Open main menu
Home
Random
Recent changes
Special pages
Community portal
Preferences
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Incubator escapee wiki
Search
User menu
Talk
Dark mode
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Editing
Funding of science
(section)
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
==Criticism of science funding== {{See also|Academic bias|Scholarly peer review#Criticism|Criticism of science}} The source of funding may introduce conscious or unconscious [[bias]]es into a researcher's work.<ref>{{cite web |title=Who pays for science? |date=18 April 2022 |url=http://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays |access-date=30 November 2014 |archive-date=20 September 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190920231245/https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0_0/who_pays |url-status=live }}</ref> This is highly problematic due to [[academic freedom]] in case of universities and [[regulatory capture]] in case of government-funded R&D. === Conflict of Interest === {{See also|Conflicts of interest in academic publishing|Politicization of science}} Disclosure of potential [[Conflict of interest|conflicts of interest]] (COIs) is used by journals to guarantee credibility and transparency of the scientific process. Conflict of interest disclosure, however, is not systematically nor consistently dealt with by journals that publish scientific research results.{{cn|date=March 2025}} When research is funded by the same agency that can be expected to gain from a favorable outcome there is a potential for biased results and research shows that results are indeed more favorable than would be expected from a more objective view of the evidence.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Vuong|first1=Quan-Hoang|date=2020|title=Reform retractions to make them more transparent|url=https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01694-x|journal=Nature|volume=582|issue=7811|pages=149|doi=10.1038/d41586-020-01694-x|bibcode=2020Natur.582..149V|s2cid=219529301|archive-date=2022-01-23|access-date=2022-11-13|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220123231633/https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01694-x|url-status=live}}</ref> A 2003 [[systematic review]] studied the scope and impact of industry sponsorship in [[biomedical]] research. The researchers found financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions widespread. Results showed a statistically significant association between industry sponsorship and pro-industry conclusions and concluded that "Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways".<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Relationship between Funding Source and Conclusion among Nutrition-Related Scientific Articles|volume=4|issue=1|pages=e5|journal=[[PLOS Medicine]]|publisher=[[PLOS]]|author1=Lenard I Lesser |author2=Cara B Ebbeling |author3=Merrill Goozner |author4=David Wypij |author5=David S Ludwig |doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0040005|pmid=17214504|pmc=1764435|date=January 9, 2007|doi-access=free}}</ref> A British study found that a majority of the members on national and food policy committees receive funding from food companies.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Food company sponsorship of nutrition research and professional activities: a conflict of interest?|volume=4|issue=5|pages=1015–1022|journal=[[Public Health Nutrition]]|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|author=Marion Nestle|doi=10.1079/PHN2001253|pmid=11784415|date=October 2001|doi-access=free}}</ref> In an effort to cut costs, the [[pharmaceutical industry]] has turned to the use of private, nonacademic research groups (i.e., contract research organizations [CROs]) which can do the work for less money than academic investigators. In 2001 CROs came under criticism when the editors of 12 major scientific journals issued a joint editorial, published in each journal, on the control over [[clinical trial]]s exerted by sponsors, particularly targeting the use of contracts which allow sponsors to review the studies prior to publication and withhold publication of any studies in which their product did poorly. They further criticized the trial methodology stating that researchers are frequently restricted from contributing to the trial design, accessing the raw data, and interpreting the results.<ref>{{cite journal | pmc = 81460 | pmid=11584570 | volume=165 | issue=6 | title=Sponsorship, authorship and accountability |date=September 2001 | journal=CMAJ | pages=786–8| last1=Davidoff | first1=F | last2=Deangelis | first2=C. D. | last3=Drazen | first3=J. M. | last4=Nicholls | first4=M. G. | last5=Hoey | first5=J | last6=Højgaard | first6=L | last7=Horton | first7=R | last8=Kotzin | first8=S | last9=Nylenna | first9=M | last10=Overbeke | first10=A. J. | last11=Sox | first11=H. C. | last12=Van Der Weyden | first12=M. B. | last13=Wilkes | first13=M. S. }}</ref> The [[Cochrane Collaboration]], a worldwide group that aims to provide compiled scientific evidence to aid well informed health care decisions, conducts [[systematic review]]s of [[randomized controlled trial]]s of health care interventions and tries to disseminate the results and conclusions derived from them.<ref>{{cite journal|title=The Cochrane Collaboration|journal=Eur J Clin Nutr|date=August 2005|volume=59|series=Suppl 1|issue=S1|pages=S147–S149|doi=10.1038/sj.ejcn.1602188|pmid=16052183|last1=Scholten|first1=R. J.|last2=Clarke|first2=M|last3=Hetherington|first3=J|doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cochrane.org/welcome|title=Welcome|website=www.cochrane.org|access-date=2023-06-21|archive-date=2023-09-19|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230919133752/https://www.cochrane.org/welcome|url-status=live}}</ref> A few more recent reviews have also studied the results of non-randomized, [[Observational study|observational studies]]. The systematic reviews are published in the [[Cochrane Library]]. A 2011 study done to disclose possible conflicts of interests in underlying research studies used for medical [[meta-analyses]] reviewed 29 meta-analyses and found that conflicts of interest in the studies underlying the meta-analyses were rarely disclosed. The 29 meta-analyses reviewed an aggregate of 509 randomized controlled trials. Of these, 318 trials reported funding sources with 219 (69%) industry funded. 