Literature DB >> 25143309

A Discussion on Governmental Research Grants.

Hui Fang1.   

Abstract

Governmental research grants are financially supported by taxpayers to meet financial requirements of research, particularly research that is unlikely to be supported by private funds. Researchers reward donors by producing knowledge. Publishing research results in an academic journal reflects achievement by researchers; however, receiving a grant award does not. The latter only provides the researcher with the capacity to perform his/her research. Applicants may receive more financial support than they actually need because there is no strict audit on the amount of money requested by each research proposal. There are fewer opportunities to apply for a governmental grant than there are for publishing an academic article, and the application process for governmental grants is not flexible. Some potentially innovative research may be impeded by the intense competition among scientific researchers applying for financial support. Researchers face stiffer competition at this stage than at the stage of publishing results. This paper suggests that scientific foundations can improve their efficiency by giving funding preference to economic proposals. Methods for estimating the efficiency of grants are proposed. The practice followed by the Small Grants for Exploratory Research programme of the National Science Foundation validates my analysis and recommendations.

Keywords:  Funded projects; Innovation; National Science Foundation; Over competition in research; Research achievement

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25143309     DOI: 10.1007/s11948-014-9582-4

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics        ISSN: 1353-3452            Impact factor:   3.525


  10 in total

1.  Resistance by scientists to scientific discovery.

Authors:  B BARBER
Journal:  Science       Date:  1961-09-01       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  The perverse effects of competition on scientists' work and relationships.

Authors:  Melissa S Anderson; Emily A Ronning; Raymond De Vries; Brian C Martinson
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2007-11-21       Impact factor: 3.525

3.  Biomedical research funding: when the game gets tough, winners start to play.

Authors:  Giorgio A Ascoli
Journal:  Bioessays       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 4.345

4.  On the management of funding of research in science and engineering.

Authors:  Raymond E Spier; Stephanie J Bird
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 3.525

5.  Determining scientific impact using a collaboration index.

Authors:  Jonathan Stallings; Eric Vance; Jiansheng Yang; Michael W Vannier; Jimin Liang; Liaojun Pang; Liang Dai; Ivan Ye; Ge Wang
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2013-05-29       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  What is excellent science and how does it relate to what we publish in vaccine?

Authors:  Raymond E Spier; Gregory A Poland
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 3.641

7.  Reviewing peer review.

Authors:  Bruce Alberts; Brooks Hanson; Katrina L Kelner
Journal:  Science       Date:  2008-07-04       Impact factor: 47.728

8.  Peer review of grant applications: a harbinger for mediocrity in clinical research?

Authors:  D F Horrobin
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1996-11-09       Impact factor: 79.321

9.  Peer review and innovation.

Authors:  Raymond E Spier
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.777

10.  Does the committee peer review select the best applicants for funding? An investigation of the selection process for two European molecular biology organization programmes.

Authors:  Lutz Bornmann; Gerlind Wallon; Anna Ledin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2008-10-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.