

Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research - rflrob
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1000197

======
yummyfajitas
One way we could dramatically increase the availability of funds for science:
allow science to be conducted at market rates.

Currently, most science is funded under the following model. A scientist is
directly employed by a host institution, typically a university. The scientist
then applies for money from the government, of which 50-60% will be spent on
research. The remainder will be pocketed by the host institution as
"overhead".

In principle, the overhead pays for things like lab space, but in reality lab
space could often be acquired for vastly less than 50% of a large grant.
Scientists put up with this because it is not possible to apply for a grant
without being employed by a host institution.

I propose to cut out the middleman, and give money directly to scientists.
This will dramatically increase the funds available for science.

~~~
mturmon
The SBIR program is kind of like what you're proposing:

<http://www.sbir.gov/solicitations/>

It's walled off so that larger entities _cannot_ propose to it (somewhat
contrary to "free market" principles, but whatever).

I've managed proposal reviews for SBIR, and the average quality is noticeably
lower than NSF proposals I've reviewed. Of course there is significant overlap
between them, but that's the average.

So I'm not sure your idea would accomplish anything new.

~~~
yummyfajitas
SBIR is mainly grants to get innovative small businesses going (which is why
large businesses are not involved). It's also mostly military, as far as I
know. I think SBIR is a great program, but it's not really meant for funding
basic research.

But yes, something similarly structured but aimed at basic research might be a
good idea.

Greater transparency also couldn't hurt. We could simply demand that
universities itemize overhead. Then the PI is responsible for rejecting
unneeded items (e.g. university computer lab fee if the PI has his own
computer) and the NSF is responsible for rejecting items which are >10% above
market.

~~~
mturmon
It's far broader than DoD. See the solicitation I referenced or:

<http://www.sbir.gov/federal_links.htm>

(I managed a small SBIR category for NASA.) Despite the rhetoric, they do
provide a sustainable flow of work to many organizations (sometimes referred
to as "SBIR shops").

About basic vs. applied research: What I was trying to say is: The relative
lack of breakthrough success for SBIR seems to imply that smaller, more nimble
(market-responsive?) organizations are not the answer.

------
frossie
There aren't enough ways one can say how totally broken science funding is.

Big upvote for the OP for actually trying to address some solutions. However
what concerns me is that there isn't a single unifying voice; some people want
to tweak the grant system, some want to get rid of it, and everything in
between; while I personally I am in the get-rid-of-it camp, I would get on any
bandwagon that had an actual chance of success.

------
cantastoria
I think another problem not discussed in the article is the "manufactured
consensus" phenomenon where well funded labs can populate a particular niche
with grad students and researchers who are all working from the same
theoretical framework. This creates a feedback loop of ever increasing funding
and publishing for this ever growing group.

Any researcher who does not subscribe to this false consensus will find it
almost impossible to get funded or published. Thus those with radical ideas
are kept out of the system. You see this in many of areas scientific research
(e.g. viticulture, climatology, linguistics...)

------
anonymousDan
An excellent article. I like the idea of a system where a researcher's future
funding is based on a periodic review of what they have done, as opposed to
how glamorous they can make their plans for future work sound. As an aside, as
someone who has just finished their PhD and is starting to think about writing
grant proposals, does anyone on HN have any tips for a first-timer?

~~~
naish
Good grant applications (especially large ones) take a considerable amount of
time to put together. In general, you can't bang one out in a couple of days
or even a week. Some large ones I've worked on have taken months to pull
together. A few quick tips:

\- Start as early as possible so that you can write, develop ideas, rewrite
and rework.

\- Find a mentor, preferably one in the same or related area who has a good
record of success.

\- Ask colleagues for copies of successful grant applications to the same
programs.

\- Have your mentor and other colleagues review your grant and provide
feedback.

\- Listen to advice from others, but ultimately trust your own judgement.

\- Apply to as many programs as possible--you can't get funded if you don't
apply.

\- Don't get discouraged if you are not successful, as many programs have
small (and ever dwindling) success rates.

\- Reapply if turned down, being sure to address the concerns of the
reviewers.

~~~
mreid
Very good, concise advice. I was lucky enough to get a good mentor and
collaborator on my first grant application and got many of those tips from him
as well.

------
narrator
>“The problem is, over and over again, that many very creative young people,
who have demonstrated their creativity, can't figure out what the system wants
of them—which hoops should they jump through?

I think that's the main problem. The system doesn't know what it wants.

------
thefool
I really like the idea of awarding grants to institutions based on aggregate
performance, and then awarding funding within a department based on internal
metrics.

Getting rid of some of the direct competition might make people more compelled
to share thier ideas with one another as well.

~~~
brg
In your field, is this a real problem?

~~~
thefool
I'm a college student thats looking into going down this path, and am pretty
apalled about the ratio of cool stuff to playing the game that academics seem
to have to endure.

I'm pretty sure I don't want to spend 80% of my time stressed out about grants
and 20% actually doing work or teaching. Unless thats not what the reality is,
but from the jaded sources I've read, that seems to be the case.

~~~
brg
I totally agree with the problems of teaching, administrative duties, and
grant applications getting in the way of research.

But I am interested in the concern you showed about people keeping their work
secret due to funding applications. In the world of CS, there are so many
conferences because people are compelled to share every small step of progress
instead of keeping it to themselves awaiting a huge breakthrough.

