Dataset Information

How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?

ABSTRACT: Scientists are increasingly dissatisfied with funding systems that rely on peer assessment and, accordingly, have suggested several proposals for reform. One of these proposals is to distribute available funds equally among all qualified researchers, with no interference from peer review. Despite its numerous benefits, such egalitarian sharing faces the objection, among others, that it would lead to an unacceptable dilution of resources. The aim of the present paper is to assess this particular objection. We estimate (for the Netherlands, the U.S. and the U.K.) how much researchers would receive were they to get an equal share of the government budgets that are currently allocated through competitive peer assessment. For the Netherlands, we furthermore estimate what researchers would receive were we to differentiate between researchers working in low-cost, intermediate-cost and high-cost disciplines. Given these estimates, we then determine what researchers could afford in terms of PhD students, Postdocs, travel and equipment. According to our results, researchers could, on average, maintain current PhD student and Postdoc employment levels, and still have at their disposal a moderate (the U.K.) to considerable (the Netherlands, U.S.) budget for travel and equipment. This suggests that the worry that egalitarian sharing leads to unacceptable dilution of resources is unjustified. Indeed, our results strongly suggest that there is room for far more egalitarian distribution of funds than happens in the highly competitive funding schemes so prevalent today.

SUBMITTER: Vaesen K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5590858 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?

Vaesen Krist K Katzav Joel J

PloS one 20170908 9

Scientists are increasingly dissatisfied with funding systems that rely on peer assessment and, accordingly, have suggested several proposals for reform. One of these proposals is to distribute available funds equally among all qualified researchers, with no interference from peer review. Despite its numerous benefits, such egalitarian sharing faces the objection, among others, that it would lead to an unacceptable dilution of resources. The aim of the present paper is to assess this particular ...[more]

PMID: 28886054

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBoth citation and funding metrics converge in shaping current perceptions of academic success.ObjectiveTo evaluate what proportion of the most-cited US-based scientists are funded by biomedical federal agencies and whether funded scientists are more cited than nonfunded ones.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used linkage of a Scopus-based database on top-cited US researchers (according to a composite citation metric) and the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database of federal funding (33 biomedical federal agencies). Matching was based on name and institution. US-based top-cited scientists who were allocated to any of 69 scientific subfields highly related to biomedicine were considered in the main analysis. Data were downloaded on June 11, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists who had any (1996-2022), recent (2015-2022), and current (2021-2022) funding. Comparisons of funded and nonfunded scientists assessed total citations and a composite citation index.ResultsThere were 204 603 records in RePORTER (1996-2022) and 75 316 US-based top-cited scientists in the career-long citation database; 40 887 scientists were included in the main analysis. The proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists (according to career-long citation impact) who had received any federal funding from biomedical research agencies was 62.7% (25 650 of 40 887) for any funding (1996-2022), 23.1% (9427 of 40 887) for recent funding (2015-2022), and 14.1% (5778 of 40 887) for current funding (2021-2022). Respective proportions were 64.8%, 31.4%, and 20.9%, for top-cited scientists according to recent single-year citation impact. There was large variability across scientific subfields (eg, current funding: 31% of career-long impact top-cited scientists in geriatrics, 30% in bioinformatics and 29% in developmental biology, but 0% in legal and forensic medicine, general psychology and cognitive sciences, and gender studies). Funded top-cited researchers were overall more cited than nonfunded top-cited scientists (median [IQR], 9594 [5650-1703] vs 5352 [3057-9890] citations; P < .001) and substantial difference remained after adjusting for subfield and years since first publication. Differences were more prominent in some specific biomedical subfields.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, biomedical federal funding had offered support to approximately two-thirds of the top-cited biomedical scientists at some point during the last quarter century, but only a small minority of top-cited scientists had current federal biomedical funding. The large unevenness across subfields needs to be addressed with ways that improve equity, efficiency, excellence, and translational potential.

Project description:BackgroundSince 2010, large reductions in funding for local government services have been introduced in England. These reductions in funding have potentially led to reduced provision of health-promoting public services. We aimed to investigate whether areas that showed a greater decline in funding also had more adverse trends in life expectancy and premature mortality.MethodsIn this longitudinal ecological study, we linked annual data from the Ministry of Housing, Communities, and Local Government on local government revenue expenditure and financing to 147 upper-tier local authorities in England between 2013 and 2017 with data from Public Health England, on male and female life expectancy at birth, male and female life expectancy at age 65 years, and premature (younger than 75 years) all-cause mortality rate for male and female individuals. Local authorities were excluded if their populations were too small or if changes in boundaries meant consistent data were not available. Using multivariable fixed-effects panel regression models, and controlling for local socioeconomic conditions, we estimated whether changes in local funding from 2013 were associated with changes in life expectancy and premature mortality. We included a set of alternative model specifications to test the robustness of our findings.FindingsBetween 2013 and 2017, mean per-capita central funding to local governments decreased by 33% or £168 per person (range -£385 to £1). Each £100 reduction in annual per person funding was associated over the study period 2013-17 with an average decrease in life expectancy at birth of 1·3 months (95% CI 0·7-1·9) for male individuals and 1·2 months (0·7-1·7) for female individuals; for life expectancy at age 65 years, the results show a decrease of 0·8 months (0·3-1·3) for male individuals and 1·1 months (0·7-1·5) for female individuals. Funding reductions were greater in more deprived areas and these areas had the worst changes in life expectancy. We estimated that cuts in funding were associated with an increase in the gap in life expectancy between the most and least deprived quintiles by 3% for men and 4% for women. Overall reductions in funding during this period were associated with an additional 9600 deaths in people younger than 75 years in England (3800-15 400), an increase of 1·25%.InterpretationOur findings indicate that cuts in funding for local government might in part explain adverse trends in life expectancy. Given that more deprived areas showed greater reductions in funding, our analysis suggests that inequalities have widened. Since the pandemic, strategies to address these adverse trends in life expectancy and reduce health inequalities could prioritise reinvestment in funding for local government services, particularly within the most deprived areas of England.FundingNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) School for Public Health Research, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North East and North Cumbria, NIHR Applied Research Collaboration North West Coast and Medical Research Council.

Dataset Information

How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?

Publications

How much would each researcher receive if competitive government research funding were distributed equally among researchers?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets