Funding scientific research - survival of the fittest?

After reading several articles in the New Scientist (December 2007 & January 2008) on cuts in physics and astronomy funding in the UK and the US it made me ponder on some of the issues that arise in the debate over what should get researched and why. These are not piddling physics or astronomy projects they are multi-million pound/dollar international collaborations to build and use complex technologies to smash particles or gaze into the skies and gather vast amounts data to process and contemplate.

Aside the obvious issues that arise when plugs are pulled on ventures already committed to, the mass reorganisation and unemployment, etc, how on earth is it that this funding has been cut at this point in the proceedings? Did someone somewhere take a look at the funding to science per se in either country and finally look at what was sustainable or cost-effective or in the nation’s ‘interests’ and go ‘ah – no, we’re going to cut off the money to speculative ventures and focus on functional scientific research now - sorry guys, the funding ground has shifted’?

So, how AND why is research funded I guess are questions that came to mind. What science is being funded and why?

• Do policy makers take a functional approach? One of the arguments put forward for physics research is that particle smashing may help science figure out an alternative means of providing energy other than using fossil fuels or nuclear fission.
• Do policy makers take a speculative approach? If time is spent analysing the activity in the universe it may be possible to answer some of the questions about how the earth was formed and..?
• Do policy makers take a competitive approach? If time is spent looking at how space is formed it may prove an advantage in terms of new spaces or material resources to exploit?

If there is a return calculated into this, how is it measured? Does a tangible return need to be apparent within a certain timeframe, e.g. 5, 10, 20 or 50 years and some economic or social gain derived thereof or is it an intangible return, i.e. more scientific knowledge is of value per se? Who is balancing the ‘books’ and how?

Given there are issues with the privatisation of pharmaceutical, genetic or biotechnological research, i.e. the derivation of private and/or public good, how does the mishmash of private/public funding work to advance scientific knowledge overall?

No doubt there are economic models and theories that weigh the interests of private/public economic gain. When is it beneficial for an area of research and development to be publicly shared? Is it only when it is to solve a problem that once cracked everyone then gains (or scrabbles to market) when a solution is found? At the point it becomes beneficial for the intellectual property embedded in research and development to be locked down and thence exclusively privately funded and exploited. Not only does this strike as an economic debate it is conceivably a political and philosophical one. Sometimes benefits are not that easy to estimate let alone measure or value, i.e. only possible retrospectively so or in value laden statements, not numbers. It comes down to perceived risk and shared and competing interests potentially.

An example comes to mind with the cooperation between scientists in many countries to develop vaccines to immunise against virus epidemics (problem solved). These new vaccines are then packaged up (commoditised) and sold. The human genome project is another obvious recent example.

The human genome project underwent some wrestling of private and public interests, but ended up being a shared public venture. There are considerable spin offs commercially as a result of the public investment by public and private funded research institutes.

Every year researchers/experts/academics gnash their teeth over who has scored funding from the public purse. It is potentially a different experience to lose out to a competitor when pitching for private funds, the argument being very clearly and cleanly about return on investment in net profit terms. Whoever can demonstrate the better financial return is more likely to win the investment. It becomes more complex when the return on investment is less clearly defined and is a ‘public good’; unless of course, what follows on from that is further scientific development that might then provide economic return. When it comes to public funding though, there is ostensibly some balance of tangible and intangible returns to benefit the community.

So, back to physics: is this one of those areas of research that has just lost political favour; is it that the link between what is being researched and what benefits might come from it no longer hold their weight in comparison to other areas of science; or is it just that the return on investment hasn’t come quickly enough; is it that the funding is just too vast and seems frivolous when there is a rise in genetics or climate change research? Perhaps it is a combination of these factors and aspects of competition just as much as collaboration.

Does make one wonder though, that if there has been such strong international buy-in by the physics and astronomical research communities (and its funding bodies) why are two of the larger developed economies are stepping back from it? Is it because the “new frontiers” of genetics and climate change offer more immediate return (market opportunities and political support) or is has the attitude to the intangible benefits of expanding scientific horizons shifted and are physicists and astronomers being called to account?