Direct public funding of science
10.1.08 by Syam Anand
Currently, NIH funds the majority of biology research in USA using taxpayer dollars. The success of the NIH system and the adaptation of the scientific community to NIH have made this system stable and dependable. A significant amount of additional support for biology research, especially health related research, also comes from foundations. Some of them such as Bill&Melinda Gates foundation, and Howard Hughes Medical Institute provide substantial financial support far exceeding and often more attractive than what even NIH offers. A lot of good science have been done and fundamentally important discoveries been made by scientists who have been recipients of grants from all these sources. However, the success of NIH funding philosophy has influenced every major biological research funding operation that goes on in USA. Its impact is so widespread that the alternative funding options seem to be a product of inbreeding and incapable of providing new cultures or avenues that would complement the goals of NIH. As a result, the differences between most of these foundations that have clear independent goals are only superficial and all of them operate essentially on the same principles as NIH.
The NIH funding philosophy
NIH fellowships and grants come in different flavors with one underlying foundation, which is the provision of an efficient and goal-oriented institutionalized system that takes into account national priorities. This system makes sure that the available budget is prioritized and distributed between various sub-disciplines. Policy-makers arrive at these decisions through a systematic process, which tunes itself to changing demands from time to time. The institutionalized system makes sure that adequate resources are constantly available for the carrying out the funding process with a high efficiency by maintaining and providing trained pools of peer-reviewers (scientific colleagues) and program managers. The system of peer-review ensures that support is provided ONLY to scientists (or emerging scientists) who are likely to be successful. This is largely decided by three factors- 1) their prior success and pedigree 2) current environment of support and 3) the likely success of their research proposals based on preliminary evidence and arguments they provide in support thereof. The independent foundations that fund biology have also adopted the same principles and have not thought seriously outside the hat. So far, no one has argued with the success of NIH philosophy.
Alternatives?
So what is wrong with the current philosophy? Not much. The current system has provided everyone with steady and dependable advancement in science. In theory, there should be nothing to complain except that at unsure economic times (such as the one we are going through at present), NIH budget falls really short of demands and expectations of the scientific community. But a different kind of question is the following- is it so perfect that nothing different can be done? Not exactly. This is where Fundscience comes in. When David (CEO, Fundscience), talked to me about Fundscience’s objectives and how he plans to meet those, I was thrilled by the revolutionary nature of the philosophy behind it. To draw a parallel, it is like a constitutional amendment for the scientific nation, giving every individual a right to participate directly in science. Fundscience facilitates anyone to fund the science of his or her choice, directly.
Fundscience takes a giant philosophical leap from NIH and its inbred cousins. It primary goal is to tune the system to the time we live in. It is intended to let any ‘curious interested person’ (CIP; a term I am coining for the convenience of this discussion) to participate and bring the discussion and practice of science more into the open. One could say that it is built on similar lines as the successful philosophies of wikipedia and youtube. It attempts to bridge the conspicuous absence of a direct connection between a CIP and the scientific enterprise, which he/she is funding anyway! It proposes to build this bridge by taking out the common denominator of a seemingly inaccessible organization from the picture and putting a CIP in direct charge. It is as if the lobbyists and special interest groups have been removed from Washington! It is a community concept that is likely to succeed by creating a new niche where it does not clash with existing system and nicely supplements it.
Message for CIPs
For the science loving CIP, who wishes to take part in directly funding of his/her choice, Fundscience provides this avenue directly. The CIPs and trained scientists could work together on something that both are interested in. It could be anything ranging from something as complex and challenging as the study of cytoplasmic organization or something that could appear silly on the surface. This new philosophy would let people choose the science they want to fund by directly choosing from a list of scientists and available projects for funding. CIPs take the place of peer-reviewers! For the scientist who is interested in getting involved- convince a CIP and he might fund you directly! If a CIP is very rich, he/she could fund the science he/she loves directly. CIPs who are not very rich could come together to rate the various projects that are described online for funding. Then the projects could be chosen based on a public rating system for fun, importance to health, understanding of basics or specifics for which currently no funding is available, educational tools, exploratory tools, analytical tools, commercial applications…a long list that is left to be filled by the CIPs in charge. The possibilities are endless. Currently, the other available option for a CIP is to donate and loose track of his/her donation. If his/her donation were sizable, an attractive reward would be a building or a hall or a scientist named after him/her depending on the size of the donation. No much fun, right? I will bet that direct interaction and participation of the scientists and the community they serve would be a refreshing new way to conduct scientific research for both groups. In addition to acting as an additional resource-generating platform for scientists, it would also provide immense opportunities for public science education.
For the CIPs out there, this is what I (as an aspiring scientist myself) feel about Fundscience- Fundscience aspires to be the youtube or wikipedia for science funding. In a sense Fundscience could be your scientific vote just as youtube is your media vote! Depending on individual circumstances it will complement or supplement the University- and NIH-based funding avenues for science. With the participation of CIPs, Fundscience would make science a community enterprise. So CIPs out there- hop on Fundscience and become involved in some serious fun!
Why we are here
09.16.08 by Daniel Gaddy
I would like to begin by giving a little information about myself. My name is Daniel. I am a Postdoctoral Fellow at the University of Pittsburgh, in the Department of Microbiology and Molecular Genetics. For those of you who may not know, a Postdoctoral Fellow is basically an apprentice. I equate it to a Residency for physicians. I earned my Ph.D. in 2006 from Wake Forest University. I then moved to Pittsburgh, where my postdoctoral work has focused on developing and testing adeno-associated virus as a vector for gene therapy of type-1 diabetes. If anyone would like to know more about me and my work, you can learn more and contact me through my LinkedIn page here: http://www.linkedin.com/in/danielgaddy.
So, what is the purpose of FundScience and why am I blogging on this site? The central goals of FundScience are to educate the public regarding the scientific research that impacts their lives, and to give the public a direct mechanism to influence the funding of this research, thereby directly shaping the research that takes place. This is a novel idea, and one that is antithetic to all established routes of scientific funding. In the current system, the vast majority of medical research that takes place in the United States is funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a government agency in the Department of Health and Human Services. Unfortunately, federal funding is very cyclical and is dependent upon any number of factors, not the least of which is the administration that is governing the country. The budget for the NIH has remained flat throughout the current administration. This may sound reasonable to a layperson, but a flat budget does not take into consideration the steady increase in inflation and the rising costs of conducting research. Thus, a flat budget is actually a declining budget, and every year fewer and fewer worthy projects are funded by the NIH. As a result, many researchers have turned to private funding. However, there is a severe lack of opportunities for private funding. This is where FundScience steps in and offers an alternative to both federal and private funding.
To a scientist, it is actually a frightening proposition to give so much power to the public at large. The vast majority of people in this country are not properly educated in science, even rudimentary science. Thus, it is quite unnerving to turn over the purse-strings to people who know little about what they are funding. Again, this is where FundScience comes in, offering a direct mechanism by which the scientists conducting the research can interact with and educate the public. It is certainly an ambitious goal, but if it works this concept has the potential to revolutionize the scientific funding process.
My role in this is to provide an “insider’s” point of view. My research is currently funded by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, so I will not be applying for funding through FundScience (at least not in the near future!). However, I offer the perspective of a young scientist at a pivotal point in my career. As I enter the 3rd and final year of my fellowship, I will begin to search for a “real” job in an increasingly competitive market. I am extremely busy, so my posts will likely be few and far between. When I do post, I will attempt to discuss topics that are of interest to me, ranging from the science itself to the politics that influence science, and the jungle that is the job market for young scientists as I navigate my way through it. As I said before, the people behind FundScience have set a lofty goal for themselves, but I am excited to be a part of it.
MixedNRGSoul’s Blog Vision
09.14.08 by MixedNRGSoul
I hope that the FundScience.org page and this blog will help further the lay understanding of complex and intertwined issues surrounding energy production, distribution, and consumption. The main thrust will be to apply basic engineering principles to real world issues that may come up, particularly from the sometimes unreliable new media source known as the interweb. This blog will focus on energy issues from the standpoint of electrical and transportation needs in the US, as that is my main expertise, but will also compare and contrast the US situation to other energy markets to help understand what principles, if any, drive world energy decisions.
Stay tuned and stay active; This community can become a great resource for people wanting to discover how they can make a real and meaningful difference in all areas of science and technology and to further understand how and why.
Our Innaugural Post
09.13.08 by David Vitrant
Hello,
I’m David Vitrant the Executive Director of FundScience Inc. Here at FundScience we are looking to get the public to fund individual pilot research projects. This will drive innovation in many scientific fields, and open up complex scientific discussions to the public. In the end research is meant to help understand nature and for the benefit of society in general. With our blogs, wiki’s, forums, and soon project proposals we hope to bring a community of scientists and laypeople together to discuss the future of science and help fund our future generation of scientists.
The aspect of introducing the public to the life of a scientist, how scientists think, how we tackle problems, what our problems are, is critical to this step and I hope that by providing these blogs you will be able to peer into the life of a scientist, and go past political pandering, and marketing, to arrive at the issues and possibly the solutions.
In order for us to be Successful we need your help though in the following aspects:
1) We need content and bloggers to talk about the issues. If you know somebody please spread the word help us find scientists willing to blog (or laypeople willing to blog about science)
2) Are you interested in a specific topic, want to understand some research as a layperson? Email us or make a post on our forum. We will see what we can do.
3) Digg our posts please. This will help get our word out and get attention to our site.
4) Are you willing to fund a research project or have thoughts on how to do so? Email us again.
Lastly, we are all here to learn about science, talk about science, and collaborate. So please be courteous and don’t be shy to ask questions.
Thanks for joining us,
David Vitrant