The Young Academy: scientists denounce battle for grants

Two and a half years ago, The Young Academy asked over 1,100 scientists to share their views on the distribution of 900 million euros of funding for research. The "silent middle" had to be given a voice, explained the academy. 

It was a different time. The cabinet was shovelling extra money into science, so there was something to think about. Should the government give that money directly to universities, with or without additional requirements, or distribute it through the research funding body NWO?

The Young Academy experimented with a new polling method called "participatory value evaluation", where participants could immediately see the effect of their choices. More money here meant less money there. 

The outcome (available in Dutch only, Ed.): the vast majority of teachers and researchers would like the competition for research grants much less fierce. The results have been known for quite some time, but with major budget cuts lurking, there never seemed to be a good time for the Young Academy to publish them, explains its vice-president, Léonie De Jonge, a political scientist at the University of Groningen.

This study on the distribution of additional money feels almost nostalgic.
True, it seems to come from a different time, although those investments by Minister Dijkgraaf were not overkill either. They were just desperately needed. It is a pity that we were not given the time to show what we could do with that money.

Why did it take so long for the results to come out?
We had never worked with this method before. It was super complicated, there was a huge amount of data. And we are busy scientists, doing other things as well. Politics took up a lot of attention.

With major budget cuts looming, how relevant is this report? 
Let's be clear, we do not support these austerity measures and we are very concerned about them, but thinking about the nuances of funding still makes sense. The functioning of the system is independent of the amount of money available.

The main finding is that all sorts of researchers appreciated the starter and incentive grants, which are going to disappear.
Most researchers want to move away from competitive grants, as NWO distributes them. Low success rates, often only one in seven, make them feel that the system is unfair. You should know how much time we waste writing grant applications for money we don't end up getting. The system also makes science trend-sensitive because we have to keep asking ourselves: 'Does this application stand a chance?' That is not good for the continuity of our research.

Are starter and incentive grants fairer, though? They would have been distributed by universities themselves, so scientists would also have to wait and see how things go.
In an ideal world, young researchers would just get a start-up grant and then, later in their careers, another such grant when they could put it to good use. Perhaps drawing lots could be an option. Not everything went well in the distribution of start-up and incentive grants, we must acknowledge that too. However, we did not get the chance to develop the system. By the way, we are not saying that NWO should be abolished altogether. Competitive research funding can provide innovation, but it has gone overboard.

The report defends the kind of poll you have been working with, saying it could improve participation. Isn't it too slow a method for that?
I'm sure it could be faster, but good research takes time. We think it is a good way to think about fundamental issues because, despite all the oversimplifications, the model shows how complex the world is. It raises awareness among the participants.

Don't you have faith in co-determination?
In the distribution of starter and incentive grants, co-determination is generally not well involved. We are also now seeing administrators anticipating cuts without proper consultation and cancelling or merging small courses, for example. When it comes to important decisions, we'd say: listen to scientists as much as possible. This method can ensure democratisation. Let us be in control.

Even in times of austerity?
Even then. We are against austerity measures but, if you ask me whether I would rather lose a leg or an arm, I want to have a say on that too.