The “Groundhog Day” mess that is research funding
In the comedy film “Groundhog Day” from 1993, the main character Phil Connors ends up living the same day multiple times in a weird loop, initially unable to break out of it. As in the film, there is a frequently recurring tragic situation in how research funding is allocated. In order to apply for funding, researchers must cite published work to back up their application. Due to publication bias where negative results or replication studies disproving findings often go unpublished, researchers are unwittingly applying for grants for research that has already been disproved by other researchers. These new researchers then encounter the same issues, and then again are unable to publish their negative results and so the tragic cycle of wasting time and money continues. This results in billions of dollars being wasted on dead end research each year on a global scale.
Agencies currently rely heavily on peer reviews in journals when making funding decisions. As few negative results are published, researchers may not be aware of results disproving the research for which they are requesting funding.
Furthermore, the number of cited papers is used as a benchmark to decide awarding of funds. This puts some scientists at a disadvantage, as those who produce negative or inconclusive results end up being indirectly penalised when applying for grants, as their research is less likely to be accepted for publication by the traditional journals.
Our solution to improve how decisions are made in the funding process
We aim to improve the funding process through adoption of the EUREKA platform, first of all on www.sciencematters.io. The reason funders use the number of previously cited published papers as a benchmark when making decisions, is that they are relying on the peers of the applicants and their judgement of the applicant’s work. An unrealistic alternative would mean funding agencies having to conduct their own due diligence on large volumes of highly specialised research proposals, in which they are unlikely to have sufficient expertise to make informed decisions. Our proposal is to develop and promote the EUREKA platform, where researchers can post ideas for research supported by peer reviewed research and where experts in their field can vote on the merit of the research idea. These ratings, which can be both positive or negative (upvoting up and downvoting) would then be available along with comments to funding agencies.
High risk and high reward research is underfunded
Another issue with the present funding system, is that high risk (or perceived to be high risk) / high return research proposals experience difficulties obtaining funding. It may be that the field of study is new, or that it is highly specialised so there are very few papers that can be cited. In the US in 2009 as part of their stimulus package $200 million was set aside for 200 “challenge grants” for moonshot, high risk research projects. The agency involved (National Institutes of Health) was overwhelmed by over 21,000 applications, which they were not equipped to process. Using our EUREKA platform, there are two ways the above issue could have been solved. The applications for funding could have been put on the EUREKA platform earlier, and as they would have a higher chance of finding funders the volume would likely be less. Each application and its supporting documents would then be assessed and rated rapidly as worthy or unworthy of funding by experts in each field from around the world. Alternatively, the NIH could decide to divide their funding between various high risk/high reward fields and then reward researchers with EUREKA tokens for conducting reviews of each application.
Due to the level of work needed to assess each application for funding, small grants and exploratory/developmental grants for early stage research can be difficult to obtain to the level of work needed to assess each one. This means that small grants of up to $50,000 are only awarded based on the expected impact of the research. By using a global platform such as EUREKA to quickly and efficiently appraise research funding applications, it will be feasible to award lower amounts (micro grants) with lower appraisal costs and risk to the funders.
The EUREKA platform will be able to reduce the amount of money wasted on studies that have already been shown not to work, and it can help direct funding to the research that has the most promise thus accelerating the research process.
To learn more about EUREKA: www.eurekatoken.io
The concept behind EUREKA came from the team behind the open access journal www.sciencematters.io
