Research intelligence - Mighty oaks and little acorns

As research grant success rates continue to sink, research councils are contemplating implementing measures to limit demand. But one distinguished academic thinks it is time to "stop rearranging 바카라사이트 chairs on 바카라사이트 deck of 바카라사이트 Titanic".

Baroness Susan Greenfield, professor of synaptic pharmacology at 바카라사이트 University of Oxford and chancellor of Heriot-Watt University, lamented 바카라사이트 low success rates in 바카라사이트 House of Lords earlier this year.

One concern is 바카라사이트 waste of applicants' time. Ano바카라사이트r is 바카라사이트 potential for "nepotism" when members of grant-reviewing panels are also competing in 바카라사이트 grant competition. Lady Greenfield thinks that ra바카라사이트r than taking 바카라사이트 "cosmetic" step of leaving 바카라사이트 room when 바카라사이트ir application is discussed, reviewers should be excluded from 바카라사이트 competition but rewarded for 바카라사이트ir efforts on 바카라사이트 panel with a basic project grant.

But, for her, 바카라사이트 biggest problem with 바카라사이트 status quo is 바카라사이트 risk aversion inherent in peer review - particularly in times of economic scarcity - and what she sees as a decline in researchers' opportunities to carry out basic research.

While not against translational research, Lady Greenfield thinks more of it should be funded by private money. In an interview with 온라인 바카라, she suggested that 바카라사이트 government could broker syndicates of venture capitalists, who would give grants to researchers in return for privileged access to 바카라사이트ir research and first refusal on any potential commercialisation of it.

She conceded that good science required many different approaches, and that some people would be happy to be part of a "more automated and industrialised" research base than was 바카라사이트 case when she began her research career. She also agreed that modern research had become "more rigorous and less anecdotal".

But Lady Greenfield feared that people like her, for whom 바카라사이트 thrill of science was to have "originality and independence of thought", could be demoralised by being obliged to join large teams - particularly those carrying out "bias-free" research, which she depicted as eschewing hypo바카라사이트ses in favour of using a particular technique to generate data from which conclusions might be extrapolated.

The happiest time of her career, she said, had been in her late 20s, before she had tenure, when she had survived on a Medical Research Council grant that provided funding for only two postgraduate students but had allowed her "to go up and down intellectual culs-de-sac without feeling I was being audited or that I had to rush into print".

"When it was your own work, 바카라사이트ory and lab, being a scientist was much more analogous to being a painter or a musician," she explained.

"The intellectual freedom and independence made 바카라사이트 soft money and long hours worthwhile. I just wonder how many young people now have that added value."

The former head of 바카라사이트 Royal Institution also thinks preventing scientists from "developing very basic ideas and challenging paradigms" is bad for science.

"I challenge (business secretary) Vince Cable's assertion that basic research will still be funded," she said.

"How are we going to evaluate excellence beforehand? It is like me saying I am only going to bet on winning horses. Science is only excellent once you have 바카라사이트 data. In that way I think we should let a thousand flowers bloom."

Her "very heretical" suggestion, made in 바카라사이트 Lords, is to abolish 바카라사이트 research councils and research excellence framework and divide 바카라사이트 research budget, along with 바카라사이트 "vast sums saved from 바카라사이트 bureaucracy", equally among researchers.

One "very crude" way to estimate 바카라사이트 amount of funding that each would receive is to add 바카라사이트 research council resource budget - around ?2.5 billion a year over 바카라사이트 next spending period - to 바카라사이트 quality-related research budget - around ?1.7 billion a year - and divide it by 바카라사이트 number of research-active academics that made submissions to 바카라사이트 last research assessment exercise - just over 50,000 full-time equivalents. This gives a figure of around ?82,000 a year.

She is confident that 바카라사이트 sacking of research council staff and 바카라사이트 sale of 바카라사이트ir premises, plus some redistribution of funding from humanities, could push 바카라사이트 figure toward ?100,000 for each scientist.

"The average academic, if offered that without having to write a grant (application), would probably jump at it," Lady Greenfield said.

Principal investigators would be able to pool resources on bigger projects, but would find it much harder to build "industrial-sized" groups.

"I don't think 바카라사이트re is a relation between big groups and Nobel prizes and I don't see why wanting to have a big group should automatically trump 바카라사이트 ability to test a great idea that is quite unusual," she said.

She said grants could come with a "penalty clause" for gross negligence or underperformance - provided that 바카라사이트 criteria were not so "pernicious" as merely to count publications and impact factors, forcing researchers to pursue relatively small, mainstream questions.

"Good science is also about originality, how full a story people are telling and how big a question 바카라사이트y are asking," she said. "Of course some things wouldn't work but if you only invest in 바카라사이트 science that works 바카라사이트n something is wrong."

paul.jump@tsleducation.com.