Funding on Michael’s Domain

Forever Young

Sun, 30 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0000

I was asked by the Novo Nordisk Foundation (specifically by Dr. John Peter Wittschieben) to say a few words from the successful applicants’ perspective during the “ How to Get Funding from International Foundations ” info event, which took place on April 26th in Biomedicum Helsinki.Useful informationTo be clear: The event was very useful. Specifically it was useful due to the detailed information provided by the Novo Nordisk Foundation and JDRF , who presented during the event. In the very beginning, I was surprised to hear our Dean talk in his introduction about the “lucky ones that received the funding”. In my naïveté, I always assumed that funding was distributed according to excellence and ability, not according to luck. While more experienced researchers like Mikael Knipp were able to give good advice, I could not. Obviously, I cannot boast with my own funding rates (which are about 5%, one of 20 applications being successful).**No time for science, too much time for grant proposal writing?**Some participants expressed surprise about the current widespread complaints of researchers about low funding rates, arguing that a rejected application leads to an improved renewed application in the next round. I agree, that the improvement might be substantial for the first few rounds, but then it becomes a game of diminishing returns. I write an average of 20 grant applications in order to get one accepted, and for 15 of these, I rather agree with E.P. Diamandis, who in Clinical Chemistry complained about the $20+ billion loss due to unsuccessful application writing.**Who is a “Young Investigator?”*The other question that - interestingly - was discussed (and which I had wondered about already for years), was the term of “young investigator”. The bottom line was, that everybody is a young investigator who does not hold a full professorship. This might be the only sensible definition, as the average age of principal investigators has been steadily rising during the last decades (see e.g. here ). Many investigators will therefore stay forever young (or at least until they retire).It is difficult to be creative if you are struggling with fundingAlthough I could not convince many (maybe nobody), I objected to the notion that is is desirable to combine the goal of creativity and applicability in academic research. True creativity originates mostly from a primary motivation and utilitarian aspects actually get in the way of creativity. This is not to say, that creative research cannot be very useful. To make them an important criteria in the distribution of funds is just asking too much from the money source, namely to be able to predict the future. Creativity and the push towards “applicability/impact” of research are not only orthogonal to each other, but are pushing into opposite directions. If the research is struggling with funding, it is difficult to be creative. The basic needs for survival need to be met before people can realize their possibilities. In addition, when foundation ask for short term applicability, they appear to me like politicians, who think in terms of the 4 or 5-year election cycle. For much of academic research, we cannot predict its future uses. In addition, potential applications are mostly MUCH more than 5 years into the future. If the push towards applicability results in shifting the balance from basic towards applied science, the pipeline (basic research > applied research > engineering) will dry out from its source. Maybe this push towards applicability will also accelerate the blurring of the lines between the traditional universities and the universities of applied sciences. *I have to side with Marx this time: Nicht das Bewußtsein bestimmt das Leben, sondern das Leben bestimmt das Bewußtsein.

Key project funding

Fri, 07 Oct 2016 00:00:00 +0000

This post is inspired by our recent success in the Key Project Funding call of the Academy of Finland . One of the main time killers for scientists is to apply for money to finance their research. Scientists spend more and more time preparing grant applications because of the growing competition for the shrinking resources.After deducting the time for teaching and administration, they maybe able to spend a few hours each week doing research. Last week over lunch, a friend of mine ask me what our funding rates were. I did not know, because I have been avoiding the inconvenient truth. I calculated today and the depressing result is that they are in the low single digit range and this seems to be a quite average figure (for us, 2015 was an exceptionally successful year and the 2016 number might perhaps still improve since several decisions have not been made yet).Improving academical productivity by increasing the 1600 hours of yearly working time on paper is meaningless if 400 hours of this time are spent in vain, i.e. for unsuccessful grant applications. The financial damage and opportunity costs to the system are enormous and a colleague of my recently pointed me to this 2015 article in Clinical Chemistry , where the monetary value wasted by grant application writing was conservatively estimated for the US to be at least $20 billion per year.Our budget includes new positions for researchers, but we don’t know yet where and when these people will be able to start their work. In theory, the hosting organization (i.e. the Research Program of the University of Helsinki) guarantees the infrastructure. However, the Research Program cannot generate lab space from nothing. The university is just trying to save money by minimizing the floor space it rents. While some people celebrate successful grant applications, my view is more down-to earth: After the grant decision is before the grant decision*.*Citation modified after Sepp Herberger , coach of 1954 soccer world cup winner Germany, who famously stated “After the game is before the game.”

The new Finnish government cuts university funding by around 500 million € (or not?)

Thu, 11 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0000

UPDATE: It appears that some of the party representatives that were the source of the information in this article have not been reflecting the official positions of their respective parties (in other words: they were talking BS without having any authorization to do so). In reality, the coming cuts and their sizes are going to be determined only during this coming fall season.