Ideal funding for science*

While the main forces of the scientific community are engaged in a practical struggle for the survival of domestic science, I propose to look at the problem on a different scale and imagine what changes could allow it to achieve prosperity.

It is unlikely that many would argue that the root of the problem lies in the financing of science. But it seems to me that the problem is not so much in volume as in the method of financing.

As we all know, the existing model of organizing and financing science is very far from ideal. It requires a large number of bureaucratic rituals that are absolutely useless from the point of view of the scientific process.

First of all, this means writing enormously bloated funding applications and grant reports. Significant costs are also associated with the procedures for purchasing equipment and consumables, and there are other losses. Of course, bureaucratic costs exist in all countries, but in our country they are especially exaggerated and threaten to strangle science. They reduce its effectiveness by up to 10 times , which goes far beyond common sense. Can these costs be avoided?

I believe so, and I want to propose a model in which there are practically no costs . This model is a development of the idea discussed in the “Trinity Option” a couple of months ago, that work that has already been completed, rather than planned ones, should be paid for. Based on the results of the discussion, the idea was significantly modified in order to remove most of the questions that arose and smooth out the rough edges. In particular, the procedure for advance payment of scientific work and differentiation by field of science were prescribed. As a result, the result was (IMHO) a rather harmonious scheme.

To slightly increase the degree of enthusiasm, I will describe the resulting parameters of the model :

1. Writing funding applications and reports boils down to a brief statement of who will study what. Applications are satisfied automatically. (But the advance is in proportion to past merits).

2. Scientists receive ownership of allocated funds, which radically simplifies procurement procedures and administration.

3. Funding is automatically and fairly redistributed in favor of those who work; the amount of funding is strictly related to scientific achievements.

All this allows us to hope that the output of domestic science will increase quickly and manifold, it will not only come out of intensive care, but will take a worthy, and probably leading, place in the world.

Now let’s take a closer look at the model to make sure it’s real.

The idea of paying for work after it is completed is a kind of gambit that allows you to resolve almost all existing problems.

In existing schemes, money is allocated up front, which forces the state to closely monitor its safety. This determines the need to write detailed projects (applications for funding), then reports, as well as complicated ways of spending money. The state does not know how to control unobtrusively. Executive officials are not interested in reducing reporting, because this is their bread. As a result, bureaucracy swells to unimaginable proportions.

There is only one reliable way to avoid such bureaucracy: eliminate its cause, receive money not in advance, but after completing the work. This simple move simultaneously solves other important problems, which I will discuss later.

Of course, doing the work requires money. But this problem can be solved simply by issuing an advance. At the beginning of the work, the scientific team (laboratory, group) informs the scientific foundation about its intention to complete the work and can take an advance from it in the amount of, say, from 50 to 100% (the figure is negotiable, monthly issuance is possible) of the team’s annual productivity for the last 1 or 3 years (which is calculated using the same formula as the final payment for the work). Thus, only those who have publications can advance, although anyone can participate in the system. For this purpose, a brief justification, the size of a page, informing about the purpose of the work and the composition of the participants is sufficient. The advance is allocated automatically, there is no competition. Submitting an application solves two problems:

1. The scientist receives a guarantee that his work will be paid.

2. The fund receives information about how many people will work under the post-payment scheme and can plan expenses. The state budget records only the total amount of funding, which is then divided between post-payment and standard schemes in a proportion determined by the number of applications. (We will leave each scientist the opportunity to choose between schemes.)

It can be noted that such an assessment system limits the ability of the state and society to manage science. But does it need to be controlled? After all, scientists themselves understand quite well what society needs and what will be in demand. At the same time, they also represent the technical side of the question, how and in what sequence to move towards the desired goals. And now many sciences are developing, setting tasks for themselves virtually independently. That is, in the mode that is assumed by this model. However, in this model, it is possible to stimulate some priority areas by giving them increasing valuation coefficients.

Expense administration

Another critical category of costs eliminated by post-payment is related to purchasing and expense administration. Now these procedures are overly complicated and regulated. As a rule, the scientist cannot use the funds as needed and when needed. For example, you have money for reagents, but you need to buy a device or go to a conference. There are usually no costs for publications. The money must be spent before the end of the year, and it does not matter that, as a rule, no money will be received until next summer. As a result, you need to predict in advance everything that might be needed, spend more effort and money; Some of this will not be useful - you didn’t guess, something will lie around and spoil, if it’s some kind of enzymes or biological products.

