TRUTH about US R&D SPENDING from BRITISH NATURE

Alexander Berezin berezin at MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA
Fri Apr 26 22:03:24 EST 1996




On Fri, 26 Apr 1996, Patrick wrote:

< snip >

> 
> I work in one of those gov't-funded labs that doesn't do "basic cancer 
> research."  We also don't do basic research on HIV...we only examine the 
> underlying mechanisms involved in mutation which leads to 1) cancer, and 
> 2) progression to AIDS in HIV infected patients.  Is THAT basic enough?  
> Is that studying the underlying basis of each?  All this with government 
> grants.    
> 
> I got where I am by attending public universities with student aid from 
> the government.  First, I received a GOV'T scholarship in the AFROTC 
> which permitted me to attend university in the first place (not all 
> people are rich enough to go to college without government financial 
> aid).  The only reason my older sister and younger brother could also 
> attend is because of government financial aid.  
> 
> I served many good years in the Air Force (fought in Desert Storm) and
> earned further government educational aid in the form of Montgomery GI
> Bill which made it possible for me to afford to go to college for a couple
> of years after seperation from the military in order to bring myself up to
> speed on the state of molecular biology and biochemistry.  Now this same
> government-based aid allows me to live while I work on my Phd (because a
> stipend in Salt Lake City doesn't go very far).  Government funding allows
> me to study mutation mechanisms in HIV. I EARNED every dime I received 
> from the government and I made good use of every bit of it.
> 
> Hardly a waste of tax dollars.  Hardly ill-spent money.
> 
> This guy sounds like a perfect Republican...someone who would really like 
> to save education only for the children of those who are able to afford it,
> like rich Republican senators and their big-business buddies.  This would 
> be the perfect means to set up what they really appear to desire: a gaping 
> class separation (Those who run things, are rich, and educated vs those 
> who labor, follow directions without question, and are ignorant).  
> 
> There are a LOT of average American students who would not be in college 
> at all if it weren't for government support and funding.
> 
> As for business supporting research, they are ONLY interested in what 
> will make a buck NOW.  They are not interested in real scientific results 
> that might hurt the "bottom line" (like facts that smoking is harmful, or 
> that oil drilling in wilderness areas is harmful to species, or that auto 
> emissions are a health risk, or that greenhouse gase emissions are 
> affecting the global environment, or that CFCs undergo very well 
> understood chemical reactions with ozone when split by UV radiation into 
> reactive radical species, etc, etc).  
> 
> The government has deeper pockets than most non-profit organizations and
> can support broader basic research than other entities. The research that 
> comes out of government labs is some of the best in the world.  
> 
> patrick
>  

Dear Partick,

Your story is wonderful and no-one sane will have any 
doubts that you deserve every dime you receive from
the government to allow you to do your research. Same is
the feeling of thousands other decent (but struggling:
see option 2 below) researchers and, of course, without 
(massive) government support modern science in unthinkable. 
No business will ever have all the needed will and 
committment to cover this.

However, as a person who is working on his PhD you
perhaps may be quite underestimative of what goes 
on in Big Academic (i.e. NOT Company) Science in terms 
of the funding distribution system. For those 
who want to stay in academic (fundamental) research
as opposed to commerce-driven activities (working 
for business) there are potentially two routes ahead:

(1) To manage to get to the Funding Control Elite
and become on of 'them', or

(2) To get marginalized 

Option 1 means to be inside grantsmanship/peer review
mafia and by no means I disadvise you to get in it if
you can. However, statistically chances for this are
not that high (due to the severe PhD overproduction)

Option 2 in practical terms this means langushing at 
or near the level of eternal posdoc and always feed 
yourself by the leftovers from the Fat Cat's table.
I personally know several doezens of people in this
category (all areas of science) but there are many,
many thousands of them in USA-Canada.

That doesn't mean you can't do research or even find
some satisfaction beening in Option 2 (actually, you 
can find both), but this life requires a lot of sacrifice
and struggling. 

Make no mistake about it. There is no third path
(or at least not in any visible clearly identifiable 
form) and the distinction between these 2 options is
quite sharp.

There is potentially a possibility that the scientific
community can find some escape route, but so far there
are no visible signs of this happening or even that 
there is massive strong will to find the alternatives. 
Contrary to what you hear all along the main problem with 
science is NOT the 'government underfunding' but the rotten 
funding distribuition system based on several fundamental
fallacies. Appended is the article giving more details
on this.  - Alex Berezin
------------------------------------------------------
GUEST EDITORIAL  (published in international journal
"Drying Technolgy", vol. 13 (1&2), 1995).


