As European scientists who have run large research
teams for years, we are concerned about the increasing
bureaucratic load for scientists, especially in applying
for and handling European Union research funds. One
of us has coordinated an EU large-scale facility for
nine years, and the other has participated in several
EU projects. We have each received (and still receive)
funding both from government sources and from a wide
variety of private grants. Collecting the funding
from a multitude of sources can consume all of a scientist's
time. We would like to open discussion on this undesirable
development and propose a complementary funding policy.
In EU funding, the border between science and R&D
work seems to be fading, as is evident from the increasing
emphasis on detailed research plans that must include
promises of well-defined scientific results, now called
"deliverables," to be produced at clearly fixed time
points. If milestones are not met, the reviewer teams,
recruited from peer European scientists, can cut funding
even in the middle of the granting period. However,
history of science indicates that scientific discoveries
are highly unpredictable. Thus goal- and milestone-oriented
funding policy suits only R&D-type work, for which
it was originally developed.
Scientific disciplines differ in many respects,
but any ambitious and innovative research includes
uncertainty, errors, and misjudgments. Clairvoyant
scientists who claim to predict their ground-breaking
experiments three to five years ahead are suspect,
to say the least. Consequently, many of the planned
approaches have to be abandoned or modified during
the course of the research. Scientists certainly need
goals, but those goals cannot be reached the way a
marathon runner would, by following well-marked roads
with roadside milestones. Science is more like orienteering,
in which the approaches and paths must be selected
according to the ever-changing terrain.
The EU's increasing science bureaucracy, requiring
laborious and complicated paperwork both in the initial
application and in the frequent project reports, has
led to the emergence of science consultants: Universities
and corporations offer know-how to interpret the deliverables,
milestones, Gantt charts, Pert diagrams, and road
maps. Obviously, only devoted science managers can
keep track of the oversized research networks that
the scientists feel obliged to create in order to
compete in the funding game. These new professional
groups decrease the total research budget available
for scientists without improving the quality of science.
The increasing bureaucratic load also decreases
the willingness of top scientists to volunteer for
review panels of grant applications and for evaluations
of research programs. Thus the reviews sometimes are
not based on good scientific standards. Unfortunately,
means to correct unfair decisions are practically
nonexistent in EU funding, which clearly lags behind,
for example, the US National Institutes of Health,
where the applicants are advised on how to improve
their application for the next round.
It might be wise to consider alternative and complementary
funding approaches. One possibility is to improve
methods for recognizing top
research teams and scientists (not necessarily the
ones who can, or have time to, write the best research
plans) and to fund them with risk (similar to the
venture capitalist model), as long as their productivity
stays high. Previous achievements continue to be the
best means to predict future success; according to
our experience, looking in the rearview mirror works
at all stages of research and thus is fair for scientists
at all levels of professional maturity.
As considerable amounts of citizens' money are spent
on research, everybody—including the scientist—has
the right to expect that the money will be used wisely.
Present funding practices should be examined and discussed
openly. We propose that some large funding body study
the effectiveness of different funding and evaluation
approaches by applying both open-minded science measures
and more strict R&D criteria, and then following
the results for the long term. Such a study would
also benefit national funding agencies.
To cite Richard Feynman: "The rate of the development
of science is not the rate at which you make observations
alone but, much more important, the rate at which
you create new things to test." Such new things emerge
only as research progresses; they are not known in
advance. At each milestone, the scientist must study
all possible directions, but doing so requires freedom,
continuity of funding, and time to think—without
wasting energy on irrelevant tasks.
Featured Jobs
