Funding Science In America

Funding Science in America, first published in 1999, explores the pros and cons of the academic earmarking issue.

How the NSF became an important yet controversial patron for the social sciences, influencing debates over their scientific status and social relevance. In the early Cold War years, the U.S. government established the National Science Foundation (NSF), a civilian agency that soon became widely known for its dedication to supporting first-rate science. The agency's 1950 enabling legislation made no mention of the social sciences, although it included a vague reference to "other sciences." Nevertheless, as Mark Solovey shows in this book, the NSF also soon became a major--albeit controversial--source of public funding for them.

Americans have become resigned to seeing Congress vote money for porkbarrel projects of all kinds-roads, dams, post offices, military installations-in the districts of influential legislators. In recent years Congress has, almost without public notice, extended this form of vote-buying and pandering into a new domain: science. Where formerly scientific funding proposals were evaluated by outside experts on the basis of merit, there is now an increasing consideration of congressional districts and "fair" geographical distribution. In this ground-breaking volume, Joseph P. Martino offers a critical examination of special-interest funding and the danger it poses to the integrity of American society as a whole, as well as to its scientific component. Science Funding is distinguished by its comprehensive approach to the structural and historical background of the current situation. It examines the history of science funding from the early twentieth century through present, public vs. to taxpayers, instances of fraud, and the effects of government funding for research in universities. Martino's survey demonstrates conclusively that government has been inefficient in its funding capacity and that the shortcomings are inherent: political criteria for the support of science, congressional micromanagement, freezing out of innovative ideas, and the favoring of massive projects-Big Science-over small, but significant experimental programs. In his concluding chapter Martino provides an agenda for new thinking on the funding of science. He proposes alternatives that suggest a plurality of approaches is preferable to the current monolithic model, and shows how industrial support, philanthropy, and contributions from the public can be made more effective. Science Funding is a major work on the interaction of science, politics, and society. It will be of interest to sociologists, policymakers, and political scientist, and the research science community.

The past half-century has witnessed a dramatic increase in the scale and complexity of scientific research. The growing scale of science has been accompanied by a shift toward collaborative research, referred to as "team science." Scientific research is increasingly conducted by small teams and larger groups rather than individual investigators, but the challenges of collaboration can slow these teams' progress in achieving their scientific goals. How does a team-based approach work, and how can universities and research institutions support teams? Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science synthesizes and integrates the available research to provide guidance on assembling the science team; leadership, education and professional development for science teams and groups. It also examines institutional and organizational structures and policies to support science teams and identifies areas where further research is needed to help science teams and groups achieve their scientific and translational goals. This report offers major public policy recommendations for science research agencies and policymakers, as well as recommendations for individual scientists, disciplinary associations, and research universities. Enhancing the Effectiveness of Team Science will be of interest to university research administrators, team science leaders, science faculty, and graduate and postdoctoral students.

Gain a head start in your academic career with this step-by-step guide to building an externally funded research program.

This book brings to light trends in the support of life scientists beginning their professional careers. In 1985, 3,040 scientists under the age of 36 applied for individual investigator (R01) grants from the National Institutes of Health, and 1,002 received awards, for a "success rate" of 33%. In 1993, 1,389 scientists under the age of 36 applied for R01 grants and 302 received awards, for a success rate of 21.7%. Even when R23/R29 grant awards (both intended for new investigators) are added to the R01 awards, the number of R01 plus R23 awards made in 1985 was 1,308, and in 1993, the number of R01 plus R29 was 527. These recent trends in the funding of young biomedical research scientists, and the fact that young nonbiomedical scientists historically have had a smaller base of support to draw upon when beginning their careers, raises serious questions about the future of life science research. It is the purpose of this volume to present data about the trends and examine their implications.

A calculation of the social returns to innovation /Benjamin F. Jones and Lawrence H. Summers --Innovation and human capital policy /John Van Reenen --Immigration policy levers for US innovation and start-ups /Sari Pekkala Kerr and William R. Kerr --Scientific grant funding /Pierre Azoulay and Danielle Li --Tax policy for innovation /Bronwyn H. Hall --Taxation and innovation: what do we know? /Ufuk Akcigit and Stefanie Stantcheva --Government incentives for entrepreneurship /Josh Lerner.