Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists’ perspective

In an ideal world, funding agencies could identify the best scientists and projects and provide them with the resources to undertake these projects. Most scientists would agree that in practice, how funding for scientific research is allocated is far from ideal and likely compromises research quality. We, nine evolutionary biologists from different countries and career stages, provide a comparative summary of our impressions on funding strategies for evolutionary biology across eleven different funding agencies. We also assess whether and how funding effectiveness might be improved. We focused this assessment on 14 elements within four broad categories: (a) topical shaping of science, (b) distribution of funds, (c) application and review procedures, and (d) incentives for mobility and diversity. These comparisons revealed striking among‐country variation in those elements, including wide variation in funding rates, the effort and burden required for grant applications, and the extent of emphasis on societal relevance and individual mobility. We use these observations to provide constructive suggestions for the future and urge the need to further gather informed considerations from scientists on the effects of funding policies on science across countries and research fields.

[1]  Danielle Li,et al.  Big names or big ideas: Do peer-review panels select the best science proposals? , 2015, Science.

[2]  Harold Varmus,et al.  Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[3]  Richard B. Freeman,et al.  Collaboration: Strength in diversity , 2014, Nature.

[4]  David J. Currie,et al.  Big Science vs. Little Science: How Scientific Impact Scales with Funding , 2013, PloS one.

[5]  H. Nowotny Real science is excellent science – how to interpret post-academic science, Mode 2 and the ERC , 2006 .

[6]  Kendall Powell,et al.  Young, talented and fed-up: scientists tell their stories , 2016, Nature.

[7]  Jonathan Adams Collaborations: The fourth age of research , 2013, Nature.

[8]  S. Hodge,et al.  A manifesto for fair and equitable research funding in ecology , 2017 .

[9]  Peter van den Besselaar,et al.  Early career grants, performance, and careers: A study on predictive validity of grant decisions , 2015, J. Informetrics.

[10]  Brian C. Martinson,et al.  The Perverse Effects of Competition on Scientists’ Work and Relationships , 2007, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[11]  James Wilsdon The Metric Tide: Independent Review of the Role of Metrics in Research Assessment and Management , 2016 .

[12]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  The metric tide: report of the independent review of the role of metrics in research assessment and management , 2015 .

[13]  M. Heinemann The Matthew Effect , 2016, Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgeon.

[14]  Heidi Ledford How to solve the world's biggest problems , 2015, Nature.

[15]  T. Kuhn,et al.  The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. , 1964 .

[16]  M. Neiman,et al.  Sex in the wild: How and why field‐based studies contribute to solving the problem of sex * , 2018, Evolution; international journal of organic evolution.

[17]  G. Laudel The art of getting funded: How scientists adapt to their funding conditions , 2006 .

[18]  Andrew Gibson,et al.  Arts and Humanities Research, Redefining Public Benefit, and Research Prioritization in Ireland. , 2017 .

[19]  C. Wagner,et al.  Open countries have strong science , 2017, Nature.

[20]  Johan Bollen,et al.  From funding agencies to scientific agency , 2014, EMBO reports.

[21]  C. Bloch,et al.  The size of research funding: Trends and implications , 2015 .

[22]  Adam Eyre-Walker,et al.  The Assessment of Science: The Relative Merits of Post-Publication Review, the Impact Factor, and the Number of Citations , 2013, PLoS biology.

[23]  L M Bouter,et al.  How do scientists perceive the current publication culture? A qualitative focus group interview study among Dutch biomedical researchers , 2016, BMJ Open.

[24]  Samuel A. Moore,et al.  Erratum: “Excellence R Us”: university research and the fetishisation of excellence , 2017, Palgrave Communications.

[25]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  Scientists have most impact when they're free to move , 2017, Nature.

[26]  Peter A. Abrams,et al.  The Predictive Ability of Peer Review of Grant Proposals: The Case of Ecology and the US National Science Foundation , 1991 .

