Abstract:W the federal government began to dominate funding of U.S. scientific research after World War II, critics from professors to President Eisenhower warned of possible adverse consequences to academic freedom and scientific progress. Their concerns have at least partly been realized in today’s dangerously formulaic top-down funding paradigm: (1) await a solicitation promulgated by a federal agency, often with the voluntary input of external scientists; (2) compile a proposal and wait approximately six months for funding decision; (3) collect data, typically over several years, keeping results proprietary to protect intellectual property and other academic rewards; (4) disseminate knowledge via conferences and peer-review publications, with direct benefit to the public as a desired, but rarely realized, afterthought (Figure 1). At best, the public is told about the results upon completion of this cycle and rarely participates. In the case of the Flint, Michigan disaster, if we had been constrained to this top-down research model, injustices of childhood lead poisoning, vital infrastructure damage and one of the largest Legionnaires’ disease outbreaks in U.S. history may never have been brought to light. Unless academics exercise their academic freedom and occasionally break the rules that implicitly govern conduct of research, practically important and societally relevant problems such as decaying vital infrastructure and environmental injustice will continue to remain out of sight and out of mind. To help expose what is arguably one of the most shocking environmental crimes ever perpetrated by government agencies, it was necessary for us to upend the top-down academic model with a bottom-up approach (Figure 1). Our alternative model overturned the current paradigm by first listening to the public to understand the problem, then volunteering scientific expertise, time and our financial resources toward research needed to expose the problem. This created a public demand to find solutions as expediently as possible. To date, the Flint disaster recovery effort has amounted to nearly a half billion dollars, including $232 million from the State of Michigan, $125 million in foundation grants, and $80 million in U.S. Federal Emergency Funds. Other broader impacts include countless hours of science-based media coverage, and a national conversation on government accountability, societal priorities, ethics, and decaying water infrastructure. Flint reminds us to open our eyes to injustice and our ears to the voices of the public, and to be cognizant of limitations of our top-down funding model. An inherently unbiased funding source does not exist, and we must be prepared to exercise our academic freedom to advance the science needed to address

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

Collective allocation of science funding: from funding agencies to scientific agency

Rethinking Resource Allocation in Science

Should the Endless Frontier of Federal Science be Expanded?

Promoting and Supporting Innovation Through Collaborative Research

The Policy and Mechanism of American Federal Government Funding University Research

Investing in Open Science: Key Considerations for Funders

MARKET FAILURE AND GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY: ECONOMIC THEORY VERSUS POLITICAL PRACTICE

A Dynamical Systems Description of Privilege, Power and Leadership in Academia: identifying barriers and paths to inclusive communities of excellent scholarship

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

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

The United States Of America And Scientific Research

Pathogenic Organization in Science: Division of Labor and Retractions

The Flint Water Crisis: Overturning the Research Paradigm to Advance Science and Defend Public Welfare.

Paradigm change and uncertainty about funding of public health research: social and scientific implications

A new vision for American science

Who Should Be Driving US Science Policy?

Publish, Don’t Perish: Recommendations for Mitigating Impacts of the New Federal Open Access Policy

Science education reform: What's wrong with the paradigm?

Rationalizing risk aversion in science

Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions