Science requires money to function. In the U.S., the bulk of science is funded by the taxpayers, allocated by Congress, and disbursed by federal funding agencies (NSF, NIH, DOE, DOD, NASA, etc.). Although the U.S. scientific enterprise has been hugely successful, the funding system has never been perfect and has proven susceptible to politicization and bureaucratization, undermining scientific creativity and innovation. While these problems have been widely documented, proposals to fix the system have been scarce.
Professional societies and advocacy groups constantly lobby Congress for more money for science. While increased resources would certainly be beneficial, no less important are the internal workings of the system: How are the funds allocated? Are the best scientific proposals funded? Does the system incentivize fundamental or applied research, high risk projects or incremental ones? How significant is bureaucratic overhead? These are important questions, and the answers to them are not always encouraging. We believe it is time to direct our attention to the internal, systemic problems within the U.S. funding system, to develop a clear understanding of what is wrong, and to devise actionable plans to improve it. With this in mind, we invite the STEM community to contribute to the conversation by submitting essays with proposals to HxSTEM. The first essay in the series has already been contributed by Surjeet Rajendran.
We do not expect each essay to be a comprehensive proposal, but if we can tackle one problem at a time, we can develop useful materials to guide the leadership of funding agencies, external scientific review boards, and legislators. Let’s hear the opinions from the trenches of STEM!
Email your submissions to anna.i.krylov@gmail.com with the subject line “HxSTEM: Funding Reform.”
Related articles on HxSTEM:
Surjeet Rajendran, Restoring the American Scientific Frontier: A Roadmap for the Next Century
Dorian Abbot, What I Would Change at NSF
Sergiu Klainerman, In Defense of Curiosity Driven Research
Anna Krylov, Funded Research at a US University: Death by Bureaucracy
Anna Krylov and Jay Tanzman, Politicizing Science Funding Undermines Public Trust in Science, Academic Freedom, and the Unbiased Generation of Knowledge
J. Scott Turner, Rescuing Science
Spyridon Mitsotakis, America’s Security Depends on STEM
Leigh A. P’Neill, The National Science Foundation and the Fine Line Between Anti-Discrimination and Flat-Out Racism
This is a good idea. I think that just wishing this problem would go away will not be productive.
It would be valuable to have a wide range of ideas. Dorian has asked me to write about my thoughts on this for a couple of years. I write personal essays on this topic all the time, as part of my thought processes. Eventually some of these might end up in a book; we will see. I also believe they might have some value as supplemental material in my reform efforts.
But since you asked, I might try to kickstart the conversation with a couple of comments here.
(1) As many here on Heterodox STEM, and in the wider community (such as Sabine Hossenfelder, Peter Thiel and others) have noted, STEM R&D is far less productive than it used to be. We are much less efficient than we were in the past. More money is spent, but less comes out the other end. We have many more working in STEM R&D, but something is lacking.
Why is this? There have been a few ideas and studies from the Sociology of Science and other areas addressing this. However, this question probably requires a serious sustained examination.
I have my own theories about what has gone wrong. I have been lucky enough to have had a career that bridges the period from the mid-70s to the present, and the environment in STEM appears radically different now to anyone of my vintage. We speak to each other about it all the time, amazed at the horrific changes we have observed.
Any considerations for funding reform that involves major stakeholders like the US taxpayers probably needs to address this issue. The public is more than slightly fed up with STEM at the moment.
My impression is that a number of political actors have taken advantage of the reputation of STEM to sell nonsense. For example, if you look at;
(a) the somewhat discredited transgender frenzy
(b) the weird coupling of climate science with catastrophism leading to demands that farming be made illegal and the earth's human population be reduced by over 99% immediately if not sooner
(c) the pandemic where one individual of suspect reputation declared himself personally to be synonymous with "The Science"
(d) a fear that artificial intelligence will drastically alter society and the economy, impoverishing many if not most
and many similar issues, the problem starts to become obvious. Some with an agenda want to use STEM to push one ridiculous self-serving narrative or another, and keep society in a state of semi-panic. Considering this, one can easily start to understand why many of those in the public start to roll their eyes at the mention of STEM. People are getting disgusted with STEM, and this is not a good thing.
The public should have access to reliable information about STEM, and why we do it. It is not just direct funding that is important, but tax laws and other regulations that create the environment that STEM has to occupy. We think we do not need to sell STEM, but we do. Public outreach should be a priority, not an afterthought. People need to know that STEM is good for something. STEM needs to be protected, and should not be discarded summarily.
STEM also requires a steady stream of the best possible talent to keep it refreshed. The vast majority of those who are attracted to STEM are "sold a bill of goods". Most of them are unsuitable for the positions they think they are "owed". The current system is incredibly wasteful of human capital and more than slightly abusive.
(2) The current way that STEM R&D in the US is organized is based on a couple of events. First, the second world war and its aftermath ushered in a new era of government funding. Vannevar Bush and his team outlined some of their thoughts on how to proceed in their document "Science, the Endless Frontier".
The second major event, which many now forget, was the Sputnik surprise. Many were startled to realize that the US had competition in this arena, and that the US might be lagging behind a bit.
The way we manage the STEM enterprise in the US could use some reform. We are overwhelmed with bureaucracy and assorted administrivia and "yak-shaving" processes. The number of unproductive leeches in the system is staggering.
I personally have observed the effects of incredibly substandard technical management on the STEM R&D process at places like MIT, Johnson and Johnson, Queensland University of Technology, Quotron Corporation, the University of California, SIEMENS, the University of Colorado, Bell Labs, Caltech, JPL, NOAA, the University of California, IBM, TRW, Sandia, the University of Minnesota, Los Alamos, Princeton University, assorted FFRDCs and other government agencies, etc.
I have been shocked over and over at the decisions of assorted incompetents that "run" our STEM R&D systems. These characters effectively cannot be fired, but have almost universally never produced ANYTHING themselves of any value. For the most part, they have impeded any progress that is made. They resent the productive worker bees and have almost infinite power over them. Some of them have track records of fraud or criminal activity or other malfeasance.
(3) I have observed that in many organizations, anyone who innovates is punished or otherwise discouraged from innovating and investigating. This is a horrendous state of affairs.
(4) Some entities like the Weizmann Institute in Israel and IST in Austria, and organizations that Jim Simons' efforts have funded are doing reasonably well. It would be beneficial to study what is working in some parts of STEM that might be copied elsewhere
I can go into far more detail about any and all of these. It is not just academia that is in trouble, in my view, but all of the components of society involved in STEM R&D. We are not covering ourselves with glory. We need to do better. I believe that we can.
What is the timeline for these proposal ideas for this series?