Will funding "high risk" projects help reinvigorate our current research models?
A frequent critique of the current funding model for scientific research is that the pressure to secure grants is limiting the risks that researchers will take in their research projects and subsequently stifling innovation. As the United States continues to lags behind other countries in science (as highlighted by this NBC article), funding agencies have begun to invest in projects that foster innovation and collaboration, focusing less on the results of the projects and more on the tools that they will develop [1]. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) implemented a Collaborative Innovation Award in 2008, funding a total of eight projects. The goal of the Award is to provide support for longer term collaborations that "... could yield important results, but may never directly further the lab's own mission," according to Philip Perlman, a senior HHMI scientific officer overseeing the program. The National Science Foundation (NSF), a lead source of research capital in the United States, followed suit in 2011, offering $1 million in support for five years to small teams through its Creative Research Awards for Transformative Interdisciplinary Ventures (CREATIV), expanding the funds available for new lines of research.
The biggest caveat of this new award system is defining "transformative research." Robert Frodeman, philosophy professor and director of the Center for the Study of Interdisciplinary at the University of North Texas, cites Watson and Crick's presentation of a model for DNA structure as being a prime example of a project that's impact reaches far beyond the tomes of scientific journals and instead transformed the way humanity views itself. [4] This description does little to define what criteria a "transformative" project would need to meet in its infancy. The NSF outline for CREATIV submissions is more direct in its requirements; it states that these grants are NOT for "projects that continue along well-established lines of research" and is expected to "integrate across multiple disciplines, as opposed to incorporating disciplinary contributions additively." [5]
Has this infusion of funds revolutionized research methods or shifted the public perception of scientific pursuits? A Google News search for "HHMI Collaborative Innovation Awards" yielded eight results in September (for scale: querying "Human Genome" yields about 20,000 results and querying "Britney Spears" yields over 80,000 results). So, while awareness within the research community might be increasing, a media firestorm has not yet begun. It may be too early to see the effects of transformative research grants. Or it might be that while the shift in funding requirements might have changed, the groups that receive the awards have not (see HHMI Award list, 2008 [2]). Well established senior researchers are a safe bet; put your money where you already know you can get valuable returns. But is this breaking down barriers for researchers? Or stimulating fresh ideas?
Fostering cross-discipline communication is the most transformative part of these new funding mechanisms and should be given a greater emphasis. Research areas are often characterized by a high degree of specialization, creating a "language" barrier between researchers and reducing the tools and resources available. Facilitating better communication by creating forums for discussion as part of grant requirements could stimulate innovation more than investments in any particular research project. The cultivation of challenging intellectual environments at research institutions have often contributed to some of science's greatest discoveries as much as the power of the minds credited. In this rapidly developing age of technology, is it possible to cultivate an innovative environment independently of the confines of an institution or specialization? Will that truly transform the way science is done?
Further information:
[1] Figure Table A4.6, Page 87
[2] HHMI press release
[3] Collaborative Inovation Award, Team Leaders
[4] Science Careers, Innovation
[5] NSF CREATIV press release
collaboration is the way forward, but in terms of collaboration, not bulldozing over the boundaries that define the various disciplines, but bringing to bear their unique contributions simultaneously on pressing problems. :>
ReplyDeleteVery valid point. However, I think that the type of synergistic collaboration you speak of hinges upon the ability to communication across wide ranges of disciplines. For example, science should not be defined solely through mathematical equations, nor should it be defined only in terms of metaphors or similes. I think to be an effective communicator for science, it is important to understand, if not be fluent in both the language of quantitation and qualitative description.
ReplyDelete