Our system of funding science in the United States has always been something that I've been passionate about, and since this week's readings reminded me of the topic, I thought I'd bring up a few broad ranging questions.
The section we read from the structure of scientific revolution posed three "types" of science: solved problems, partially solved problems, and unsolved problems. Most science falls into the middle section according to Kuhn, while revolutionary problems typically (but not universally) fall under the third category. As such, the majority of academic science funding (>50%) comes from the NSF, with other governmental agencies providing substantial sources as well. While I think nationally funded science is fantastic and something every country should be doing at large scales, I see a few problems with the system. Grants are by nature competitive, and therefore beg applications from Kuhn's "middle" category, in my opinion. The stakes of failure are so high in the third category of untouchable problems with a small chance at success. However, partially solved problems provide enough merit to make a career out of and are a much safer option in terms of funding your research.
Therefore, is our system designed in such a way that limits scientific revolution? Not quite. Revolutions in science and technology continue to happen. I have no idea on where to get data for examining how the rate of "revolutions" has changed over time as its speculative in nature, but I might look into it anyways. That being said, I think the system discourages young scientists from pursuing the "big questions".
Diversifying funding and providing extra incentives for revolutionary ideas might be one direction towards improving the situation, but I'm interested in hearing the class' opinion. Is the system working? What can/should be done? Is science behind where it could be? Is taking the "comfortable" path something to be ashamed of?
That is a very interesting insight. One question that springs to mind is: how would you evaluate research proposals based on totally unsolved problems, which might then lead to scientific revolution? Funding science is complicated enough when each discovery builds upon the last; what happens when the new question undermines structures that people have been using? Or flies in the face of what "everyone knows?" -- like, at one time, that the sun revolved around the earth?
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree that grants beg for applications from partially solved problems. The competitive nature of funding creates drive and passion in my opinion. Only those individuals who are truly passionate and excited and willing to do whatever it takes for their work will be rewarded. I think that the competition weeds out those who are not driven enough to succeed in their work, and instead gives money to those who will accomplish their preset goals.
ReplyDeleteIt is nearly impossible to get a grant in a field that doesn't exist yet. However, there are special "transformative research" categories at NSF specifically. Some funding programs in other nations (e.g. Canada) focus on the researcher rather than research. A good track record is enough to get funded for at least a grant cycle or two. Personally I keep some portion of my research unfunded to allow for more radical research, while still staying relevant as Emma points out, by engaging in grant programs and grant-funded research.
ReplyDelete