aversion in science: Why incentives to work hard clash with incentives to take risks

Kevin Gross,Carl T Bergstrom

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002750

2024-08-15

Abstract:Scientific research requires taking risks, as the most cautious approaches are unlikely to lead to the most rapid progress. Yet, much funded scientific research plays it safe and funding agencies bemoan the difficulty of attracting high-risk, high-return research projects. Why don't the incentives for scientific discovery adequately impel researchers toward such projects? Here, we adapt an economic contracting model to explore how the unobservability of risk and effort discourages risky research. The model considers a hidden-action problem, in which the scientific community must reward discoveries in a way that encourages effort and risk-taking while simultaneously protecting researchers' livelihoods against the vicissitudes of scientific chance. Its challenge when doing so is that incentives to motivate effort clash with incentives to motivate risk-taking, because a failed project may be evidence of a risky undertaking but could also be the result of simple sloth. As a result, the incentives needed to encourage effort actively discourage risk-taking. Scientists respond by working on safe projects that generate evidence of effort but that don't move science forward as rapidly as riskier projects would. A social planner who prizes scientific productivity above researchers' well-being could remedy the problem by rewarding major discoveries richly enough to induce high-risk research, but in doing so would expose scientists to a degree of livelihood risk that ultimately leaves them worse off. Because the scientific community is approximately self-governing and constructs its own reward schedule, the incentives that researchers are willing to impose on themselves are inadequate to motivate the scientific risks that would best expedite scientific progress.
Rethinking Resource Allocation in Science

Johan Bollen,Stephen Carpenter,Jane Lubchenco,Marten Scheffer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1904.07645

2019-04-16

Computers and Society

Abstract:US funding agencies alone distribute a yearly total of roughly $65B dollars largely through the process of proposal peer review: scientists compete for project funding by submitting grant proposals which are evaluated by selected panels of peer reviewers. Similar funding systems are in place in most advanced democracies. However, in spite of its venerable history, proposal peer review is increasingly struggling to deal with the increasing mismatch between demand and supply of research funding.
Promoting and Supporting Innovation Through Collaborative Research

Jim Gentile

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.26.1_supplement.617.1

2012-04-01

The FASEB Journal

Abstract:Many of the major scientific challenges of the 21st century are likely to require collaborative and interdisciplinary teams. Creating good “team players” who can work synergistically to undertake high‐risk, high‐reward research should be a priority, and demonstrating success in collaborations should be encouraged by private and federal granting agencies, and more highly rewarded by universities in tenure and promotion decisions. Given the challenges that our nation faces, tenure and promotion decisions should no longer be based merely on the number of papers published or overhead dollars generated. Journal editorial boards and foundation peer‐review panels are essential to the highest‐quality science, but they should not be viewed as surrogate members of tenure and promotion committees. Rewarding careers paths should be clearly visible to the nation's newly minted science Ph.D.s, postdoctoral researchers and “tenure track” professors. Allowing these early‐career scientists more expansive opportunities during their most creative years would make the United States, and the academic communities in which they serve, an increasingly more vibrant and creative environments. The heart and soul of American science and enterprise is the willingness to take risks, to learn from failure and to repeat the process until success is achieved. Our early‐career scientists should have the same opportunity.

cell biology,biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Rationalizing risk aversion in science

Kevin Gross,Carl T. Bergstrom

2024-02-27

Abstract:Scientific research requires taking risks, as the most cautious approaches are unlikely to lead to the most rapid progress. Yet much funded scientific research plays it safe and funding agencies bemoan the difficulty of attracting high-risk, high-return research projects. Why don't the incentives for scientific discovery adequately impel researchers toward such projects? Here we adapt an economic contracting model to explore how the unobservability of risk and effort discourages risky research. The model considers a hidden-action problem, in which the scientific community must reward discoveries in a way that encourages effort and risk-taking while simultaneously protecting researchers' livelihoods against the vicissitudes of scientific chance. Its challenge when doing so is that incentives to motivate effort clash with incentives to motivate risk-taking, because a failed project may be evidence of a risky undertaking but could also be the result of simple sloth. As a result, the incentives needed to encourage effort actively discourage risk-taking. Scientists respond by working on safe projects that generate evidence of effort but that don't move science forward as rapidly as riskier projects would. A social planner who prizes scientific productivity above researchers' well-being could remedy the problem by rewarding major discoveries richly enough to induce high-risk research, but scientists would be worse off for it. Because the scientific community is approximately self-governing and constructs its own reward schedule, the incentives that researchers are willing to impose on themselves are inadequate to motivate the scientific risks that would best expedite scientific progress.

