I would be gratefull for every kind of support received
from you.
Sincerely yours,
Zbigniew Koziol
The Editor of Virtual Physics
RESEARCH FUNDING MYTHS
Alexander A. Berezin (1) and Geoffrey Hunter (2)
(1) Department of Engineering Physics,
McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario,
Canada, L8S 4L7
(2) Chemistry Department, York University,
Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M3J 1P3
Published in Physics in Canada, March/April 1995, pp. 72-73.
World-wide network of univeristy research is one of
the major pillars of the modern civilization. Despite
that research and intellectual potential is, of course,
not entirely confined to university campuses, the
economical, social and cultural progress of today is
unthinkable without an open forum for new ideas
facilitated and validated by the international community
of university scholars. Therefore, the problem of balanced
support for university research within the realm of available
means, despite its appearence as a "local" problem, gains
the level of international significance.
Numerous critics, speaking primarily of recent
evolution of the North American model of university
research funding, have indicated damaging consequences
of ferocious competition for funds which are externally
"justified" by the presumption that such strategy fosters
"excellence" in research. At first glance the idea of
"excellence through competition" seems reasonable. It is
easy to sell to politicians and general public. After all,
if it works for business deals or Olympic games why it
should not work for science ? However, as it often happens,
the argument fails by extension. The problem is that the
currently practiced regulating mechanisms of the externally
monitored competition in science ("grant selection") are
based on several underlying fallacies (myths) briefly
discussed below.
MYTH OF "EXCELLENCE". Despite a nice sound, a careful
scrutiny of this term turns it to an empty clause. The true
measure of the long range impact of research is its
originality, NOT its apparent "soundness" and conformity to
currently dominant paradigms. A truly innovative research
proposal is unlikely to attract a smooth approval by grant
awarding committee or get high peer review marks. By the
very way these judges are presently selected they tend to
be "paradigm keepers" rather than genuine innovation
searchers. Of course, no defence system is perfect and some
truly innovative reasearch "slips through" and gets funded,
especially if the applicants use proper decoys in their
grant applications. Nevertheless, many academic critics,
e.g., Nobel Prize laureate Albert Szent-Gyorgyi [1], have
pointed out that such fortunate occurences happen AGAINST
the dominant gradient of general suspicion (and often open
intolerance) to new ideas which is typical for almost any
committee of pre-appointed "experts". The viable alternative
to it is to fund RESEARCHERS (not proposals !) on the basis
of their overall record. Such a reform, however, will be
at odds with the present American project-oriented funding
model and also it will diminish the power of the
paper-shuffling bureaucracy and grantsmanship elite.
Therefore the idea "fund researchers, not proposals" [2] is
fiercely resisted by the research bureaucracy.
MYTH OF IMPARTIAL PEER REVIEW. "Impartial peer review"
was, for example, recently stressed in the policy document
"Partnership in Knowledge" issued by the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC). By
definition, peers are those who are themselves activly
involved in the area. Consequently, they are never free
from vested interests in it. While it is, of course, true
that not all of them are evil or dishonest, with all good
will in the world they can't be "impartial". The benefit of
the doubt, therefore, should be with an applicant and a
reasonable implementation of it is a sliding funding scale
[3], not a policy of sharp cut-offs (pop-philosophy of
"winners and loosers") which is presently the basis of
funding ideology of NSERC and other federal funding agencies
in Canada and USA. The social purpose of funding agencies
is to ASSIST the university research, they SHOULD NOT have
de facto mandates of directing or controlling the paths of
free inquiry. Their present trend, however, is towards
precisely the latter - a direct result of the bureaucratic
takeover in any unjustifably blown-up agency.
MYTH OF "SUPERFUNDING FOR SUPER-RESEARCH". This is
another, seemingly sensible, but in essence perverted,
extrapolation of a business model to science. This myth has
two components:
- 1) the "most promising" research with the best future
"impact factor" CAN be correctly identified (by peer
reviewers, expert panels, boards of directors, or whatever),
and
- 2) putting "more money" into the so identified "excellent"
research is bound to make it even "more excellent".
The first item is wishful thinking based on a presumption
of a "collective wisdom" of expert committees, the second is
based on traditional american aberration that "money can buy
everything". This is not just plainly naive, but also very
costly socially as it leads to an unwarranted overfunding of
many "polically correct" research activities like targetted
mega-projects, "centers of excellence", etc. This myth
bluntly ignores all crucial non-monetary constraints of any
genuine research. In reality, even Albert Einstein, whose
grant is suddenly increased from, say, $ 50,000 per year
to $ 200,000 per year WILL NOT produce "four times as many
discoveries". On the contrary, his real productivity will
likely drop due to additional paperwork, new commitments,
etc. Yes, some modest bonus of, say, 30-50 % above average
for a "really good" (by whichever criteria) research may be
quite appropriate. However, the systematic policy of
preferential (over)funding of some "selected" groups at the
expense of zero "awards" to scores of other equally decent
researchers is nothing short of an arbitrary ideological
apartheid. Its consequences are especially damaging for
the moral of the younger generation of university
researchers.
The typical university research program normally evolves
as a result of complicated ("nonlinear") interaction of
personal motivations of researchers and a web of social,
micro-political and financial aspects of a specific research
case. Rich spectrum of personal motivations can range from
the pure humility of research curiosity and selfless quest
for truth to a pragmatic (but socially still quite
acceptable) aim of personal career gains and attaining the
sizable level of authority, influence and institutional
weight. In the present university reward system it is not
that rare that the latter traits detrimentally degenerate
to the obsession with power control or personal enrichment
schemes.
It was mentioned earlier by E.Chargaff [4], the present
university system is based, to a large extent, on the
exploitation of the young: graduate students, postdocs,
assistant professors. So far, the major currency unit in
science is a "solid" peer-reviewed paper in a well acclaimed
mainstream journal. The more such units are accumulated, the
better is the bargining position in obtaining new funding,
hiring new postdocs, attracting even more new Ph.D. students,
etc. This vicious circle is self-serving and self-propelling.
The role model in today's academic science is "the boss" -
the head of a departmental mini-empire with 10 to 15 (above
listed) members of cheap research labour force with a net
output of some 20 to 40 papers per year. Though they are not
always entirely useless, the per-capita, per-paper
(and per-dollar) innovation effect of such super-groups is,
as a rule, much lower than of small groups, or even of many
sole researchers.
In reality, the philosophy of "winners and loosers" has an
overall effect of a coercion of research into the avenue of
established paradigmas ("safe science") to satisfy the peer
reviewers and hence to assure the "fundability" of research
proposals [2]. At the end of the day, it is the very idea
of the peer review-enforced "excellence" through a brutal
"selectivity" which is a sure route to a mediocrity, NOT THE
OTHER WAY AROUND. The bulk of historic data suggests that it
makes more sense to fund MORE researchers at LOWER level to
maintain their research base - many important discoveries were
made with quite modest funding. What history of science
clearly DOES NOT show it that the overfunding of
super-research is a guaranteed roller coster to
super-excellence [5]. On the contary, numerous case studies
show that in accord with the universal Peter principle [6],
super-funded research usually quickly gears to its level of
incompetence.
To make the whole process less hostile and more time- and
resource-efficient, the awards of research grants should
be based exclusively on the long-term track record of the
applicant. Special provisions of a small bona fide grants
can be left for the junior applicants. Under the present
rat-race "competition for excellence" a university professor
with, say, one or two well thought-through papers per year has
virtually no chance to obtain funding at ANY level.
Implementation of the scheme "fund researchers, not proposals"
not only will make the process of funding more democratic and
socially responsible. It will also greatly reduce the paperwork
and raise the overall efficiency of university research.
However, such reform will ALSO reduce the power base of the
grantsmanship elite. This is the prime reason why several
constructive proposals of this kind (e.g., [2,3] were bluntly
ignored by research funding bureaucracy.
While some ranking of applicants and grant amounts is, of
course, appropriate, the policy of mass "zeroing" of active
university scientists is not only anti-intellectual in its
essence, but also is clearly contrproductive socially and
economically. It is time to re-orient the university system from
the obsolete idea of "competition" (it fails to deliver anyway)
to the cooperation and "win-win" science game. But so far, in a
search for winners the system still follows an old prescription:
"The mass trials have been a great success, comrades. In the
future there will be fewer but better Russians." (Greta Garbo
in "Ninotchka", 1939).
References
- [1] A. Szent-Gyorgyi, Science, 176, 966 (1972).
- [2] A.A. Berezin and G. Hunter, Canadian Chemical News,
46 (#3), 4-5 (March 1994).
- [3] D.R. Forsdyke, Nature, 312, 587 (1984).
- [4] E. Chargaff, Persp.in Biol.& Medicine, 23, 370 (1980).
- [5] B. Savan, Science Under Siege, CBC Enterprises,
Toronto, (1988).
- [6] L.J.Peter and R.Hull, The Peter Principle, Bantam Books,
1969 (many other editions).
