"You call for lotteries as a tie-breaker in applications for research funding (Nature 609, 653; 2022). But there is an argument for rethinking funding allocation so that it’s not invariably competitive and it will reduce the chances of a tie.
We need competitive funding to drive ideas and orient research, but a better balance is needed for the benefit of science and society. Governments should increase the availability of non-competitive research funding, which could be allocated equally or according to experience, for example, rather than on the basis of excellence in publishing metrics. Universities or researchers with relevant expertise could then be rapidly assigned to pressing projects, such as understanding the range of effects of COVID-19 on health.
A blend of competitive and non-competitive funding would maximize added scientific value for the money available (see also M. Dresler Eur. J. Neurosci.). For instance, a tie could be resolved by dividing the funding equally. Researchers could also combine base funding from different sources to develop their own projects.
Increasing non-competitive funding would relieve competition pressure, and so stimulate collaboration and discourage misconduct. It might also help to offset adverse effects on the careers of unsuccessful grant applicants." [1]
1. Nature 610, 257 (2022)
Komentarų nėra:
Rašyti komentarą