Political blocks - targeted funding. Funding of products.

Funding of research is not supporting the scientific community. Politiken brought reflected on an anaylsis of the Danish funding of science the 22nd April 2010. As a scientist the result is not surprising, but it may shock those who pay tax money in the hope education and development of the future is for the common good... or at least logical. Between 2001-2006 20% of the total sum of funding for research (7 billion DKR) in Denmark went to 56 people (0.7% of applicants). And as the study empathize that it is not the lack of applicants or their qualifications, because they apply within the frames set for them.
As a scientist you currently need to have the right buzz-words in your application to get a chance for funding. Nano-"something", "food-safety"-something, "biofuel"-something etc. If you have the cure for cancer and it involves methods non-cutting edge technology you do not stand much of a chance. And the irony is that many scientists spend 1/3 of their time on applying for funds or other paperwork.

So why?

I got a few suggestions:
The evaluation system
Universities are rated much like individual scientists: graduating students, publications, and patents. In that order. You better spit out articles like a madman, and preferably have some patents. Then you are a "good" scientist. Output is what counts.

High-tech.
The best solutions are not necessarily high-tech or cutting-edge as demanded by funding. But it employs more people, and moves more money.

Targeted funding.
The largest funding program in Europe, the Framework Program, decide the next periods "target areas" (buzz-words) in triad between industry, governments, and universities. Universities having the smallest voice. So the chance of scientists having in say in what is good science is really insignificant, good science, or important. In addition you need to attach industrial enterprises to you application. Independence is not an option.

A good example: biofuels.

Why do we need biofuels? They take up vast amounts of space, output is not very high and laborsome, can do ecological damage to the area as industrial plantations, and could be used (if willing) to feed people who need it. Because - it is a good transition from fossil fuels where industry can earn a good buck before we take the full logical step to electricity. And, to make matters worse biofules also release more CO2 than normal fossile fule. Really, what is the point?

Second example: gene-modified crops (GMO).

Why invent a super sonic car if a wheel do the same job? GMO seems to be a powerful tool with many applications. I do not doubt that. Personally I also think that concerns about "power-weeds" or out-of-control spreading of seeds etc. are a bit over-empathized speculations. GMO is often preached to be the solution to food safety, feeding a hungry population, and sustainability. But to me it seems to be another billion dollar patch-solution to a system that do not work. Our agriculture the last 50 years have destroyed and consumed resources what "primitive" but sustainable (but laborious) methods worked for thousands of years to build up. Examples are biochar, sustainable desert farming, and more recent experiments of "do-nothing" agriculture". In stead of fixing broken systems, we might as well try to learn a little from how things have been done the last few millenia in nature. It is not a question of if it can be done, but choosing to do it and admit that we might sometimes be on the wrong track with our glorious technology. But how do you find funding for showing more primitive farming is just as good as cutting-edge?

The funding system supports products! Not basic research or answering fundamental questions.

I say it again. Scientists need to find a new source of funding or cut out the middle men (fund holders) - and go directly to the users for support (you). That is why I so strongly support Open Science. Otherwise scientists are becoming paid workers that produce the product ordered.

Further reading:
 

Open Access - rich can publish, poor can read

Nature News published an article "US seeks to make science free for all" by Declan Butler explaining how Open Access publishing of scientific journals is marching forward. Actually it is doing so well that US politicians are pushing forward to make it mandatory.

This is, in my opinion, a step forward towards Open Science. But as stated before, there is a large drawback with Open Access (other scientists may have more): rich can publish, but poor can only read. It is very expensive to publish as Open Access, that it is not even an option to many universities, including my own. So the published science is not "free" to all. It is accessible to read by anyone with an Internet, but it is open universally for the authors.

The big trouble is how to publish and read free of charge, and retain the credibility of peer-reviews.

I hope for better platforms in the future.

Further reading
 

Disease control... bridge under construction, please wait

The conclusion of my PhD-work was that despite 20 years of published knowledge about the parasites I work with and the damage caused by them, almost nothing has happened to prevent it! The cattle farmers are unaware of its presence, though every single farm got it, or ignores the symptoms. The disease symptoms have become a tree in the forest - the status quo. But why?

This massive "?" was a puzzle I have to solve. Not because it is my duty, but what is the point of ANY research if those who benefit from it will never hear about it or rejects it on default? Doing my background research for the Baltic states and onwards to Scandinavia, the pattern was similar - the flow of information that would benefit farmer and/or animals just stop dead somewhere for whatever reason. When asking for opinions from veterinarians of why this is so, many have opinions about farmer mentality: they do not know, they do not want to know, they know better than veterinarians/scientists, they give up and return to old routines, they do not care etc. But nobody really knows. Research on the area is amazingly sparse, but do exist (1, 2, 3)
It seems like two different worlds: University and Agriculture.

Is it the scientists fault? Should they be better at informing? Is the medical staff too poorly educated, insecure, powerless? Is it the farmers tradition, routine, focus, staff? What?

It is therefore easy to estimate that the majority of those research billions put into improving anything in agriculture is just oil for the machinery (accumulating know-how). Or in other words: not very well invested money.

We see the same problem in specialist research fields. The high tech awe-inspiring new genetic tool that can do anything... except apply itself to any valid interpretation that leads to a practical use. I begun as a ultra-specialist in biochemistry (one molecule). But gradually I felt I had to keep scaling up and up to get any sense out of my results. A "what is the point?"-search has lead me into immunology, to epidemiology, and now into the hands of social science.

Standing next to the agricultural monster and analyzing, it is scary to see how unorganized it is, in some cases narrow minded, but most importantly in self-awe. It sounds so much like politics/economics rhetoric's - growth, growth, growth - at any cost! From our epidemiological studies in cattle, it looks like not-doing many things would solve many problems in the industrial farms, in-stead of adding new things to do to prevent things happening (the patching-technique). And if I may come with a bold hypothesis: allowing the cattle to live as cattle naturally would have - is very likely to limit most diseases, leg disorders, reproductive problems, and mortality's dramatically!

“The saddest aspect of life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom.” – Isaac Asimov

Image: Bo Secher