Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research | Hacker News Reader

Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research

plosbiology.org

45 pointsrflrob16 comments

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.

It's possible to apply for grants without being in a university, though the bar to have your application taken seriously is admittedly higher. But, if you convince people you're legit, there are a good number of "businesses" whose revenue is mostly NSF grants, e.g. Cycorp: http://www.cyc.com/

Depending on your area, I'm not sure the overhead costs come out to less, though. If you're independent, you not only have to pay for the overhead of physical equipment out of that money, but also of a bunch of salaries and benefits (including your own, lab staff, etc.). You're also probably going to have to pay your researchers more than a university pays its grad students.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...)

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?

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.

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.

All of naish's points are excellent. I would emphasize that you need to prepare for rejection. Start on secondary proposals and thinking about other lines of funding before you even submit your first.

>“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.

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.

In your field, is this a real problem?

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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com