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:
 

Renewable Energy Sources Conference

The 15th November Estonian University of Life Sciences held their 9th coference on "Investigation and Usage of Renewable Energy Sources" in Tartu. I attended as part of the university, but mostly out of curiosity.

The conference had leading researchers in renewable energy from serveral countries and officials of the Estonian ministries. There seemed to be a strong focus on the countrys vast unused biomass and its applications. Estonia have a lot of unused agricultural land after U.S.S.R. occupation (3 hectar per inhabitant of which 200.000 hectar is abandoned), and a though they are not raping their huge resources of trees, firewood is a common heating source, and has been for hundreds of years. I could not help noticing that firewood is part of the term "renewable energy", but I did not notice references to the enviromental implications, only the economical rentability.


The goverment did, not supprisingly, bring out that they wished to focus their funding, and welcomed researchers who volunteered to state outdated or fields with too low cost-benefit. They also asked for more structured or exact research, since the last 30 years in some fields had given little clarity of the situation regarding renewable energy. On the other hand researchers gave an official plea to the goverment for guidelines to what they should do. Little news there I guess.

The Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications gave some interesting data on the status of different renewable energies, but focused on the use of forest resources (biomass conversion, direct energy production and waste uses). I could not help raising a few questions on heat pumps. I asked if they had considered using deep sea water for heating Tallin like the plan in Stockholm? It had not been considered, but they had noticed that the last 5-10 years the sales and use of heat pumps were doubling every year in Estonia. They could not answer why most of the deep ground energy heat pumps were rejected in most cases in Estonia, but speculated it could be due to protection of ground water ressources.

I know that Tartu already has a great initiative that makes heat and ventilation to a house - basically ground heat that does not use electricity. But it is one of these initiatives that has an modest inventor with humble ambitions. So I think very few will see this technology - like others. I will write about the Geothermal Air-conditioner later.

Several fine initiatives were presented at the conference. The best in my opinion was a German initiative by Michael Wachendorf and his team, who focus on using the increasingly abandoned German farm lands. The abandonment is against EU regulations (which is worth a thought), but the farming is no longer financially sound in some areas. So in their initiative they harvest the wild plants growing and converted them into biofuel. I liked this project because it not only tries to produce sounder energy, but also invoveld a growing problem caused by a changing culture.

Estonia is third in Europe (following Lithuania and Finland) in use of renewable energy resources (including firewood) with a set goal of 5.1 % for 2010; a goal that has already been surpassed. Unfortunately this kind of statistics, I think, probably would not change the fact that Estonia is also one of the most polluting countries in EU. So I left with the feeling that the focus was on "renewable" rather that "greener" or perhaps just "sounder" energy. No leaping for Estonia, but small safe steps with the crowd.

Further reading: