Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
J Evol Biol. 2019 Aug;32(8):754-768. doi: 10.1111/jeb.13497. Epub 2019 Jul 5.
In an ideal world, funding agencies could identify the best scientists and projects and provide them with the resources to undertake these projects. Most scientists would agree that in practice, how funding for scientific research is allocated is far from ideal and likely compromises research quality. We, nine evolutionary biologists from different countries and career stages, provide a comparative summary of our impressions on funding strategies for evolutionary biology across eleven different funding agencies. We also assess whether and how funding effectiveness might be improved. We focused this assessment on 14 elements within four broad categories: (a) topical shaping of science, (b) distribution of funds, (c) application and review procedures, and (d) incentives for mobility and diversity. These comparisons revealed striking among-country variation in those elements, including wide variation in funding rates, the effort and burden required for grant applications, and the extent of emphasis on societal relevance and individual mobility. We use these observations to provide constructive suggestions for the future and urge the need to further gather informed considerations from scientists on the effects of funding policies on science across countries and research fields.
在理想世界中,资助机构可以识别出最优秀的科学家和项目,并为他们提供开展这些项目的资源。大多数科学家都会同意,在实践中,科学研究经费的分配远非理想,而且可能会影响研究质量。我们九位来自不同国家和职业阶段的进化生物学家,对 11 个不同资助机构的进化生物学资助策略提供了比较性总结。我们还评估了资助效果是否可以得到提高,以及如何提高。我们将评估重点放在了四个广泛类别中的 14 个要素上:(a)科学主题的塑造,(b)资金分配,(c)申请和审查程序,以及(d)促进流动性和多样性的激励措施。这些比较揭示了这些要素在国家间存在显著差异,包括资助率、申请资助所需的努力和负担,以及对社会相关性和个人流动性的重视程度等方面存在广泛差异。我们利用这些观察结果为未来提供了建设性的建议,并敦促有必要进一步从各国和各研究领域的科学家那里收集有关资助政策对科学影响的信息。