Physics and Society
The Market Logic and the American Research Bubbles

Wang Xueqian,Cai Zhong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13580/j.cnki.fstc.2022.11.015

2022-01-01

Abstract:The scientific research is an undertaking that requires large-scale investment.While achieving corresponding achievements, it is possible to produce a phenomenon similar to an economic bubble in some parts.During the Cold War, the US government’s irrational investment in the field of physics created the bubble of scientific research.The new scientific model attempts to use the market mechanisms to optimize the allocation of scientific research resources to avoidthe physics bubble.However, the market logic failed to cope with the scientific research bubble.Instead, it shifted the physics bubble to a new field with promising market prospects, which are manifested as the research results with low statistical efficiency, the lack of practical significance in application, the increase in the number of patents but the degradation in quality, etc.The reason for the formation of the bubble is traced to the fact that market logic replaces scientific logic, when a large amount of venture capital flows into the scientific research field, it will appear: exaggerated propaganda strategies, unhealthy decision-making orientation, and selection strategies to replace scientific exploration.At the same time, science can not be “instant falsification”and social psychological effects, making the bubble difficult to be identified in the short term, which leads to a new round of more severe scientific research bubbles, resulting in the unfulfilled promises of “scientific research”,followed by a crisis of investor confidence and a loss of public trust in science.
The importance of quality in austere times: University competitiveness and grant income

Ye Sun,Athen Ma,Georg von Graevenitz,Vito Latora

2023-09-27

Abstract:After 2009 many governments implemented austerity measures, often restricting science funding. Did such restrictions further skew grant income towards elite scientists and universities? And did increased competition for funding undermine participation? UK science funding agencies significantly reduced numbers of grants and total grant funding in response to austerity, but surprisingly restrictions of science funding were relaxed after the 2015 general election. Exploiting this natural experiment, we show that conventional measures of university competitiveness are poor proxies for competitiveness. An alternative measure of university competitiveness, drawn from complexity science, captures the highly dynamical way in which universities engage in scientific subjects. Building on a data set of 43,430 UK funded grants between 2006 and 2020, we analyse rankings of UK universities and investigate the effect of research competitiveness on grant income. When austerity was relaxed in 2015 the elasticity of grant income w.r.t. research competitiveness fell, reflecting increased effort by researchers at less competitive universities. These scientists increased number and size of grant applications, increasing grant income. The study reveals how funding agencies, facing heterogeneous competitiveness in the population of scientists, affect research effort across the distribution of competitiveness.

General Economics
The Biden Administration's Scientific and Technological Competition Strategy toward China

Shen Yi,Mo Fei

2022-01-01

Abstract:Scientific and technological(S&T)competition has become a core and frontier issue in the ongoing China-U.S.strategic competition and the main focus of both countries.Currently,the Biden administration is adopting an S&T competition strategy toward China based on the"small yard,high fence"tactical logic,which involves three pillars:investment to make America strong,alignment to get things under control,and compe-tition to weaken China.In the current context of the China-U.S.competi-tion entering a new normal,five inherent contradictions,namely,the gap between strategic expectations and policy effects,shortfall between action capabilities and policy objectives,push-and-pull between strategic deploy-ment and domestic politics,clash between strategic intentions and the S&T innovation ecosystem,and divergences between American priorities and the interests of American allies,will dictate how this administration will implement its S&T competition strategy toward China.
Final spending bills offer gloomy outlook for science

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp0476

IF: 56.9

2024-03-08

Science

Abstract:Congress makes sizable cuts at key funding agencies

multidisciplinary sciences
A rescue plan for UK physics funding

Geoff Brumfiel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/464155b

IF: 64.8

2010-03-01

Nature

Abstract:Research council faces restructuring to resolve financial woes.

