In the days of the amateur scientist, little external funding was needed. With the advent of "big science," the costs of equipment, labs, and personnel quickly exhausted the ability of all but the largest research-extensive universities or corporations to fund research. Too, research primarily focused on military or national security is a matter of governmental rather than private concern.
Gifts are sometimes made to fund research, perhaps associated with a will or a bequest. Medical or life sciences research benefits because affluent people are concerned with particular health problems that afflict themselves, family members, or others. If the gift is large enough, it may be used to create a foundation or non-profit organization with a research agenda. Gifts may have "strings" attached in accordance with the wishes of the givers.
Grants are funds allocated in order to conduct a particular research project. The project may be applied or pure research. Typically, grants are awarded in a process that includes requests for proposals, receipt of proposals, evaluation of proposals by subject experts and project managers, selection, and reporting requirements. Many grants are awarded for a relatively short period, such as three years so the research project must be well managed to insure that deadlines are met and that the deliverables are as expected. Most grants are de facto contracts with potential penalties for snags and problems.
Request for proposals [RFP] is the first step. Most research organizations will have access to one or more of the specialized databases that alert scientists and others to funding opportunities. The RFP typically includes:
Contracts are legal documents to provide a specific result at a particular time. These usually apply to applied science or development initiatives. While some Federal agencies will contract for research service, this is usually associated with corporate or for-profit organizations who have a relatively specific target in view. Work for hire status and the ability to disclose research results to the scientific community may be issues.
For a variety of reasons, including too many new researchers, the competition for research funding is often fierce and many are disappointed at the results. Most scientific research today requires fairly substantial funding whether that funding be internal or external. Given the limited resources available to most universities, there is considerable pressure to attract external funding. In particular, grants are used to support many Ph.D. students so it plays a major role in the future of natural science in the U.S.
Most academic institutions and larger commercial firms subscribe to one or more of the alerting services for funding sources. Often, this is a function of a university development office. Here is an example of a development office focusing on foundation grants. The Community of Science is a well-known resource for finding funding. Many science specific societies provide news about government funding opportunities in their journals, newsletters, and websites. Such news may be general such as funding trends and issues or contain information on a particular opportunity. It is important for you to identify which funding source alert services are available and who is responsible for this service.
What sort of relationship should the library have with the development office? Would the library be a better place to house these alerting services?
While many scientists have long been self-funded, early funding typically resulted from either practical tasks related to solving problems involving design or military problems or patronage [a rich patron provided time and funds to begin and continue a research project]. Patrons may be political, military, religious leaders or those involved in commerce. Patronage provided some protection from critics, especially those less powerful than the patron. Self-funding fits in with the notion of the hobby scientist although that does not mean that he was not talented.
Military initiatives and the vigorous pursuit of more powerful weapons resulted in funding weapons research for many, many years. The most visible case was WWII and the birth of Big Science. The notion that scientific funding was the foundation for national survival provided governments with a considerable and continuing need to fund scientific research. From this came the Seaborg Report in 1960 which argued strongly for the essential role of federally funded academic research and helped to maintain and enlarge what some call the military-university complex.
Why is this relationship called a complex? What are the major positives and negatives of this complex?
In 2003, all fifty states were ranked according to R&D spending. Here are the top ten:
What conclusions might you draw from this short list?
Universities fund a variety of activities related to STM research. They hire and pay the salaries of faculty who teach and conduct research. They provide space, equipment, and staff. Often, funding is predicated on the belief that startup funding will allow the researcher to successfully attract external funding. The university or college will take a slice of the research overhead to pay itself for the costs associated with a particular research project [or perhaps a bit more than those costs].
Intellectual property created using college or university resources belongs to the institution or the funding agency under work for hire so there is considerable potential for income creation if scientists are successful with a breakthrough discovery. Most research extensive universities have a technology transfer shop that provides the capital for commercialization of intellectual property, including making arrangements with venture capital firms. Note that the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 requires universities receiving Federal funding to collaborate with commercial firms to promote commercialization of innovative intellectual property. For the right innovation, the university may receive substantial licensing fees. The California Institute of Technology has launched eighty new companies in the last decade. Private universities have more freedom here than public universities. Faculty researchers and the university may partner to create a new firm specifically designed to continue and commercialize successful research. Royalties or licensing fees received may be used to fund new research.
After several years of decline, corporate [sometimes called industrial] funding of academic research and development has increased. This funding source accounts for about five percent of total academic R & D funding or about $2.3 billion dollars. Overall, U.S. colleges and universities reported R&D expenditures of nearly 46 billion in 2005.