ELECTRONIC PUBLISHING at XXX.LANL.GOV E-Print ARCHIVE: a success story
Paul Ginsparg, in an invited contribution for Conference held at UNESCO HQ,
Paris, 19-23 Feb 1996,
Winners and Losers in the Global Research Village
wrote:
Electronic publishing in science has recently become the focus
of an increasing number of workshops and conferences,
typically including representatives from professional societies and
other scholarly publishing concerns, and members of the library community;
but only a small or vanishing participation from actual researchers.
This is ironic since the average scientist provides the lifeblood of
scientific publication on a daily basis as reader, author, and referee,
frequently as editor, and also as organizer of conferences, schools, and
workshops. Scientists consequently understand research publication from the
inside-out as few non-researchers ever could, and many have grown frustrated
at patronizing attempts to assure them that unthinking preservation of the
status quo is in their best interest.
It is clear that many traditional roles will be shifted by the electronic
medium, and new roles will emerge, though precisely which players will acquire
the competence to fill which roles, and when, remains to be determined.
In principle, the new electronic medium gives us the opportunity
to reconsider many aspects of our current research communication,
and researchers should take advantage of this opportunity to
map out the ideal research communication medium of the future.
It is crucial that the researchers, who play a privileged role in this as both
providers and consumers of the information, not only be heard but be
given the strongest voice.
In particular, we need to dislodge definitively the curiously prevalent notion
that the future electronic medium will strictly duplicate,
inadequacy for inadequacy, the current print medium.
The xxx.lanl.gov e-Print archive has been organized in 1991.
Today, the following subjects of physics are covered there:
- High Energy Physics, Condensed Matter, Astrophysics, General Relativity & Quantum Cosmology
Nuclear Theory, Chemical Physics, High Energy Physics - Experiment,
Superconductivity, Accelerator Physics, Materials Theory,
Quantum Physics, Nuclear Experiment, Plasma Physics,
Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics.
Superconductivity,
as other LANL archives,
is a fully automated e-print archive for papers on
superconductivity and closely related subjects.
Most papers submitted to the archive report theoretical results. However,
a growing amount of experimental reports is submitted, concerning both
studies of fundamental microscopic mechanisms of superconductivity and
its applications.
The LANL site contains detailed information about the submission methods
by e-mail or by ftp, about the required format of submitted materials
and a lot of valuable information and links to such information
for everyone interested in publishing on the internet.
To communicate with the archive via e-mail, one should send a messages to
supr-con@xxx.lanl.gov.
A WorldWideWeb access is available via "http://xxx.lanl.gov/"
and an anonymous ftp access via ftp to "ftp://xxx.lanl.gov/".
One is likely to find easily an access to software for creation of
TeX/LaTeX documents, to Adobe Acrobat reader for users of pdf file format,
information about PostScript, HyperTeX and HyperPostScript, dvi previewers,
and detailed instructions about preparing the documents for submission.
as well information about possible methods of retrieving documents and viewing them on-line.
It is worth to mention that all or nearly all information (including the
articles published) can be obtained not only by using www but by e-mail, too.
A lot of work is going on around there (from the LANL www pages):
Starting January 1, 1996, submitted papers will be required to be processable
by our automatic TeX'ing script before being accepted onto the archives.
This includes everything sent by the `(f)put' and `(f)replace' commands.
(Please note `TeX' is a general term that includes all the various flavors,
including, but not limited to, LaTeX, AMSTeX, and AMSLaTeX).
The change in policy is designed to make the archives as functional and
useful as possible. Auto-TeX'ing has been on-line at the archives since June,
1995. Our script can process about 92% of older TeX submissions and over 95%
of new submissions. The script most often fails because of trivial errors by
the submitter. Yet many authors do not seem to care enough to fix errors in
their papers, leaving readers and the archive administrators the burden
to fix them. The goal is to shift the burden on the author where it belongs,
and thereby ensure that all papers are processable. [ ... ]
All TeX is processed using HyperTeX so that the formats
listed above are optimized for on-screen reading (with the proper viewers).
Furthermore, TeX source is easily parsed for references to other papers
on the archives (e.g. hep-th/9511053). We translate these
to the appropriate URL's so that the various hyper viewers can bring up the
abstract of the reference in a World Wide Web browser. (All authors should be
supplying archive references in their references list since this is most
useful to readers.) Our auto-TeX'ing script is quite sophisticated and can
handle all flavors of TeX (e.g. LaTeX, AMSTeX, AMSLaTeX) as well as figure
insertions using macros like \psfig and \epsfbox.
Let us give some space again to Paul Ginsparg (from
Winners and Losers in the Global Research Village):
Rather than relate here the full history of the "e-print archives"
and whatever has occurred since mid 1991, instead I will
concentrate only on some highlights that serve to illustrate the major lessons
learned to date, and suggest their implications for the future.
[...]
