What if you could calmly think about how research funding should be allocated, without the looming threat of budget cuts? Scientists wish for less competition, as revealed by a study conducted by The Young Academy.
(Photo: Justyna Botor)
Two and a half years ago, The Young Academy surveyed over 1,100 scientists about how €900 million in research funding should be distributed. The goal was to give a voice to the ‘silent majority’. At the time, the government was allocating extra funds to science, so there was a genuine opportunity to reflect. Should the money go directly to universities, with or without extra conditions, or should it be distributed via the Dutch Research Council (NWO)?
The Young Academy experimented with a new evaluation method called Participatory Value Evaluation, which allowed participants to see the immediate effects of their choices. More money allocated to one area meant less for another, with all the associated consequences.
The result? From PhD candidates to professors, and from engineers to historians, most of the teaching and research staff wanted to reduce the intense competition for research grants.
Vice-Chair Léonie de Jonge, a political scientist at the University of Groningen and about to become a professor in Germany as of 1 January, says The Young Academy had been aware of these sentiments for some time. However, the looming budget cuts made it difficult to find the right moment to publish the findings.
INTERVIEW
This study on allocating extra funds feels almost nostalgic now.
De Jonge: “It does seem like a topic from a different era, although Minister Dijkgraaf’s investments were far from excessive. They were simply essential. The water had been up to our necks for years. It’s a shame we didn’t get the time to show what we could do with that funding.”
Why did it take so long to release the findings?
“We had never worked with this method before. It is incredibly complex, and the dataset was massive. Plus, we’re busy scientists with other responsibilities. The political situation also took up a lot of attention.”
What relevance does your report still hold, now that cuts are looming?
“To be clear, there’s no support for these cuts, and we’re deeply concerned about them. We’re actively opposing them. However, it’s still worthwhile to think about the nuances of funding. The way the system works is largely independent of the total amount of money.”
One key finding is that scientists at all levels support the starter and incentive grants, which are now being phased out.
“Most researchers indeed want to move away from competitive grants like those distributed by the NWO. With success rates as low as one in seven, the system feels unfair. You wouldn’t believe how much time we waste writing grant proposals for funding we never receive. The system also makes science trend-driven, as we constantly ask ourselves: Will this application succeed? That’s not good for the continuity of research.”
Are the starter and incentive grants fairer? Universities distribute those internally, and there’s no guarantee that process goes smoothly either.
“In an ideal world, early-career researchers would automatically receive a starter grant. Later in their careers, they’d get another grant when they really need it. Perhaps lotteries could also play a role. Admittedly, the distribution of starter and incentive grants hasn’t been perfect, but we didn’t get the chance to refine the system. That said, we’re not calling for the NWO to be abolished altogether. Competitive research funding can drive innovation, but the system has swung too far in that direction.”
Your report advocates for the type of survey you used, suggesting it could improve consultation. Doesn’t it take too long?
“It could probably be done faster, but good research does take time. We think this is an excellent way to approach fundamental questions, as the model—despite its simplifications—gives a sense of the world’s complexity. Plus it raises awareness among participants.”
Do you lack confidence in existing staff representation mechanisms?
“With the starter and incentive grants, staff participation was generally not properly included. Now, we also see that administrators are moving ahead with cuts—merging or eliminating small programmes—without proper consultation. We argue that when truly significant decisions are being made, it’s vital to listen closely to scientists. This method can support democratisation. Let us have a say.”
Even during times of budget cuts?
“Even then. We oppose the cuts, but if you ask me, for example, whether I’d rather lose an arm or a leg, I will still want a say in that matter as well.”
HOP, Bas Belleman | Vertaling: Alison Fisher
Science editor
Jos Wassink
Do you have a question or comment about this article?
j.w.wassink@tudelft.nl
Comments are closed.