Corporate funding emphasizes applied rather than pure research. Commercialization is much more likely to occur and research initiatives may be more efficient, focused, and successful. Priorities and value are likely to be well-established and are driven by market rather than by political or ideological considerations. At the same time, the corporate research agenda may not benefit society, and research results may be biased to protect existing products and ways of doing business while promoting new products. When the diary industry funds research on the benefits of drinking milk, the results are favorable to milk drinking. Ideally, funding sources would be visible whenever the research results are being discussed.
Research results may be proprietary and kept secret [patents result in some sharing of information].
Corporate resources may also be used to attack science that threatens existing products. For example, paint manufacturers spent large sums to discredit research that found lead in paint to be dangerous, especially to small children. Recently, some firms have attacked global warming research as not being "sound science."
Historically, education has attracted the most grant funding and human services received the largest number of grants. In a typical recent year, science and technology would receive about two percent of all foundation grant dollars, with the environment and animals at about six percent, and health at about twenty percent.
There are a variety of alerting and aggregating services for government funding. The AAAS has one, GrantsNet, that is quite good.
While federal funding for science research has increased during the last few years, most of the gains have gone to defense, security, and medicine rather than to all of the natural sciences. Of the DOD 2005 R&D Request for $70 billion, slightly more than one billion dollars would support basic research. Federal and state governments fund different types of research including frontier or basic research, applied research, development research [may include testing and evaluation as well as design], and project management. The norm for frontier or applied research is for a peer-review filtering and selection process. These may be called variously such as review panels, external reviewers, or selection teams. Members of these teams as well as the project managers are detail oriented so proposals must include all required elements and match well the announced goals, objectives, and requirements. Competition for most grants is substantial and it is difficult to receive funding. The major exception to this is the "earmark" inserted into bills by a House or Senate member who specifies funding for a local institution.
Enthusiasm for funding particular research projects has starts, stops, ups, and downs. For example the Superconducting Supercollider project was stopped by Congress when the cost reached $11 billion. U.S. physicists now use a particle reactor in Switzerland. Pure science has fewer advocates than applied science. Long term decision-making is difficult, especially with federal income experiencing ups and downs and fierce competition for scarce resources. Some argue that science funding only benefits a few special interests, including large research extensive universities and the scientists. Basic research is less compelling because there is no commercial product at the end of the pipe line and no clear time line for results.
Congress eliminated its Office of Technology Assessment in 1995 so it no longer has objective, evaluative advice on science issues, including science funding. Does this make a difference?
A current, helpful list of Federal Science and Technology Agencies may be found on USA.gov. The Federal government also has a website dedicate to grants [grants.gov]. This website provides access to grants available from twenty six agencies and there is a science and technology category
The Federal government's share of U.S. R&D funding has "plateaued" in recent years [depending on how you measure inflation] while the corporate share has increased. Most corporate research is applied. It's estimated [in 2003] that Federal funding accounted for about 62 percent of frontier or basic research. Slightly more than 50 percent of this funding goes to colleges and universities while the corporate share is about 16 percent. In 2005, Federal obligations for research by major discipline in billions:
There are problems or concerns associated with the growing academic dependence on government funding. Here are a few:
Is national competitiveness a reasonable rationale for increased STM funding?
While the Democratic majorities in Congress have placed a moratorium on future earmarks, agencies are likely to continue to support projects popular with key legislators.
Surveys report that a majority of voters favor a substantial increase in Federal funding for science and engineering. In particular, voters are concerned with U.S. innovation and economic competitiveness in the future. Media focus on Indian and Chinese engineering and science achievement has had some impact.
Many consider the National Science Foundation [NSF] to be the premier government funding agency for science. However, NSF receives about four percent of the federal R&D budget. Access to recently announced funding initiatives is easy and straight-forward. The National Institutes of Health performs a similar role for the medical/health community.
Department of Defense [DOD] funding is of particular concern since it plays a key role in physical science and engineering basic research. This research has been underfunded in recent years and creates concern in the scientific community.
The Bureau of Economic Analysis has found that the impact of R&D on the economy is increasing over time and that may encourage continuing or even increased funding. Here, spending on R&D is seen as a capital investment.
Although discussed in another class session, science and politics obviously has an impact on funding. "Sound science" should be funded, but that is science that someone believes in but others may reject.
If services and collections are intended to support research projects, the sudden stops and starts in funding make planning for proper support challenging. For example, collections and services may be needed to support proposals that are not funded.
If you were a librarian in such a situation, what would you do to "normalize" this situation?
