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:
 

Sterling Denmark - but why the biofules?

One of the machines with greatest potential for supplying electrical power is the 200 year old invention of the Sterling Engine. It is basically a closed bicycle pump that moves a piston, turning a wheel or generator, when being heated or cooled. The clever part is that it is one of the engines that can work at moderate temperatures and make it into power. And another attempt of putting it to use is made in Denmark.

Stirling Denmark has announced the launch of their working Sterling Engine for biofuel producing an impressive 9 kW and 35 kW of power. The 9 kW model is however not for purchase before 2009. Cogratulations to the inventors who spent 15 years on making a commercial model! I sincerely hope you will succeed in selling it!

At first I was wondering why someone would use biofuels to power a Sterling engine when other cheaper options were available (sun, ground heat, composting, and potentially cooling sources as well...). There are no doubt technical reasons to the choice, but putting things in to context, biofuels do make sense. Biofuel is a hot new buzz-word that politicians love, and love to throw funding at. And scientists must adapt the science to what a handful of people with the money think are important. Biofuels currently seems to be the transition phase from fossil fuels to the better existing technologies (at continental pace), allowing a dilution of the fossil fuels into something renewable.

I also noticed in the product synopsis on Sterling Denmark’s website that the product description had a clever "Designed for biofuels etc." It is probably clever not to state too much of the actual potential of a working Sterling Engine in producing electricity from various sources to avoid too hard opposition. Clever, very clever Sterling Denmark! Keep going.