Short-Termism in Science Funding

Too much focus on immediate impact will leave us without insight

A sad day

Terrible news last week:

New Scientist @newscientist

A lab at @Cambridge_Uni that has revolutionised our understanding of intelligence in birds is set to close due to a loss of funding. “It is so sad that this is happening now, especially given there are so many unanswered questions,” says @nickyclayton22

newscientist.comClever birds forced to find new homes as Cambridge lab faces closureA seminal research lab that has revolutionised our understanding of the minds of rooks and jays is set to be closed down as funding dries up

I’m going to assume that not everyone reading this is a biologist, but this is a big deal. You may not know the lab, but I’m sure you’re familiar with its work. Have you heard about how clever crows and ravens are? Yes? Well, this place probably had something to do with it. It is (no past tense here; not yet) one of the leading places for all things bird - and more generally, animal - intelligence.

(I may be biased. While I never had the pleasure to visit the lab or meet its members, their work is - tangentially - related to research I did in the not-too-distant past.)

And now, the lab’s funding is slashed. Why? I’m sure there will be plenty of flowery language by the decision-makers that doesn’t mean anything, but it comes down to impact. (For me, the work by the Cambridge lab is very impactful. Funders seem to disagree, though.) Brexit has a role to play in this particular case as well. (That too could be seen as an illustration of short-termism…)

I shudder at the term impact. The reason for my shudder is that - in the science funding landscape - the word has been co-opted and mangled into something resembling ‘the rapid generation of quantifiable assets (start-ups, products...)’.

That’s not how basic research works, dear policy people.

There will be no more Darwins

Perhaps the reason for this constraint on the meaning of ‘impact’ is that we’ve begun seeing scientific findings as products. We’ve commercialized knowledge.

It makes sense to do so. After all, science costs money and no one’s pockets are infinite. Choices have to be made. Most funders (and let’s be honest, universities) take a page from a generic business handbook and look for a good return on investment. Preferably one with a clear, not too long timeframe and measured in imaginary dollar/pound/euro signs. (Why pursue wisdom, knowledge, and happiness when you can pursue profit, sneers my inner cynic.)

I don’t deny that tough choices have to be made with regard to science funding; choices that cannot please everybody. But we should question the criteria according to which those choices are made. Right now, those criteria (ROI, short-term deliverables…) favor some types/fields of science over others.

Travel the world for a while to observe rocks, plants, and animals? Let ideas churn around for a few years? What’s the return on investment? Where’s your detailed research budget and your list of clear and quantifiable deliverables? Sorry, Mr. Darwin, we can’t fund you right now. No impact, you see…

This disregard for long-term vision and genuine curiosity extends beyond science to other areas of study too. When schools, colleges, and universities face budgetary challenges, the humanities tend to be the first on the cutting block.

I’m a biologist, but also a partial philosopher (I’ve traveled across the disciplinary map quite a bit, even though I think such siloed thinking should be erased - something for another newsletter perhaps). As a result, I am acutely aware of the importance of the humanities. There is no science without society. There is no knowledge without culture.

Let’s stick with the science for now, though.

I don’t have the solution for the reign (tyranny?) of the impact illusion. Maybe…

• Some kind of patronage system or crowdfunding? Would quickly become a popularity contest, which doesn’t necessarily have to be a bad thing, but still…

• A club of billionaires who have seen the light? I am very glad that things like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative exist. Guess what’s a key variable in their decision process? Impact. Right. Moving on.

• Lotteries? This is an intriguing proposal that might give us a more efficient and less biased system for funding research. I admit I have to look into this a little more. If you want to join me, this thread by philosopher Andreas De Block is a great way to start:

  Andreas De Block @DeblockBlock

  Stop funding research (the way you do) Because it is wasteful, unethical and unscientific A thread (1/16)

I’m sure I’m missing options. Let me know.

There is no dichotomy

So, should we stop focusing on impact? Wrong question. There is no yes or no; no black or white.

For some types of research in some fields of science, the short-term business approach is a decent playbook. (Hey look, another shudder runs down my spine.) Say you want to develop a new medication based on lab work. Partnering with funders and/or companies focused on short-term impact and rapid generation of deliverables might get your medication to the market and the patients far more rapidly than other options. (Possibly also at a higher price point than it needs to be; I never said this is a fair or unbiased way.)

Is this the impact we want to focus on? Or, better, is this the only impact we want to focus on? That’s the thing, isn’t it? The pendulum has swung too much to the ‘profit, now; deliverables, even sooner’ concept of research impact. (I try not to be that guy and blame it on the glorification of immediate gratification stomping through society, but here we are.)

The short-term impact of Darwin’s trek around the globe? Minimal. The long-term impact on almost every inch of the life sciences? At the time, unpredictable. Now, in hindsight, invaluable.

We can’t expect the same impact statements for different fields or even different approaches/topics within a single field. Yet, funding agencies, universities, and granting bodies have a difficult job, so they standardize their applications. That statement, this many pages (or even words; I’ve seen some crazy requirements for grant applications…), this many references. Timeline. Budget. Deliverables. Thank you, next.

That’s understandable. It will also leave a lot of incredible science in the budgetary cold. We need to redefine research impact (or get rid of it altogether?), take a step back from the implicit for-profit thinking, and value insight for insight’s sake.

One thing I haven’t touched on here is the power of curiosity-driven research and the joy of discovery, both of which are irreplaceable at the level of the individual. Their importance at the funding level? I’ll leave that to you…

Perhaps we should ask the birds.

---