In an age where the scientific community is often seen as a guarantor and where short-termist policies are the norm, is there still a place for independent research ?
Calls for projects are becoming increasingly time-consuming, with researchers facing intense competition for funding, which is monopolising ancillary services, consultants and even lobbyists. Budgets allocated to research are determined by priorities that vary according to political choices, the coherence of which can legitimately be questioned. All too often, announced policies reflect subjective choices based on unfounded presuppositions, or even deny established scientific facts. Environmental, climate and health sciences, as well as socio-economic approaches, can be subject to specious, partisan attacks. Budgets are cancelled, allocated differently or reduced to almost nothing. Academic salaries vary greatly from one country to another: on average, they are less than €70k per year in France, more than €150k per year in Switzerland, and around €90k per year in the USA. We are delighted to have been awarded an 'ambitious' project worth €600k over three years, which will enable around ten employees to survive. That equates to less than €20k per employee per year, or €1.7k per employee per month! This was all achieved after a hard-fought battle, an evaluation by attentive colleagues and management and administration by university departments. It was a real joy, but every penny or euro had to be justified, checked and validated according to procedures that were more or less adapted to the control by authorities. A real joy where every penny or euro must be justified, verified and validated according to time-consuming procedures. Is there any reasons to accept such procedures whci contributes to lost of time, energy and efficiency? We are under pressure and an high competition established as a standard.
Bob Sonawane
I think that an independent research is not a myth. Any innovative ideas , both honestly pursed in basic and applied sciences that could be eventually translated to improve publc welfare and protect global environment is highly desirable ,productive and beneficial in a short or long term basis. Yes, an independent innovative research peer -reviewd by the qualified exprtise without any conflicts of interests needs to be funded by both, government and private sector without any strngs attached.
Bogdan J Wlodarczyk
Independent research is a myth; you always work for the one who pay. Let's stop the BS.
Milton Mendonça
Your question is very complex, as it involves a series of different situations related to how we do science nowadays. In terms of independent research, you would first need to conceptualize what you belive this to be. If you are talking about alternative sources of funding outside of government and University programs (which appears to be what you are complaining about), I reckon they vary greatly among scientific disciplines. In Ecology and Conservation, my field, there a few examples of third sector parties (like NGOs) that fund restricted research programs, with values derived from international funds, for example. They tend to be less beaurocratic and thus more agile, less demanding, in general. You could argue that these are not really independent from politics and partisanism anyway.
I could stop there, but for me there is a deeper sociological dynamic involved in this question. Science has become really big, with exponential increases in spending, number of people/labs involved and institutions and their research capacities. This, along with the advent of the information era, is what probably led to this beaurocratization of the internal processes of the scientific professions. We need to fill out more forms, we are asked for more data, more detail, because we are being compared to a higher number of different people/labs proposing a wider variety of topics and ideas. My guess is that this is likely to, in time, corrode the system further and lead to even worse situations, for example expanding to those other sources of funding outside government and classic research institutions. That is, unless we as scientists decide to force a change in the system from within.
I could stop there, but for me there is a deeper sociological dynamic involved in this question. Science has become really big, with exponential increases in spending, number of people/labs involved and institutions and their research capacities. This, along with the advent of the information era, is what probably led to this beaurocratization of the internal processes of the scientific professions. We need to fill out more forms, we are asked for more data, more detail, because we are being compared to a higher number of different people/labs proposing a wider variety of topics and ideas. My guess is that this is likely to, in time, corrode the system further and lead to even worse situations, for example expanding to those other sources of funding outside government and classic research institutions. That is, unless we as scientists decide to force a change in the system from within.
Boffer Bings