Research needs grants, funding and money – missing something?

What is needed to perform scientific research and what is essential for a successful investigator’s career? A popular answer is grants, funding and money – the more the better. The supposedly bleak future of funding next year (there is always a next year) is a pervasive theme in research circles. This professional angst surfaces repeatedly on informal and formal discussions between colleagues, in research and administrative meetings, in news sections of major journals and in nightmares. However, is getting funding of such overwhelming importance? I will argue here that prioritizing emphasis on funding is unfortunate and alternative prerequisites should be fostered instead for the pursuit of a rewarding life in scientific investigation. The hallmarks of what is currently considered to be successful grantmanship are not only largely irrelevant, but also damaging to innovation and science. I will not discuss the wellknown strings attached to funding from corporate sponsors with direct conflicts of interest, because dysfunctions in the industry–academia relationship are already well known [1–3]. Conversely, I am referring to grants from public or other nonindustry donors, where seemingly such conflicts of interest should not be an issue. Science is arguably the best manifestation of human civilization and civilized societies should make its support a top priority. However, that support is a tool, not a goal in itself. Even as a tool, grants with specific objectives and explicit deliverables can apply only to some types of research: those where the underlying principles are already well known and the deliverables can be reasonably specified in advance. Conversely, by default, paradigm-shifting, ground-breaking work cannot really get directly funded based on project proposals. Truly innovative ideas have no precedent, and by definition, no peers can fully understand what they are about, let alone funding agency officials to issue Requests for Applications. An empirical survey showed that for 30% of the pivotal papers of Nobel prize winners [4], the work had been performed without any funding. Moreover, I suspect that for many highly innovative ideas, even though some financial support is acknowledged, this was originally awarded with the intention of performing more mundane work that was sufficiently politically correct to be top-scored by peer-reviewers [5–8]. Admittedly, money rules our societies. It is not surprising then that research executives are struggling to convince politicians and businessmen that investment in science is financially advantageous, even more so in times of economic crises, e.g. that for each $1 of NIH investment in research, the community gets back $2 in goods and services (http://www.newsweek.com/2010/12/20/francis-collins-talks-about-scienceand-faith.html). However, such calculations are notoriously difficult and I fear that many other constituencies and industries, perhaps sometimes distorting the math, may ‘prove’ that the return-to-investment ratio exceeds 2 : 1 for oil drilling, haute couture fashion or organic watermelons. How are we, researchers, going to compete against increasingly unscrupulous lobbyists? Should we follow them in making continuously inflated promises? We pursue a dangerous path when we try to justify research based on its ability to generate financial rewards in the short term. Research is a long-term investment. It is suitable only for societies that have a vision for their future existence that stretches beyond the immediate gratification of one generation. Perhaps what matters most is that without scientific research there would be no civilized community of Homo sapiens to talk of: we would then spend our dull lives only with goods and services. I can put no price tag to this. However, sadly, university departments are increasingly run by aggressive overachievers acting like managers of supermarket branches whose main worry is finances and how to maximize funds regardless of the respective science. I find this depressing, even when the enterprise is maximally successful on the balance sheets of the current fiscal year. Do we have an alternative? I think we do and here are its possible ingredients: Fall in love and follow your passion. Falling in love means having no other anticipation of benefit other than being occupied with the object of affection. Research requires unconditional commitment, enthusiasm and inspiration. There are hundreds of other endeavours that yield more secondary gains such as financial rewards, recognition and an easy-going life for their practitioners. In Europe, full professors earn < 1% of what successful soccer players earn. In the USA, most universities’ football players enjoy more respect than their professors. Around the world, third-rate participants in fourth-rate reality shows get 100-times more. Wikipedia hits than the most recognizable living scientists. Most recognizable living scientists actually never appear in Wikipedia unless they ask their secretary, the