Why the science system is not sustainable

In Peter Lawrence's now famous PLoS article, Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research, he echoes a commonly held belief by scientists around the world - the science funding system is broken. Lawrence's character "K.", who represents the struggles of young scientists today, finds difficulty setting himself up as an academic researcher because he is bogged down in bureaucracy. To make matters worse, the bright young researchers that he spends much of his time training are unable to stay in science due to the low pay and limited career offerings. So why is K struggling? I turn to the harsh reality of economics that we, as scientists, need to recognise.

For starters, the science system is generating more scientists than the funding and academic systems can support. There was a time when science, in its purest form, was for the intellectual elite and funding was plentiful for all (though was probably not realised at the time). Now, becoming a PhD scientist is the necessary next step for the above average wishing to make a career out of their curiosity. Sadly, more often than not, science PhD graduates are forced into the real world without adequate skills outside of the lab. It is generally accepted that less than 20% of science PhD graduates will find careers in academia. In many ways becoming a career scientist is like becoming a professional athlete - unless you're at the top, the pay is menial. You really have to LOVE what you do! When a youngster says that one day he's going to become a professional basketball player, we tell him to make sure he stays in school just in case his dreams don't come to fruition. So why don't we inform science students of the harsh realities of science careers and encourage them to also study business, law, or policy so that when their academic careers inevitably fail to come to fruition they have valuable and complementary skill sets to take into the real world? Transversely, such a multi-talented individual could bring a perspective into the lab that could benefit those around him/her.

Secondly, unless a researcher has been fortunate enough to have wealth or generate significant income through his/her research, then that researcher will be reliant on funding from external sources - often from the government. There are very few governments these days with a surplus large enough to make super risky investments - let's face it, blue sky science is a very risky investment if the aim is to achieve returns. So why would a government invest in research that cannot be linked to significant commercial, economic, environmental or social benefits? I'm not saying that research must lead to these benefits, but rather that government-funded research should be demonstrably linked to these benefits. Wouldn't it make more sense for more scientists to undertake revenue-generating research so that, over time, more money will be available for basic research? Perhaps the problem for K arose from a poor research concept rather than the crutch of 'the system'. It is often argued that the evidence is clear - research leads to innovation, and innovation leads to economic benefits. This is true, but not all research leads to innovation, and not all innovative research is world-leading. That is why the funding system is biased towards those with grantsmanship skills who often make compelling commercial, economic, social, or environmental cases in their research proposals rather than focusing on the research itself. Are researchers 'lying' on grant proposals? No - more like seeing the wood for the trees.

Peter Lawrence's article also has a section entitled "How to 'restore science to its rightful place'", and Peter suggests that reducing the funding application time, bureaucracy and general effort would remove much of the burden on academics. There is a lot of truth to this. Unfortunately, Peter's suggested solution (and that of other commenters within his article) is for funding to be handed out to researchers with a proven 'scientific' performance. As a taxpayer I am hesitant to hand out money for good science without having any idea of how it benefits my country, and funding agencies are, in a round about way, tasked with representing my interests as a voter. As a scientist I would like to see a sustainable science system - one that generates enough income to the government to recoup the costs of the investment in science, and thus leaving enough funds available for blue skies research completely unrelated to commercial, economic, environmental or social benefits. Giving money to even the best of researchers for no other reason than the fact that they have done good science in the past is both idealistic and unsustainable. This would lead to yet another layer of bureaucracy. Questions would have to be addressed: What is good science (quality vs benefits)? What are good outputs (number vs quality)? What constitutes performance? Philosophical questions such as these can be debated by bureaucrats until the bank account is empty, and then everyone loses.

In summary I argue that the funding system is not broken, but the science culture sure needs an overhaul. Raising the flag of scientific welfare is the surest way to lose the trust and support of the taxpayers - the dominant and most powerful stakeholders of the science funding system. Providing funding for high quality science, rather than funding on the basis of sensible benefits from good (or even average) science, is an idealistic and unsustainable dream. There is no question that society benefits from blue sky research, but how much is enough? Shouldn't we get our economy in order first? Is the problem with the funding system that we've already passed the intellectual equilibrium? If blue sky research is your passion, then perhaps you should consider either a) working for an organisation, such as a wealthy university, that has surplus funds to pay for blue sky research, or b) generating enough income through your research to yourself or your organisation so that you can get sustainable access to funding for your blue sky interests. Until the scientific community realises the urgent necessity for more research linked to commercial, economic, social or environmental benefits we will never achieve a sustainable science system. If K had an economics degree as well as a PhD in science, would he be writing the same grant, or telling the same story???