A Bargain Made
24/02/12 00:15 Filed in: GenomeWeb Daily Scan
Submitted by S. Pelech - Kinexus on Fri, 02/24/2012 - 00:15.
Especially in the last 50 years, governments throughout the developed world have steadily built up their research capacities in the life sciences in universities, hospitals and government laboratories. The rate of increase in scientific publication provides a good measure of this explosive growth. I think that the reality is that the support for basic research has not suffered, but it is largely failing to fuel economic growth to the unrealistic expectations of the politicians and general public. The translational gap between basic and applied research that has led to new products and services appears to have continued to widen to the dismay of the funders of research.
While many research grant competitions and their application forms now stress the need to demonstrate utility in the outcomes of the proposed research, ultimately this has little bearing on their fundability. The ranking of grant applications by panels of researchers with a strong bias towards basic research ensures that this type of work will be predominantly funded. Our understanding of the rich workings of life at the molecular and macroscopic levels is still very rudimentary. In the case of human diseases, the sheer complexity of one of the best studied diseases, i.e. cancer, serves as a paradigm for the difficulty in understanding and treating even the most common ailments confronting humanity. Consequently, very powerful arguments can be offered for the strong support of basic research in its own right.
My chief concern is that many grant applicants have been forced to be rather hypocritical in their claims of the motivations of their research and the likely outcomes of their work. With the extremely stiff competition that exists in securing funding to support one's research, this has become almost a necessity. Nevertheless, I don't think that many researchers have literally made a "devil's bargain with the state", but are in fact really still pursuing their own agendas.
The translational gap in research today arises from many factors. One is the true complexity that underlies the scientific problems under investigation as mentioned earlier. Another is the growing concern about conflict of interest, especially with academic researchers collaborating with companies. Increasingly onerous guidelines from government and academic institutions to thwart potential abuses is undermining the opportunities to apply the knowledge learned in academia. Unless stronger partnerships are forged between academia and industry with mutual support and exchange, then I fear the perceived poor return of the public investment in science will be viewed even more critically by politicians in these austere times. This could ultimately precipitate diminished funding for both basic and applied research.
Link to the original blog post.
Especially in the last 50 years, governments throughout the developed world have steadily built up their research capacities in the life sciences in universities, hospitals and government laboratories. The rate of increase in scientific publication provides a good measure of this explosive growth. I think that the reality is that the support for basic research has not suffered, but it is largely failing to fuel economic growth to the unrealistic expectations of the politicians and general public. The translational gap between basic and applied research that has led to new products and services appears to have continued to widen to the dismay of the funders of research.
While many research grant competitions and their application forms now stress the need to demonstrate utility in the outcomes of the proposed research, ultimately this has little bearing on their fundability. The ranking of grant applications by panels of researchers with a strong bias towards basic research ensures that this type of work will be predominantly funded. Our understanding of the rich workings of life at the molecular and macroscopic levels is still very rudimentary. In the case of human diseases, the sheer complexity of one of the best studied diseases, i.e. cancer, serves as a paradigm for the difficulty in understanding and treating even the most common ailments confronting humanity. Consequently, very powerful arguments can be offered for the strong support of basic research in its own right.
My chief concern is that many grant applicants have been forced to be rather hypocritical in their claims of the motivations of their research and the likely outcomes of their work. With the extremely stiff competition that exists in securing funding to support one's research, this has become almost a necessity. Nevertheless, I don't think that many researchers have literally made a "devil's bargain with the state", but are in fact really still pursuing their own agendas.
The translational gap in research today arises from many factors. One is the true complexity that underlies the scientific problems under investigation as mentioned earlier. Another is the growing concern about conflict of interest, especially with academic researchers collaborating with companies. Increasingly onerous guidelines from government and academic institutions to thwart potential abuses is undermining the opportunities to apply the knowledge learned in academia. Unless stronger partnerships are forged between academia and industry with mutual support and exchange, then I fear the perceived poor return of the public investment in science will be viewed even more critically by politicians in these austere times. This could ultimately precipitate diminished funding for both basic and applied research.
Link to the original blog post.