multidisciplinary sciences
NIH Portfolio Allocation, Lemmings, and the Silent Spring: A Time-Capsule Commentary & Its Update

Mark Boothby

DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.1-5.v1

2012-07-20

Abstract:With the release of the US President's proposed budget for the Federal Fiscal year (FY) 2013, to start October 1, 2012, we've spun yet again into the mad vortex of an appropriation season. Fundamental re-thinks of how biological and medical research are prioritized and funded are urgently needed, but sadly appear to be unlikely unless the research and advocacy communities push harder and in a more unified manner. Early in the Obama presidency and the NIH Directorship of Dr Francis Collins, the FASEB Office of Public Affairs performed an analysis of trends in funding of R01 and other Research Project Grants and shared that with the Director and his office. Using the FASEB analysis, whose numbers drew on NIH data, an independent commentary (below) was submitted to (but not published in) Science. With the analysis a few years old, this older viewpoint is followed by updates that touch on how the trends have fared since early 2010 and comment on other aspects of the ongoing cull in biomedical research. In particular, data on some of the growth areas that continue to prosper at the expense of the ever-declining direct support for R01 science are discussed.
Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects

Jian Wang,You-Na Lee,John P. Walsh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2018.03.014

IF: 7.2

2018-07-01

Research Policy

Abstract:In many countries the scientific funding system is shifting from an internal block funding model toward a competitive project funding model. However, there is growing concern that the competitive project funding system favors relatively safe, conventional projects at the expense of risky, novel research. It is important to assess different funding models in order to design better funding systems for science. This paper empirically tests for differences in the novelty of funded outputs between internal block funding and competitive project funding, in the setting of Japan, where both funding models play a significant role. Combining survey data from a large sample of research projects in Japan and bibliometric information about the publications produced from these projects, we find that projects funded by competitive funds on average have higher novelty compared to those funded by internal block funds. However, such positive effects only hold for researchers with high status, such as senior and male researchers. In contrast, compared to internal block funding, competitive project funding has a negative relation to novelty for low status scientists (especially junior and female researchers). The findings suggest that the competitive project selection procedure is less receptive to novel ideas from researchers with low academic status and therefore discourages their novel research. These findings can serve as a warning about potential biases in competitive funding allocation procedures and suggest the importance of secure stable funding for allowing researchers with low status to pursue their novel ideas.

management
Leading US particle-physics lab faces uncertain future

Dan Garisto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00150-4

IF: 64.8

2024-01-26

Nature

Abstract:Several organizations are vying for the contract to manage Fermilab, after it received failing grades from the US Department of Energy. Several organizations are vying for the contract to manage Fermilab, after it received failing grades from the US Department of Energy.

multidisciplinary sciences

Competitive stumbling

Sticky Policies, Dysfunctional Systems: Path Dependency and the Problems of Government Funding for Science in the United States

Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions

Why the US Needs a Deep Domestic Research Facility: Owning rather than Renting the Education Benefits, Technology Advances, and Scientific Leadership of Underground Physics

The Costs of Competition in Distributing Scarce Research Funds

Who cares about physics today? A marketing strategy for the survival of fundamental science and the benefit of society

Impact of Declining Proposal Success Rates on Scientific Productivity

A new vision for American science

Accelerator and Beam Physics: Grand Challenges and Research Opportunities

Rationalizing risk aversion in science: Why incentives to work hard clash with incentives to take risks

Rethinking Resource Allocation in Science

Promoting and Supporting Innovation Through Collaborative Research

Rationalizing risk aversion in science

The Market Logic and the American Research Bubbles

The importance of quality in austere times: University competitiveness and grant income

The Biden Administration's Scientific and Technological Competition Strategy toward China

Final spending bills offer gloomy outlook for science

A rescue plan for UK physics funding

NIH Portfolio Allocation, Lemmings, and the Silent Spring: A Time-Capsule Commentary & Its Update

Funding model and creativity in science: Competitive versus block funding and status contingency effects

Leading US particle-physics lab faces uncertain future