Multiple Funding Sources

Alexander Berezin berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Tue Dec 26 22:21:51 EST 1995


(new comment in the end, some stuff deleted - Alex Berezin)

On 26 Dec 1995, William Tivol wrote:

> Alexander Berezin (berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA) wrote:
....... 

> : I suggest that BASIC research of all kinds (incl. biomedical)
> : be supported on equal footing with other areas through the
> : single source - National Endowment for Sciences and Arts.
> : (after all, medicine was "art" in ancient times). This will
> : provide long needed restrain for strengthening and focusing
> : of fundamental medical research towards real problems rather 
> : than solving numerous gargantuan pseudo-problems. 

(TIVOL): 
> 	Unfortunately, single-source funding mechanisms are vulnerable to the
> kinds of political shifts as are occurring in the USA at present.  Having mul-
> tiple funding sources (private as well as various levels of government) can
> help stabilize things.
> 				Yours,
> 				Bill Tivol
> 
BEREZIN: 
OK, there is a way to mediate the above offerings. Yes, multiple
source funding scheme is better by a number of reasons, PROVIDED 
there is a mechanism to control the TOTAL funding for a given
researcher (group). At the moment, there is none and research 
funding system works by the principle 'grab as much as you can'. 
If sensible limitations on how much professor can responsibly
do (researchwise) per year are accounted for, than the above 
difficulties are largely solvable. I think, as average,
responsible research production, will amount to
around 2 to 4 papers per year (anything above 5 is either 
exceptional or publish-perish treadmill). 

This limitation (those who are already reasonbly funded are
ineligible to apply for more) is rather easy to administer,
provided there is a political will for it.





More information about the Bioforum mailing list