Science policies: How should science funding be allocated? An evolutionary biologists' perspective - PubMed (original) (raw)

. 2019 Aug;32(8):754-768.

doi: 10.1111/jeb.13497. Epub 2019 Jul 5.

Affiliations

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

Stephanie Meirmans et al. J Evol Biol. 2019 Aug.

Abstract

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.

Keywords: funding; funding rate; grant proposal; science policy; scientific quality.

© 2019 The Authors. Journal of Evolutionary Biology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society for Evolutionary Biology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Abrams, P. A. (1991). The predictive ability of peer review of grant proposals: The case of ecology and the US National Science Foundation. Social Studies of Science, 21(1), 111–132. 10.1177/030631291021001006 - DOI
    1. Adams, J. (2013). The fourth age of research. Nature, 497, 557–560. 10.1038/497557a - DOI - PubMed
    1. Alberti, M. , Correa, C. , Marzluff, J. M. , Hendry, A. P. , Palkovacs, E. P. , Gotanda, K. M. , … Zhou, Y. (2017). Global urban signatures of phenotypic change in animal and plant populations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114(34), 8951–8956. 10.1073/pnas.1606034114 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alberti, M. , Marzluff, J. , & Hunt, V. M. (2017). Urban driven phenotypic changes: Empirical observations and theoretical implications for eco‐evolutionary feedback. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 372(1712), 10.1098/rstb.2016.0029 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alberts, B. , Kirschner, M. W. , Tilghman, S. , & Varmus, H. (2014). Rescuing US biomedical research from its systemic flaws. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(16), 5773–5777. 10.1073/pnas.1404402111 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources