Unfortunately, research that may lead to amazing results can take decades, yielding little commercial value or shiny tech that grant givers want to throw money at. They too are likely evaluated against the short-term outcomes of the grants they award.
Also unfortunately, it is very difficult to distinguish between one decades-long research path that will, eventually, yield significant results, and another one that will end in failure with nothing to show for it.
>unfortunately, it is very difficult to distinguish between one decades-long research path that will, eventually, yield significant results, and another one that will end in failure with nothing to show for it
But that is the very nature of Research in basic hard sciences. We have to have systems in place which have such monetary/time losses factored in. The problem today is that Academia is using the same "short-term gains" yardstick used in the Industry which is completely wrong. The nature of the subject should dictate your manner of funding it.
The "University Framework" already exists to support such a system. The problem is that Industry has infiltrated itself into the system and turned the "Research Objective" into "Profit Motive". This has to be eradicated completely. Others in this same thread have also proposed some ideas and i will try to add to it;
* Establish a network of "Research Universities" from each country in the World (sort of UN of Universities). The poorer countries can be partially funded by richer countries. This is to ensure that knowledge flows are not constrained due to lack of resources.
* Research in the various Sciences have to be clearly identified as "Critical" or Not. The former is funded and managed completely differently than the latter. For example, research in vaccines/cancer is considered critical while research in "battery chemistry"(currently a hot area of research) is not. In the former case, all we keep tabs on is "some progress" and not necessarily an external deadline i.e. researchers are given the freedom to keep working on it with self-imposed and self-defined milestones.
* All "money making" (eg. licenses/patents/royalties etc.) from Research is to be shared between Researchers, Institution and Industry (where applicable).
* All "Research" in Universities get funding from the following sources, some with constraints and some without;
----- 1) Govt. grant as part of yearly budget with no strings attached. This is taxpayer money and any output is available to the public.
----- 2) Academia/Industry tie-up (eg. VC/Angel money) where all stakeholders needs are considered. However if the research is considered "critical" Industry needs may be waived.
----- 3) "Corporate Social Responsibility"(CSR) money from all large corporations/rich folks etc.
----- 4) Revenue/Profit from University "businesses" like Education etc.
* Finally, No "Research" project should ever be overseen by purely "Administrative/Finance/MBA" types. Only Core Domain Experts should be granted oversight with the above mentioned helping as needed.
* Fundamental groundbreaking science research is done in research institutes without pressure to teach or get industry grants, with 100% state funding - the Max Planck institutes
* Industry-relevant research runs in entirely separate teams, either in applied-science institutes - the Fraunhofer Institutes - or universities, with mixed public and private grant funding
Presto, no more pressure for industry sponsors of blue-sky fundamental research.
>* Establish a network of "Research Universities" from each country in the World (sort of UN of Universities). The poorer countries can be partially funded by richer countries. This is to ensure that knowledge flows are not constrained due to lack of resources.
Agreed, a lot of grant funding now has an open access rider on it, so research doesn't get stuck behind a paywall.
> Research in the various Sciences have to be clearly identified as "Critical" or Not. The former is funded and managed completely differently than the latter.
How do you ensure that this classification of critical/non-critical happens accurately? How do you hire for this team, and what metrics would you use to judge their performance? How do you ensure that this 'non critical' funding isn't simply a waste of money? This solution seems to just push the same problem further down the road.
>For example, research in vaccines/cancer is considered critical while research in "battery chemistry"(currently a hot area of research) is not.
I work in vaccines, and I don't agree with this blanket assertion. How do you deal with vaccine technology that is junk and will never produce a safe and efficacious product?
>In the former case, all we keep tabs on is "some progress" and not necessarily an external deadline i.e. researchers are given the freedom to keep working on it with self-imposed and self-defined milestones.
So unlimited funding for unlimited projects as long as they are critical according to some review committee? We might have a tiny problem doing that.. :)
>* Finally, No "Research" project should ever be overseen by purely "Administrative/Finance/MBA" types. Only Core Domain Experts should be granted oversight with the above mentioned helping as needed.
We should have a large tent. Financial management is a critical component of any successful project. "Core Domain Experts" will likely have limited time, given their other commitments and own personal research to work on. Also, there needs to be a thorough vetting and oversight to make sure that these experts aren't just funding projects that their buddies are working on.
I think you have some good ideas, but as you can probably imagine too, its no easy task proposing a working model, and getting it adopted world-wide :)
Your objections are just the low hanging ones :-) You surely do not expect a iron clad proposal here with all the t's crossed and i's dotted? However here are some resolutions to your objections;
>How do you ensure that this classification of critical/non-critical happens accurately?
Define "accurately". We are playing the balance of probability based on the "domain experts" knowledge base. In some cases it would be obvious. For example take this mRNA research; this great article from https://www.statnews.com/2020/11/10/the-story-of-mrna-how-a-... states;
In the natural world, the body relies on millions of tiny proteins to keep itself alive and healthy, and it uses mRNA to tell cells which proteins to make. If you could design your own mRNA, you could, in theory, hijack that process and create any protein you might desire — antibodies to vaccinate against infection, enzymes to reverse a rare disease, or growth agents to mend damaged heart tissue.
A moderately scientific mind can easily see the vast life-saving potential here (analogous to stem cell research promise but from a different direction) so why wouldn't we label it "critical" and keep funding it until the breakthrough is found? Note the issue was not of Science but of Mechanism which is almost always solved with Time and Technology. UPenn failed this test miserably and completely.
>How do you ensure that this 'non critical' funding isn't simply a waste of money? ... How do you deal with vaccine technology that is junk and will never produce a safe and efficacious product?
This is where the system has to absorb the losses when you do decide to cut the chord but this should not be based on imaginary "market/financial needs". Revenue generation from various sources somewhat guarantees that.
>So unlimited funding for unlimited projects as long as they are critical according to some review committee? We might have a tiny problem doing that.. :)
Of course, this is nothing new; we are dealing with Humans after all. Just make your criteria for "critical" very stringent and the people in charge knowledgeable. This is how Science has always worked when the "bean counters" don't get involved.
Think of it this way; in any project there is always the core/essence/kernel Science/Technology/Whatever which is the primary reason for its existence while the others are ancillary which exist only to support the primary. If you make the mistake of taking the ancillary for the primary, you will lose almost always (i put "almost" to factor in the role of Chance :-).
Please note that the [1] NIH, for e.g., does fund speculative/exploratory research. You will not however, get unlimited funding. So if you fail to show at-least something you probably wont get renewed. There isn't a perfect funding model that also prevents wastage.
Also unfortunately, it is very difficult to distinguish between one decades-long research path that will, eventually, yield significant results, and another one that will end in failure with nothing to show for it.