Mind the gap in science funding

In the first week of May, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen made a speech that probably belonged to a different era. She started by giving the example of Marie Curie, who had to study in underground schools, and said her story should inspire everyone to root for science and to invest in free enquiry. "The role of science in today's world is questioned," she said at the Choose Europe for Science conference at the Sorbonne. "The investment in fundamental, free and open research is questioned. What a gigantic miscalculation." At the end of the conference, the European Commission announced an investment of €500 million in super grants for outstanding scientists of any nationality to do their research in Europe. 

The scheme is clearly aimed at luring to Europe scientists in America working amidst fund cuts and an atmosphere hostile to scientific research. Because investments in science provide high returns, and because scientists of higher calibre provide higher returns, Europe is keen to attract outstanding scientists that it could not lure to the continent so far. On the other hand, the scheme is also an affirmation of the faith in science, and probably a small attempt to reduce the gap in global funding if U.S. President Donald Trump's threatened fund cuts are sustained over long periods.

As our Cover Essay explains, the U.S. has been the main driver of research and innovation in the world since the Second World War. Countries all over the world have benefited from the U.S. investments, as the resulting knowledge was made openly available for countries to use and build on. A reduction in this funding will affect everybody. Fewer breakthroughs will be made, solutions to long-standing problems will be slower to come, and economic growth will slow down over a period. It is now clear that, although there is a time lag, the continuous creation of knowledge is a great way to generate long-term economic growth.

The crisis in U.S. science funding has come after several years of controversies about the COVID-19 virus, criticism of medical scientists and healthcare officials about mishandling the pandemic, and a barrage of fake news about the side effects of vaccines. Although there has been widespread belief that public trust in science and scientists has eroded in recent years, a global survey published in Nature in January has shown that it is a misperception. Public trust in science is quite high even in the U.S., higher than in many European countries. In fact, India got the second-highest score in public trust in science after Egypt.

So, it is tempting to regard the current dip in funding – if it is confirmed by future events – as a passing phase.

Why does public trust in science not translate into support from politicians and other policymakers? One reason is that the economic benefits of research investments do not show up within election cycles, and political leaders are under pressure to produce results within a few years. Moreover, most of the public, including political leaders, truly do not understand what scientists really do and how their work can benefit society. 

About 80 years ago, in an influential report to the U.S. president, American engineer Vannevar Bush created a dichotomy in the way scientists look at research, and this perception has somehow managed to live on. He divided scientific research into two: basic and applied. Basic research creates new knowledge, while applied research uses this knowledge for the benefit of society. This wasn't true when Bush wrote the report, even in private corporations. In some cases, basic and applied research feed each other, and one requires the other to survive. In the twenty-first century, when some perceived basic research becomes very expensive, it is tempting for policymakers to cut funding for it in isolation, not understanding that science is more than the sum of its parts. 

Our Cover Essay is an attempt to reason the other way, and to look at science as a whole and not as a set of components that can be funded separately. Such an outlook is especially valuable for India, where inadequate funding over decades has created knowledge gaps in critical areas, knowledge that can be bridged only through consistent efforts over long periods.

See also:

Science revision
'Future of science in India is bright'
'AI lacks a conceptual grasp'
'The whole world should team up'