RESEARCH FUNDING: SOME MYTHS 

Alexander A. Berezin (1) and Geoffrey Hunter (2)

(1) Department of Engineering Physics,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada, L8S 4L7

(2)  Chemistry Department, York University,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3

   World-wide network of univeristy research is one of 
the major pillars of the modern civilization. Despite that
research and intellectual potential is, of course, not
entirely confined to university campuses, the economical,
social and cultural progress of today is unthinkable
without an open forum for new ideas facilitated and
validated by the international community of university
scholars. Therefore, the problem of balanced support for
university research within the realm of available means,
despite its appearence as a "local" problem, gains the
level of international significance.

   Numerous critics, speaking primarily of recent 
evolution of the North American model of university
research funding, have indicated damaging consequences
of ferocious competition for funds which are externally
"justified" by the presumption that such strategy fosters
"excellence" in research. At first glance the idea of
"excellence through competition" seems reasonable. It is
easy to sell to politicians and general public. After all,
if it works for business deals or Olympic games why it 
should not work for science ? However, as it often happens,
the argument fails by extension. The problem is that the
currently practiced regulating mechanisms of the externally
monitored competition in science ("grant selection") are
based on several underlying fallacies (myths) briefly
discussed below.

   MYTH OF "EXCELLENCE". Despite a nice sound, a careful
scrutiny of this term turns it to an empty clause. The true
measure of the long range impact of research is its
originality, NOT its apparent "soundness" and conformity to
currently dominant paradigms. A truly innovative research
proposal is unlikely to attract a smooth approval by grant
awarding committee or get high peer review marks. By the 
very way these judges are presently selected they tend to
be "paradigm keepers" rather than genuine innovation
searchers. Of course, no defence system is perfect and some
truly innovative reasearch "slips through" and gets funded,
especially if the applicants use proper decoys in their
grant applications. Nevertheless, many academic critics,
e.g., Nobel Prize laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgyi [1], have
pointed out that such fortunate occurences happen AGAINST
the dominant gradient of general suspicion (and often open
intolerance) to new ideas which is typical for almost any
committee of pre-appointed "experts". The viable alternative
to it is to fund RESEARCHERS (not proposals !) on the basis
of their overall record. Such a reform, however, will be
at odds with the present American project-oriented funding
model and also it will diminish the power of the
paper-shuffling bureaucracy and grantsmanship elite.
Therefore the idea "fund researchers, not proposals" [2] is
fiercely resisted by the research bureaucracy.

   MYTH OF IMPARTIAL PEER REVIEW. "Impartial peer review"
was, for example, recently stressed in the policy document
"Partnership in Knowledge" issued by the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). By
definition, peers are those who are themselves activly 
involved in the area. Consequently, they are never free
from vested interests in it. While it is, of course, true
that not all of them are evil or dishonest, with all good
will in the world they can't be "impartial". The benefit of
the doubt, therefore, should be with an applicant and a
reasonable implementation of it is a sliding funding scale
[3], not a policy of sharp cut-offs (pop-philosophy of 
"winners and loosers") which is presently the basis of
funding ideology of NSERC and other federal funding agencies 
in Canada and USA. The social purpose of funding agencies
is to ASSIST the university research, they SHOULD NOT have
de facto mandates of directing or controlling the paths of
free inquiry. Their present trend, however, is towards 
precisely the latter - a direct result of the bureaucratic
takeover in any unjustifably blown-up agency.
     
   MYTH OF "SUPERFUNDING FOR SUPER-RESEARCH". This is
another, seemingly sensible, but in essence perverted,
extrapolation of a business model to science. This myth has
two components:
   1) the "most promising" research with the best future 
"impact factor" CAN be correctly identified (by peer 
reviewers, expert panels, boards of directors, or whatever),
and
   2) putting "more money" into the so identified "excellent"
research is bound to make it even "more excellent".

   The first item is wishful thinking based on a presumption
of a "collective wisdom" of expert committees, the second is
based on traditional american aberration that "money can buy
everything". This is not just plainly naive, but also very
costly socially as it leads to an unwarranted overfunding of
many "polically correct" research activities like targetted
mega-projects, "centers of excellence", etc. This myth 
bluntly ignores all crucial non-monetary constraints of any
genuine research. In reality, even Albert Einstein, whose
grant is suddenly increased from, say, $ 50,000 per year 
to $ 200,000 per year WILL NOT produce "four times as many
discoveries". On the contrary, his real productivity will 
likely drop due to additional paperwork, new commitments,
etc. Yes, some modest bonus of, say, 30-50 % above average
for a "really good" (by whichever criteria) research may be
quite appropriate. However, the systematic policy of
preferential (over)funding of some "selected" groups at the
expense of zero "awards" to scores of other equally decent
researchers is nothing short of an arbitrary ideological
apartheid. Its consequences are especially damaging for 
the moral of the younger generation of university
researchers.        

