5.7 KiB
| title | chunk | source | category | tags | date_saved | instance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Funding of science | 3/5 | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_of_science | reference | science, encyclopedia | 2026-05-05T03:24:31.702550+00:00 | kb-cron |
==== Conditionality ==== In addition to project deliverables, funders also increasingly introduce new eligibility requirements alongside traditional ones such as research integrity/ethics. The 2016 Open Science movement, tied funding increasingly tied to data management plans and making data FAIR. The Open Science requirement complements Open Access mandates which in 2025 are widespread. The gender dimension also gained ground in recent years. The European Commission mandates research applicants to adopt gender equality plans across their organization. The UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund mandates a gender equality statement. As of 2022, the European Commission also introduced a "Do No Significant Harm" principle to the Framework Program which aims to curb the environmental footprint of scientific projects. "Do No Significant Harm" has been criticized as coupled with other eligibility requirements it is often characterized as red-tape. Since 2020, European Commission has been trying to simplify the Framework Program with limited success. Simplification attempts were also taken by the UK Research and Innovation.
==== Process ==== Often scientists apply for research funding which a granting agency may (or may not) approve to financially support. These grants require a lengthy process as the granting agency can inquire about the researcher(s)'s background, the facilities used, the equipment needed, the time involved, and the overall potential of the scientific outcome. The process of grant writing and grant proposing is a somewhat delicate process for both the grantor and the grantee: the grantors want to choose the research that best fits their scientific principles, and the individual grantees want to apply for research in which they have the best chances but also in which they can build a body of work towards future scientific endeavors. As of 2009, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council in the United Kingdom devised an alternative method of fund-distribution: the sandpit. Most universities have research administration offices to facilitate the interaction between the researcher and the granting agency. "Research administration is all about service—service to our faculty, to our academic units, to the institution, and to our sponsors. To be of service, we first have to know what our customers want and then determine whether or not we are meeting those needs and expectations." In the United States of America, the National Council of University Research Administrators serves its members and advances the field of research administration through education and professional development programs, the sharing of knowledge and experience, and by fostering a professional, collegial, and respected community.
==== Hard money versus soft money ==== In academic contexts, hard money may refer to funding received from a government or other entity at regular intervals, thus providing a steady inflow of financial resources to the beneficiary. The antonym, soft money, refers to funding provided only through competitive research grants and the writing of grant proposals. Hard money is usually issued by the government for the advancement of certain projects or for the benefit of specific agencies. Community healthcare, for instance, may be supported by the government by providing hard money. Since funds are disbursed regularly and continuously, the offices in charge of such projects are able to achieve their objectives more effectively than if they had been issued one-time grants. Individual jobs at a research institute may be classified as "hard-money positions" or "soft-money positions"; the former are expected to provide job security because their funding is secure in the long term, whereas individual "soft-money" positions may come and go with fluctuations in the number of grants awarded to an institution.
=== Private funding: industrial/philanthropy/crowdfunding ===
Private funding for research comes from philanthropists, crowd-funding, private companies, non-profit foundations, and professional organizations. Philanthropists and foundations have been pouring millions of dollars into a wide variety of scientific investigations, including basic research discovery, disease cures, particle physics, astronomy, marine science, and the environment. Privately funded research has been adept at identifying important and transformative areas of scientific research. Many large technology companies spend billions of dollars on research and development each year to gain an innovative advantage over their competitors, though only about 42% of this funding goes towards projects that are considered substantially new, or capable of yielding radical breakthroughs. New scientific start-up companies initially seek funding from crowd-funding organizations, venture capitalists, and angel investors, gathering preliminary results using rented facilities, but aim to eventually become self-sufficient. Europe and the United States have both reiterated the need for further private funding within universities. The European Commission highlights the need for private funding via research in policy areas such the European Green Deal and Europe's role in the digital age.
== Criticism of science funding ==
The source of funding may introduce conscious or unconscious biases into a researcher's work. This is highly problematic due to academic freedom in case of universities and regulatory capture in case of government-funded R&D.
=== Conflict of Interest ===