The first database, hep-th (for High Energy Physics -- Theory),
was started in August of '91 and was intended for usage by
a small subcommunity of less than 200 physicists, then working on
a so-called "matrix model" approach to studying string theory and two
dimensional gravity. (Mermin [Reference Frame, Physics Today, Apr 1992, p.9]
later described the establishment of these electronic research archives
for string theorists as potentially "their greatest contribution to science.")
Within a few months, the original hep-th had quickly expanded in its scope
to over 1000 users, and after a few years had over 3800 users. More
significantly, there are numerous other physics databases now in operation
(see xxx physics e-print archives)
that currently serve over 35,000 researchers and typically process
more than 70,000 electronic transactions per day (i.e. as of 2/96; see the
weekly stats
for an overview of growth in WorldWideWeb usage alone at xxx.lanl.gov). [ ... ]
It is important to distinguish the form of communication facilitated by
these systems from that of usenet newsgroups or garden variety "bulletin board"
systems. In "e-print archives," researchers communicate exclusively
via research abstracts that describe material otherwise suitable for
conventional publication. This is a very formal mode of communication in which
each entry is archived and indexed for retrieval at arbitrarily later times;
Usenet newsgroups and bulletin boards, on the other hand, represent
an informal mode of communication, more akin to ordinary conversation, with
unindexed entries that typically disappear after a short time.
While the high energy physics community did have
a pre-existing hardcopy preprint habit that had already largely supplanted
journals as our primary communication medium, this is not a necessary initial
condition for acceptance of an electronic preprint archive,
as evidenced by recent growth into other areas of physics and mathematics, and
even to computation and linguistics.
The economics for all this remains favorable, with a gigabyte of hard disk
storage currently averaging under $500 (i.e. roughly 25,000 papers
including figures can be stored for an average of less than 2 cents apiece).
Finally, politically correct elements typically fret over leaving the third
world in the dust -- but the reality is that less developed countries are
already better off than they were before: researchers in eastern
Europe, South America, and the far East frequently report how lost they
would be without these electronic communication systems, and how they
can finally participate in the ongoing research loop.
It will always remain easier and less expensive to get a computer connected to
the internet than to build, stock, and maintain conventional libraries
-- the conventional journal system had always been much less fair to the
underprivileged.
Hence, is it not a successful implementation of a brilliant idea?
The only problem which remains unresolved is the Pizza problem.
Compiled by Zbigniew Koziol
A POSITION OPENING IN OTTAWA
Experimental studies of new alloys
Dr. Zbigniew M. Stadnik, University of Ottawa, Canada
Received: May 1, 1996
There is an opening for a M.Sc. or a Ph.D. graduate student
position in my group which is involved
in experimental studies of the physical properties of new
alloys (mainly quasicrystals). The experimental techniques
involve synchrotron radiation-based photoemission spectroscopy,
X-ray diffraction spectroscopy, electrical resistivity,
magnetoresistance, and Moessbauer spectroscopy. Interested
candidates, with enthusiasm and good background in experimental
physics, should contact (before Aug. 1, 1996):
Zbigniew M. Stadnik
Department of Physics, University of Ottawa
150 Louis Pasteur, Ottawa, Ontario K1N 6N5, Canada
stadnik@joule.physics.uottawa.ca
Tel: (613) 562-5800 (6761)
Fax: (613) 562-5190
Virtual Physics:
a forum for virtual meetings of scientists and students involved in a research activity on
THE SOLID STATE PHYSICS AND SUPERCONDUCTIVITY
is available for a free subscription
in an e-mail version. To subscribe: send a request to the Editor.
Editor: Dr Zbigniew J.Koziol, webex@ra.isisnet.com, WebExperts Inc.,
2-6032 Compton Ave., Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 1E7 Canada, tel. (902) 423 2149
Virtual Physics URL address: http://www.isisnet.com/MAX/vp.html
To subscribe a F R E E e-mail
version or submit materials for publication, write to the Editor.
Copyright(C) 1996 by Zbigniew Koziol.
this copyright notice concerns the whole of the Virtual Physics
edition but not specific articles published there which are
property of their respective copyrightholders
No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any damage to
persons or property as a matter of the product liability, negligence
or otherwise, or from any use of methods, instructions or ideas
contained in the material herein. The opinions expressed in this
publication do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Editor
and certainly they have nothing to do with WebEperts Inc.
![Back to the main page of Virtual Physics ]](../images/vphome.gif)
![[ PhysicsPage ]](../images/v5.gif)
![[ SuperPage ]](../images/v1.gif)
![[ WebExperts ]](../images/we5.gif)
![[Virtual Physics]](../images/vp.gif)
LETTER FROM THE EDITOR