How do you think government funding for scientific research should be allocated?
- Based on the potential impact on society
- Based on the track record of the research team
- Based on the likelihood of commercialization
- Based on a peer-review process
Medicine
Isabel
Based on the track record of the research team and Based on the potential impact on society.
From my experience the research team experience and record in field is very important, and also the potential impact. This two are complementary for a good research with valuable results.
Federico Benetti MD
The needs of each country and each region are different according to the epidemiology. The economic situations are diverse.
Always as a first measure, the investment should be adjusted to the best potential health result based on proven scientific parameters
Always as a first measure, the investment should be adjusted to the best potential health result based on proven scientific parameters
Fernando Arosa
- Based on the potential impact on society
- Based on the total funds received per project / number of original publications ratio
Dr. Muhammad Zafar-ul-Hye
The allocation of government funding for scientific research is a complex process that involves balancing various factors, including scientific merit, societal needs, economic considerations, and long-term strategic goals. Here are several considerations for how government funding for scientific research could be allocated:
- Peer Review Process:
- Maintain a robust peer review system to evaluate the scientific merit and feasibility of research proposals. This ensures that funding goes to projects with the highest likelihood of success and impact.
- Strategic Priorities:
- Align research funding with national priorities and long-term strategic goals. This might include areas such as public health, environmental sustainability, technological innovation, and national security.
- Interdisciplinary Research:
- Encourage interdisciplinary research that addresses complex, real-world challenges. Many of the most pressing issues require collaboration across scientific disciplines.
- Basic and Applied Research:
- Balance funding between basic research, which explores fundamental scientific principles, and applied research, which aims to solve practical problems. A healthy scientific ecosystem requires a mix of both.
- Innovation and Technology Transfer:
- Allocate funds to support the translation of research findings into practical applications and technologies. This can stimulate economic growth and address societal challenges.
- Research Infrastructure:
- Invest in research infrastructure, including laboratories, equipment, and computing resources. Adequate infrastructure is essential for conducting high-quality research.
- Diversity and Inclusion:
- Promote diversity and inclusion in research by supporting projects led by researchers from underrepresented groups. A diverse research community can bring different perspectives and approaches to scientific inquiry.
- Education and Training:
- Allocate funds to support education and training programs in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Building a skilled workforce is crucial for the long-term success of scientific research.
- Global Collaboration:
- Support international collaboration to address global challenges and promote the free exchange of scientific knowledge. Collaborative research can leverage expertise from around the world.
- Ethical and Responsible Research:
- Allocate resources to ensure that research is conducted ethically and responsibly. This includes addressing issues such as research integrity, data management, and the responsible use of emerging technologies.
- Public Engagement and Outreach:
- Allocate funds for public engagement and outreach initiatives to enhance scientific literacy and communicate the value of research to the general public.
- Flexible Funding Mechanisms:
- Provide flexible funding mechanisms that allow researchers to pursue innovative and high-risk, high-reward projects. This can foster creativity and exploration of new ideas.
Mohsman
1. Based on the potential impact on society
2. Based on the track record of the research team
3. Based on a peer-review process
4. Based on the likelihood of commercialization
2. Based on the track record of the research team
3. Based on a peer-review process
4. Based on the likelihood of commercialization
LG
None of the proposed answers. It should be allocated in a recurring and egalitarian manner. For details, please see: "How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?" by Krist Vaesen and Joel Katzav, September 8, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183967
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183967
ATM
It is a complex task, and it also depends on what kind of research is considered.
For fundamental research, it should take into account multiple factors. The most important one should be how innovative the research direction is and how much knowledge will be gained from it. Indeed, the goal of fundamental research is to understand the world around us.
The "potential impact on society" is not predictable when doing fundamental research as the goal is to push your field(s) forward and explore the unknown.
The "track record of the research group" creates a self-fulfilling mechanism where the one who did good once keeps getting money. In the end, this can prevent innovation as it makes it very difficult for a new group with potential groundbreaking ideas to get funded.
The "likelihood of commercialization" is almost irrelevant in fundamental research settings as your goal is to understand the world around you, applications are years away.
So, in the end, these three aspects should not be a major factor in a fundamental research funding scheme.
For applied research (medical research, military research, or any case where the end goal is to obtain a “product”) things are different. Here, the goal is to understand something enough to use it or re-engineer it. The end goal is to have some sort of application. The specific of the application is clear or not at the beginning of the research project, but the end goal is to be able to use the knowledge gathered for something concrete. In this case, things such as the “impact on society” and “likelihood of commercialization” should be weighed significantly. The “history of the research group” should also matter.
So, in the end, these three aspects should not be a major factor in a fundamental research funding scheme.
For applied research (medical research, military research, or any case where the end goal is to obtain a “product”) things are different. Here, the goal is to understand something enough to use it or re-engineer it. The end goal is to have some sort of application. The specific of the application is clear or not at the beginning of the research project, but the end goal is to be able to use the knowledge gathered for something concrete. In this case, things such as the “impact on society” and “likelihood of commercialization” should be weighed significantly. The “history of the research group” should also matter.
In both cases, an evaluation by the peers cannot be avoided or overlooked but it matters probably more in fundamental research than in applied research.
Niaz Muhammad
Based on the potential impact on society and
Based on the track record of the research team
Based on the track record of the research team
Shimelis Tadesse
Government funding for scientific research should be allocated based on the potential impact on society and the value that adds knowledge, skills, and experience to the scientific community.
Виталий
Виталий Бекенев.
- Основываясь на послужном списке исследовательской группы, но не только. Всё равно финансировать будут того, кто ближе к центру принятия решений, а может - того кто пообещает заплатить за принятие решения. Или тому кто будет ориентироваться на ведущих учёных в данной отрасли или на политических деятелей, поддерживающих определённое направление.
Archana
Allocation of government funds should be based on the significance of the proposal (the unmet need/potential gap in the knowledge), the approach adopted by the investigators in achieving the milestones, the innovative solution put forward in the proposal for addressing the gap or unmet need, the expertise of the investigators, and the facilities available for conducting the research.
Nithin
In my opinion, I would say that it has to be a combination of all the above options giving more weightage to the potential (positive) impact on the society. Weightage (out of 100) can be
- Based on the potential impact on society (40)
- Based on the track record of the research team (10)
- Based on the likelihood of commercialization (25)
- Based on a peer-review process (25)
Raunak
The government should allocate scientific research funding based on:
1. Identify potential fields where research needs to be done in context of the country.
2. Allocate funds based on the population of the country.
3. Allocate funds for areas which are internationally relevant
4. Should make the country self reliant
1. Identify potential fields where research needs to be done in context of the country.
2. Allocate funds based on the population of the country.
3. Allocate funds for areas which are internationally relevant
4. Should make the country self reliant
Rolf Teschke
Based on peer review, excluding networks. Groups must use validated methods appreciated worldwide.
Best
Best
Veena
Allocating government funding for scientific research can be a complex task, as it involves balancing multiple factors such as national priorities, scientific merit, and societal needs. Here are a few considerations to keep in mind when allocating government funding for scientific research: Scientific merit, National priorities, Societal impact, Diversity, and inclusion and Open Science. Ultimately, the allocation of government funding for scientific research should be based on a comprehensive and transparent review process that considers multiple factors, including scientific merit, national priorities, societal impact, diversity and inclusion, and open science.
adesgeorges