‘Most researchers would prefer an end to competitive grants such as those awarded by the NWO.’ Photo Foto Shutterstock The Young Academy conducted a survey among 1100 scientists two-and-a-half years ago to learn their views on the distribution of the over 900 million euros in research funds. The results show that the vast majority, from PhD students to professors and from technical scientists to historians, seek to restrict the heated competition over research funds.
The survey took place at a different time. The cabinet made extra funds available for science, so there was something to consider. For example, should the funds be distributed directly to the universities, with or without additional conditions, or should the funds be distributed through the NWO? The Young Academy experimented with a new surveying method (participatory value evaluation), allowing respondents to immediately see the effect their choice has. More funds in one direction means less in the other, with all of the resulting consequences.
According to Léonie de Jonge, a political scientist with Groningen University and professor in Germany as of 1 January and vice-president of the Academy, the results were known to The Young Academy, but it did not divulge them due to the expected austerity measures.
Why did it take so long to publish the results?
‘This method was a first for us. It was very complicated, and there was a huge amount of data. We are all busy scientists with other duties as well. Politics took a big chunk out of our time.’
This survey on how research funds should be distributed feels almost nostalgic.
‘It does, indeed, feel like a different era, although Minister Dijkgraaf’s investments weren’t exactly abundant, but sorely needed as we were up to our necks in water for years. It is a shame that we have not been given the time to show what we can do with such funds.’
How relevant is your report in view of the incoming budget cuts?
‘Let there be no mistake; there is no support for the austerity measures, and we are gravely concerned. We protest them. Nevertheless, it is still worthwhile to consider the details of funding. How the system works is a separate issue from the size of the budget.’
You should see how much time is wasted writing applications for funds we fail to receive
Léonie de Jonge, vice-president of The Young Academy
The most important result is that researchers from all walks of life favour the starter and stimulus grants. And these grants are now set to be abolished.
‘It is true that most researchers want to do away with the competition-based grants that are currently distributed by the NWO. The meagre success rate of approximately one in seven makes them feel the system is unfair. You should see how much time is wasted writing applications for funds we fail to receive. Moreover, the system makes science vulnerable to trends. We must constantly ask ourselves whether a proposal is likely to succeed. That imperils the continuity of our research.’
Are the starter and stimulus grants fairer? It is up to universities to distribute them, so that also remains to be seen.
‘In an ideal world, newly appointed researchers should be given a starter grant and a second stimulus grant later in their career when it comes in handy. Distributing through some kind of lottery could work. We must acknowledge that the distribution of starter and stimulus grants leaves some things to be desired, but we have barely been given an opportunity to develop the system. Mind you, we don’t feel the NWO should be abolished entirely. Competition-based funding can foster innovation, but it has been taken too far.’
The report also raises the banner for the surveying method you used because it stimulates participation. Is the method not too slow for that?
‘I am sure it could be sped up. But solid surveying requires time. It seems like a good way to consider fundamental issues because, despite the simplifications, the model shows how complex the world is. And it raises awareness among the participants.’
Do you lack faith in the codetermination?
‘The codetermination council is generally not well involved in distributing starter and stimulus grants. Now, too, we see administrations acting pre-emptively on the expected budget cuts without proper consultation with the co-determination by cancelling or merging smaller study programmes. We argue that crucial decisions should be made in consultation with scientists. This method can contribute to democratisation. Give us the wheel for a while.’
Even in times of austerity?
‘Even then. We oppose budget cuts. But if you were to ask me whether I would rather lose an arm or a leg, I would like a say in the matter.’
