A government-administered grant system provides the lion's share of funds for scientific research. In the grant system, the government pays for the study, salaries, supply and equipment costs, travel, and publishing. Indirect costs cover building maintenance, depreciation, and library materials. The generous grant system increased the number of scientists and created an independent research culture. It also spurred an unprecedented scientific renaissance in the twentieth century with significant discoveries in practically every field. In addition, the fierce competition to analyze a particular subject in greater detail led to discoveries in many fields, e.g., molecular biology, DNA structure, and the Standard model in physics. Even today, new information continually emerges about the inner workings of biological systems, gene editing, and the structure of the states of matter.
Nevertheless, recent findings suggest that top researchers are increasingly unhappy with the status quo. Rather than an objective measure of quality or scientific merit, grant awards are often a contest of craftsmanship, where investigators write research proposals designed to please grant review committees. There is a hidden drive toward safe science, as proposals with predictable outcomes are more likely to receive funding. Funding uncertainties also channel academic careers toward "popular" research areas.
Therefore, financial support is a double-edged sword. As it gave rise to a robust scientific community, it created a conservative scientific hierarchy. Anchoring professional careers to accepted beliefs turns people antagonistic to meaningful change. Therefore, top researchers need to be more satisfied with the grant writing process and the subjectivity of evaluation. On the other hand, the future of science depends on scientists' ability to bring science into public conversation. Because taxpayers fund the grant system, the public should have the opportunity to see the results of their tax money. Therefore, institutions accepting various public funds should host regular Open University events. An Open University event presents scientific progress in a conference format, enabling scientists and the public to familiarize themselves and engage in current research. This program should ease the persistent skepticism of science and the tendency for conspiracy theories. For example, Open University events could have made the public more favorable to the vaccine rollout during the Covid 19.
To read the rest of the essay you need to download it on QSpace.
Click on the link: https://qspace.fqxi.org/competitions/entry/2271
|
Copyright © 2023 by Eva Deli
No comments:
Post a Comment