If the money is received in payment for work that has already been completed, it means that the researcher has complete freedom to dispose of it, it is HIS money (this also applies to the advance). The described problems are removed completely. In addition, significant efforts are saved in recording purchases on the institute’s balance sheet. Let me note that formal ownership of scientific purchases does not bring any benefit to the state, but only trouble. The state must give up such property.

On the contrary, large equipment, the acquisition of which by one laboratory is impossible or unjustified, should be owned by the state in the form of institutes or centers for collective use and used for a fee.

Work evaluation

Evaluation of scientific work in this model is much easier and more accurate than in existing schemes, since work already completed is assessed, and not assumptions about how a given team could cope with the task.

Experts evaluating the work can also rely on the opinions of editorial reviewers and take into account the level (impact factor) of the journal that published the work in their assessment. Evaluating work by impact factor is used quite often in modern practice, despite the fact that this criterion is largely imperfect. But even experts can be subjective and even biased. Editorial reviewers can often have a better understanding of the narrow topic of the work being evaluated. Therefore, it seems to me that the assessment should equally take into account the opinion of experts and the impact factor (i.e. the opinion of the editors). In this case, it is desirable to mathematically take into account the fact that in different sciences traditions and frequency of citation may differ.

The monetary value of evaluating a work is determined simply: we take the total amount of funding for a given period and divide it among published works in proportion to their estimates.

An important advantage of the proposed model is that it strictly links work results and financing. In existing schemes, the same work can be used to report on multiple grants, which encourages many scientists to write as many grant proposals as possible at the expense of actual research. Conference abstracts, foreign trips, degrees awarded, and other by-products of the scientific process are often used as grant reports. All this is a fair amount of deceit, which does not benefit science, let’s be more honest.

Fundamental and applied science

As is easy to see, the proposed model is well suited only for fundamental science, the result of which is publications. For applied science, publications are usually a by-product and can therefore only be partially supported by this model. Therefore, it will be necessary to separate the costs of fundamental and applied science (or science expressed and not expressed in publications) in the budget.

Note that in the understanding of the importance of science by the state and society, there is a strong bias in favor of applied science, since it involves a clear and tangible solution. The scientific community must fight to understand the importance of basic science and to fund it more. My arguments for this are as follows:

1. The purpose of applied science is to make a profit. Due to the profound inefficiency of science under government control, this goal is unattainable and the pursuit absurd. State participation in applied science should be minimized and such science should be entrusted to business. State support is necessary, but not directly, but in the form of benefits for scientific business.

At the same time, it must be noted that some applied topics, for example, nuclear energy or astronautics, still cannot be transferred into private hands.

2. Applied science must be competitive on a global scale, otherwise there is little point in it. And this cannot be achieved without strengthening fundamental science, which will provide both fresh ideas and specialists to implement them.

It's nice that some prominent figures outside of science seem to share this position. Thus, in M. Prokhorov’s election program it is stated: “The state finances fundamental science, and scientists, in partnership with business, commercialize its results.”

What will be the result?

Funding for basic science will increase significantly, and maybe even multiple. By reducing the costs of control over science; through applied science; at the expense of scientific administrators who are able to attract abundant funding but do not provide equivalent scientific output.

Opportunities for productive work will increase radically: scientists will not be distracted by compiling papers. The atmosphere will also change: we will work more intensely and drink less tea. Some - because they will be able to completely devote themselves to scientific research and work on a par with world giants, others - simply because it will become possible to make money from science. Young people will go into science, we will forget about the brain drain.

Applied science will also not be at a loss: it will receive strong support and ideological support from fundamental science, which it is sorely lacking now.

What is needed for this?

The plan is quite feasible, except for one component: will.

The will of the state to listen and the will of scientists to insist on their own.

Surprisingly, positive changes are taking place in the state’s position. The rally of scientists on October 13 was at least somehow heard. Democratic rallies in December and February prompted the state to at least somehow listen to society. Future presidential elections also provide a chance to be heard.

Unfortunately, there are also significant problems with the will of scientists. In private conversations, everyone complains and wants change. But when it comes to action, at least to the discussion of ideas, only a few participate. So let's participate, support or criticize, offer alternatives. Otherwise, nothing will come of it. In addition to discussion here, the topic can be discussed in a specially created blog: http://funding-science.blogspot.com/ . The supposed advantage of a blog is convenience: the model is packaged into key ideas and each can be discussed separately.

I see the task of this stage as developing a coherent model of science reform that would enjoy significant support. This model could be further promoted: offered to private foundations for testing, to presidential candidates, and finally to the state.

Everything is not as hopeless as it seems.

Let's win together!

Vitaly Kushnirov ,
doc. biol. Sciences, INBI RAS

_________________________