Talk:Research funding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Social Science

Should this say something about social science research? To what extent would that include thinktanks and foundations (especially where not producing peer-reviewed work)? Rd232 08:48, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Source please

"Some HGP researchers claimed Celera's method of genome sequencing "would not work," however that project eventually adopted Celera's method." - Source please. Rd232 19:39, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] RJII 22:46, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Free market and libertarian position

Could you improve the section on merits of free market versus government funding? Could we have a list of significant inventions by public funding and others by private funding please? My suspicion is that most significant advances have arisen or originated from government funded projects and research grants. For example, today's big thing, the Internet, arose as a result of DARPA funding and other public expenditure in places such as Switzerland. Although the media and private enterprise criticizes Chirac for his recent public funding announcement, one must not forget that mini-tel the early French internet was very successful in France, people were dating each other on Minitel some 20 years ago. Amongst the most significant inventions that affect our lives are liquid crystal displays that were invented as a result of significant UK defence government funding. Those who commercialize technology innovate but my sense is that even those in technology such as Microsoft and Apple commercialized an existing invention (windows and the mouse, etc.) that was bigger than any inventions they have come up with subsequently? The most successful commercializations and the richest corporations are not necessarily significant innovators. War was a very significant source of innovations but in peace time I wonder whether the innovations are not mostly generated by government funding? It is also in my view untrue to state that government funding is usually inefficient but my sense is that this perception is created because nobody is motivated to carry out the calculation. Take for example something that was calculated, the commercial spin offs of the heat dissipating tiles of the space shuttle. These were shown to pay off several times the investment and coined the saying that "only scientists can determine investment in science". The idea that the free market will leap us forward with remarkable inventions is suspect really because those who lead large corporations do not take risks with the current source or line of profit, and the system of patent protection is abused by large corporations. I think that the general public cannot appreciate the deep thinking and hard work that takes place to initiate and to prove an idea. Ideas get commercialized once they are proved and therefore the generation of ideas has to originate in public projects. It is very hard to expect that private funding will speculate large amounts of funding on risky projects. The problem resides in that the value of whatever is generated cannot be estimated. The new idea may seem worthless until a different application is found. A classic illustration happened a few years back with deCODE. Some US pharmaceutical firm had taken a drug all the way down the FDA tests but the drug was ineffective and deCODE bought it cheaply because they figured out that the drug was more effective for another common complex disorder (mycrocardial infarction). So taking risks on an idea with private funding is very risky and someone completely different may profit with impunity (it goes beyond patent laws). It would be interesting to see some numbers as to the major inventions and whether government funding is as ineffective as the libertarians claim. We have a mixed system that we should cherish.

It's easy to point to valuable things that were created that were financed by taxation, but you can't see the things that would have been created if that wealth was left in private economy and invested in projects that were driven by the profit-motive and satisfying consumer wants. It's quite possible that things of more value to society would have been created with that wealth. That's a fundamental problem with such a comparison. You can't see the things whose creation was prevented. Central authority determined for society how society must use its wealth, rather than allowing society to decide for itself through voluntary investment seeking to satisfy consumer wants and needs. RJII 01:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it is not wise to classify government-funded research as non-profit and private-funded research as for profit. This is typically, but not always so. The argument of private-funded research being more efficient than government-funded research in the current form can not be justified.

If there is no obvious market and no clear business model or making a profit the for-profit approach is counterproductive, since the inherent risk of making money from the results of the research is extremely high and is best shared among the whole society. This roughly means that research is best conducted in a non-profit mode, whether governmental or private. If there is a clear market and a profit to be made on the market a for-profit approach is usually more efficient. Such is the case with development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.6.169.176 (talk) 14:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] recent edits on government & private funding

The arguments need sources DGG 19:19, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge in "funding body"

I am very much against merging in Funding body, as there are many types of funding bodies that are not about research. Two examples are scholarships (non research related) and art grants. John Vandenberg 05:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I am also opposed to the merge. They are two very different sorts of articles, both important. How research is to be funded in general is one topic, and the organizations which fund it is another. (And for VV's reasons as well)DGG 06:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I, too, oppose, a merger. Evolauxia 20:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment Removing merge templates --Lox (t,c) 19:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More work on the research funding process

I'm going to start a section on the process involved with funding research with grants, i.e., grant proposals, grant writing, grant board reviews, etc. It is a often shadowy world that needs some good wikipedian description. Rhetth (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request for reconsideration on link deletion

Hello, everyone. I am new to Wikipedia and earlier today added a link to a free web listing of grant opportunities. The hope is alert scientists and those in public health to funding that will enable them to do their work in science and health promotion rather than have to spend hours looking for grants.

I carefully placed a link to the site on the Wikipedia entries for Public Health, Medicine, Philanthropy, Foundation, Research, Basic Research, Biomedical Research and Grant. In every case the same editor removed it. I have written to him or her to ask why. I have read the guidelines on linking and the key problem may be that am I affiliated with the site. But does that mean that it can’t be listed anywhere in Wikipedia for all time? That would be very unfortunate given that people in public heath and biomedical research could really benefit from free grant and scholarship listings, especially researchers who do not have access to expensive, proprietary, commercial databases. There is no advertising on the site and it is cited by such institutions as the University of Washington and the National Library of Medicine.

I would very much appreciate any guidance on this issue. I meant no harm and didn’t mean to intrude where not wanted. I just thought that adding a link to a free, not-for-profit, massive listing of funding opportunities in medicine, community health and the sciences would be in keeping with the purpose of Wikipedia, which I have always taken to be the widest possible dissemination of useful information. The Wikipedia page on Basic Science has hardly any information on it for instance, whereas the site I want to place a link to on that page has a huge number of grants in basic science that researchers might wish to know about.

Thank you all for your trouble and to the editor who took the trouble to request that I post my inquiry here.

Hjl7 (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)