[Paper Review] Innovative Science

Donald W. Braben, John F. Allen+46 more|arXiv (Cornell University)|Sep 23, 2015

scientometrics and bibliometrics research4 citations

TL;DR

This paper critiques the current proposal-driven funding system in science, arguing that its lengthy, peer-reviewed process—now mandatory despite being a post-1970 innovation—discourages open-ended research and wastes researcher time. The authors advocate for reform to restore scientific creativity and efficiency by reducing bureaucratic hurdles and rethinking how research funding is allocated.

ABSTRACT

Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will achieve its goals, is the best value for money, is relevant to a national priority and will impact on a socio-economic problem. Only 25% of proposals received by the funding agencies are funded. These protracted processes force researchers to exploit existing knowledge, severely discourage open-ended studies and are hugely time-consuming. They are also new: before 1970, few researchers wrote proposals. Now they are virtually mandatory.

Motivation & Objective

• To highlight the growing burden of proposal writing on researchers due to complex funding systems.
• To argue that the current peer review and approval process discourages open-ended, high-risk scientific inquiry.
• To emphasize that the proposal system is a recent development (post-1970) and not a timeless necessity.
• To call for systemic reform to reduce time wasted on administrative processes and restore focus on scientific discovery.
• To challenge the assumption that proposal-based funding is the only viable method for allocating research funds.

Proposed method

• Analyzing the historical shift from pre-1970 scientific practices to today’s proposal-driven funding model.
• Examining the multi-layered approval process involving universities and funding agencies.
• Evaluating the role of anonymous peer review in assessing scientific proposals.
• Assessing the impact of low funding success rates (25%) on research culture and innovation.
• Comparing current funding mechanisms with pre-1970 practices where proposal writing was rare.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Why has the proposal-based funding system become dominant in science despite its negative impacts on research freedom?
• RQ2 How does the current funding process affect the likelihood of open-ended or exploratory scientific research?
• RQ3 What are the historical roots of the current proposal system, and why is it now considered essential when it was not before 1970?
• RQ4 How do low funding success rates (25%) influence researcher behavior and scientific output?
• RQ5 What alternative funding models could better support scientific innovation and reduce administrative burden?

Key findings

• The current funding system, requiring university and agency approval followed by anonymous peer review, is a post-1970 innovation with no historical precedent in pre-1970 science.
• Only 25% of submitted proposals are funded, indicating a highly selective and competitive process that consumes significant researcher time.
• The proposal system discourages open-ended research by prioritizing projects with predictable outcomes and clear societal impact.
• The process is described as protracted and time-consuming, diverting researchers from actual scientific work.
• The authors argue that the current system is not essential and that alternative models could reduce administrative burden and enhance scientific creativity.
• The paper implies that the current system may be undermining scientific prosperity by favoring incremental over transformative research.