[27]  B. Menge,et al.  Transformative Research Is Not Easily Predicted. , 2017, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[28]  Arturo Casadevall,et al.  Grant funding: Playing the odds. , 2016, Science.

[29]  Laurel Smith-Doerr,et al.  How Diversity Matters in the US Science and Engineering Workforce: A Critical Review Considering Integration in Teams, Fields, and Organizational Contexts , 2017 .

[30]  R. Cousens Why can't we make research grant allocation systems more consistent? A personal opinion , 2019, Ecology and evolution.

[31]  Cindy E. Hauser,et al.  The gender gap in science: How long until women are equally represented? , 2018, PLoS biology.

[32]  Seokbeom Kwon,et al.  A measure of knowledge flow between specific fields: Implications of interdisciplinarity for impact and funding , 2017, PloS one.

[33]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  What Happens When Underperforming Big Ideas in Research Become Entrenched? , 2016, JAMA.

[34]  Sara E. Kuebbing,et al.  Long‐term research in ecology and evolution: a survey of challenges and opportunities , 2018 .

[35]  K. Vaesen,et al.  How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers? , 2017, PloS one.

[36]  James A. Evans,et al.  Large teams develop and small teams disrupt science and technology , 2019, Nature.

[37]  Liv Langfeldt,et al.  How Professors Think: Inside the Curious World of Academic Judgment , 2011 .

[38]  R. Whitley,et al.  The Impact of Changing Funding and Authority Relationships on Scientific Innovations , 2018 .

[39]  Rinze Benedictus,et al.  Fewer numbers, better science , 2016, Nature.

[40]  M. Edwards,et al.  Academic Research in the 21st Century: Maintaining Scientific Integrity in a Climate of Perverse Incentives and Hypercompetition , 2017, Environmental engineering science.

[41]  Effective operation of competitive research funding systems , 2018, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers.

[42]  Yuyu Zhou,et al.  Global urban signatures of phenotypic change in animal and plant populations , 2017, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[43]  R. Ricklefs,et al.  The evolutionary ecology of senescence , 2008 .

[44]  Daniel R. Brumbaugh,et al.  Long‐Term Studies Contribute Disproportionately to Ecology and Policy , 2017 .

[45]  L. Bromham,et al.  Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success , 2016, Nature.

[46]  R. Scoble,et al.  Assessment, evaluations, and definitions of research impact: A review , 2014 .

[47]  A. Hendry,et al.  Human influences on evolution, and the ecological and societal consequences , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[48]  Kendall Powell These labs are remarkably diverse — here’s why they’re winning at science , 2018, Nature.

[49]  L. Hoffman,et al.  Strength in diversity. , 2014, Cell host & microbe.

[50]  Gabriele Bammer,et al.  Should we discipline interdisciplinarity? , 2017, Palgrave Communications.

[51]  Paula E. Stephan How Economics Shapes Science , 2012 .

[52]  Ulrike Felt,et al.  Unsustainable Growth, Hyper-Competition, and Worth in Life Science Research: Narrowing Evaluative Repertoires in Doctoral and Postdoctoral Scientists’ Work and Lives , 2016, Minerva.

[53]  Donald Geman,et al.  Opinion: Science in the age of selfies , 2016, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[54]  T. Clutton‐Brock,et al.  Individuals and populations: the role of long-term, individual-based studies of animals in ecology and evolutionary biology. , 2010, Trends in ecology & evolution.

[55]  M. Alberti,et al.  Urban driven phenotypic changes: empirical observations and theoretical implications for eco-evolutionary feedback , 2017, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[56]  S. de Rijcke,et al.  The Drawbacks of Project Funding for Epistemic Innovation: Comparing Institutional Affordances and Constraints of Different Types of Research Funding , 2018, Minerva.

[57]  O. Seehausen,et al.  Why evolutionary biologists should get seriously involved in ecological monitoring and applied biodiversity assessment programs , 2014, Evolutionary applications.

[58]  R. Merton The Matthew Effect in Science , 1968, Science.