   The typical university research program normally evolves
as a result of complicated ("nonlinear") interaction of
personal motivations of researchers and a web of social, 
micro-political and financial aspects of a specific research
case. Rich spectrum of personal motivations can range from 
the pure humility of research curiosity and selfless quest
for truth to a pragmatic (but socially still quite 
acceptable) aim of personal career gains and attaining the
sizable level of authority, influence and institutional
weight. In the present university reward system it is not
that rare that the latter traits detrimentally degenerate 
to the obsession with power control or personal enrichment
schemes. 
  
   It was mentioned earlier by E.Chargaff [4], the present
university system is based, to a large extent, on the 
exploitation of the young: graduate students, postdocs,
assistant professors. So far, the major currency unit in 
science is a "solid" peer-reviewed paper in a well acclaimed
mainstream journal. The more such units are accumulated, the
better is the bargining position in obtaining new funding,
hiring new postdocs, attracting even more new Ph.D. students,
etc. This vicious circle is self-serving and self-propelling.
The role model in today's academic science is "the boss" -
the head of a departmental mini-empire with 10 to 15 (above
listed) members of cheap research labour force with a net
output of some 20 to 40 papers per year. Though they are not
always entirely useless, the per-capita, per-paper 
(and per-dollar) innovation effect of such super-groups is,
as a rule, much lower than of small groups, or even of many
sole researchers. 

  In reality, the philosophy of "winners and loosers" has an
overall effect of a coercion of research into the avenue of
established paradigmas ("safe science") to satisfy the peer
reviewers and hence to assure the "fundability" of research
proposals [2]. At the end of the day, it is the very idea
of the peer review-enforced "excellence" through a brutal
"selectivity" which is a sure route to a mediocrity, NOT THE
OTHER WAY AROUND. The bulk of historic data suggests that it
makes more sense to fund MORE researchers at LOWER level to
maintain their research base - many important discoveries were
made with quite modest funding. What history of science
clearly DOES NOT show it that the overfunding of
super-research is a guaranteed roller coster to
super-excellence [5]. On the contary, numerous case studies
show that in accord with the universal Peter principle [6],
super-funded research usually quickly gears to its level of
incompetence. 

  To make the whole process less hostile and more time- and
resource-efficient, the awards of research grants should
be based exclusively on the long-term track record of the
applicant. Special provisions of a small bona fide grants
can be left for the junior applicants. Under the present
rat-race "competition for excellence" a university professor
with, say, one or two well thought-through papers per year has
virtually no chance to obtain funding at ANY level.
Implementation of the scheme "fund researchers, not proposals"
not only will make the process of funding more democratic and
socially responsible. It will also greatly reduce the paperwork
and raise the overall efficiency of university research. 
However, such reform will ALSO reduce the power base of the
grantsmanship elite. This is the prime reason why several
constructive proposals of this kind (e.g., [2,3] were bluntly
ignored by research funding bureaucracy.

   While some ranking of applicants and grant amounts is, of
course, appropriate, the policy of mass "zeroing" of active
university scientists is not only anti-intellectual in its
essence, but also is clearly contrproductive socially and
economically. It is time to re-orient the university system from
the obsolete idea of "competition" (it fails to deliver anyway)
to the cooperation and "win-win" science game. But so far, in a
search for winners the system still follows an old prescription:
"The mass trials have been a great success, comrades. In the
future there will be fewer but better Russians." (Greta Garbo
in "Ninotchka", 1939).

References

[1]  A. Szent-Gyorgyi, Science, 176, 966 (1972).
[2]  A.A. Berezin and G. Hunter, Canadian Chemical News,
     46 (#3), 4-5 (March 1994).
[3]  D.R. Forsdyke, Nature, 312, 587 (1984).
[4]  E. Chargaff, Persp.in Biol.& Medicine, 23, 370 (1980).  
[5]  B. Savan, Science Under Siege, CBC Enterprises,
     Toronto, (1988).  
[6]  L.J.Peter and R.Hull, The Peter Principle, Bantam Books,
     1969 (many other editions).
--------------------------------------------------------- 
 


      



More information about the Bioforum mailing list