132 of the 509 trials reported author disclosures of conflict of interest, with 91 studies (69%) disclosing industry financial ties with one or more authors. However, the information was seldom reflected in the meta-analyses. Only two (7%) reported funding sources and none reported author-industry ties. The authors concluded, "without acknowledgment of COI due to industry funding or author industry financial ties from RCTs included in meta-analyses, readers' understanding and appraisal of the evidence from the meta-analysis may be compromised."<ref>{{cite web|title=How Well Do Meta-Analyses Disclose Conflicts of Interests in Underlying Research Studies|url=http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/how-well-do-meta-analyses-disclose-conflicts-interests-underlying-research-studies|work=The Cochrane Collaboration website|publisher=[[Cochrane Collaboration]]|access-date=24 March 2014|date=2011-06-06|archivedate=2014-12-16|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20141216145035/http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/how-well-do-meta-analyses-disclose-conflicts-interests-underlying-research-studies|url-status=deviated}}</ref> In 2003 researchers looked at the association between authors' published positions on the safety and efficacy in assisting with weight loss of [[olestra]], a [[fat substitute]] manufactured by the [[Procter & Gamble]] (P&G), and their financial relationships with the food and beverage industry. They found that supportive authors were significantly more likely than critical or neutral authors to have financial relationships with P&G and all authors disclosing an affiliation with P&G were supportive. The authors of the study concluded: "Because authors' published opinions were associated with their financial relationships, obtaining noncommercial funding may be more essential to maintaining objectivity than disclosing personal financial interests."<ref>{{cite journal|title=Authors' Financial Relationships With the Food and Beverage Industry and Their Published Positions on the Fat Substitute Olestra| pmc=1447808 | pmid=12660215|volume=93| issue=4 |year=2003|pages=664–9 | last1 = Levine | first1 = J | last2 = Gussow | first2 = JD | last3 = Hastings | first3 = D | last4 = Eccher | first4 = A | doi=10.2105/ajph.93.4.664 | journal=American Journal of Public Health}}</ref> A 2005 study in the journal ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]''<ref>{{Cite journal|pmid=15944677|year=2005|last1=Martinson|first1=BC|last2=Anderson|first2=MS|last3=De Vries|first3=R|title=Scientists behaving badly|volume=435|issue=7043|pages=737–8|doi=10.1038/435737a|journal=Nature|bibcode=2005Natur.435..737M|s2cid=4341622}}</ref> surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded (by the [[National Institutes of Health]]). Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source. === Regulatory capture === Private funding also may be channeled to public funders. In 2022, a news story broke following the resignation of Eric Lander, former director of the [[Office of Science and Technology Policy]] (OSTP) at the Biden administration, that the charity of former Google executive Eric Schmidt, Schmidt Futures, paid the salary of a number employees of the OSTP.<ref>{{cite web |title=A Google billionaire's fingerprints are all over Biden's science office |url=https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/28/google-billionaire-joe-biden-science-office-00020712 |access-date=2022-04-06 |website=POLITICO |date=28 March 2022 |language=en |archive-date=2022-04-22 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220422211236/https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/28/google-billionaire-joe-biden-science-office-00020712 |url-status=live }}</ref> Ethics inquiries were initiated in the OSTP. === Efficiency of funding === {{See also|Economics of science|Economics of scientific knowledge}} The traditional measurement for efficiency of funding are [[Scientific literature|publication]] output, [[citation impact]], number of [[patent]]s, number of [[Doctor of Philosophy|PhDs]] awarded etc. However, the use of [[Impact factor|journal impact factor]] has generated a [[Publish or perish|publish-or-perish]] culture and a theoretical model has been established whose simulations imply that [[peer review]] and over-competitive research funding foster mainstream opinion to monopoly.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Fang |first1=H. |year=2011 |title=Peer review and over-competitive research funding fostering mainstream opinion to monopoly |journal=Scientometrics |volume=87 |issue=2 |pages=293–301 |doi=10.1007/s11192-010-0323-4 |s2cid=24236419}}</ref> Calls have been made to reform research assessment, most notably in the [[San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment]]<ref>{{cite web |title=Read the Declaration |url=https://sfdora.org/read/ |access-date=2022-03-28 |website=DORA |language=en-US |archive-date=2022-03-30 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220330042049/https://sfdora.org/read/ |url-status=live }}</ref> and the [[Leiden Manifesto|Leiden Manifesto for research metrics]].<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Hicks |first1=Diana |last2=Wouters |first2=Paul |last3=Waltman |first3=Ludo |last4=de Rijcke |first4=Sarah |last5=Rafols |first5=Ismael |date=2015-04-23 |title=Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=520 |issue=7548 |pages=429–431 |bibcode=2015Natur.520..429H |doi=10.1038/520429a |issn=0028-0836 |pmid=25903611 |s2cid=4462115|doi-access=free |hdl=10261/132304 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> The current system also has limitations to measure excellence in the Global South.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Tijssen |first1=Robert |last2=Kraemer-Mbula |first2=Erika |date=2018-06-01 |title=Research excellence in Africa: Policies, perceptions, and performance |url=https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/45/3/392/4600842 |journal=Science and Public Policy |language=en |volume=45 |issue=3 |pages=392–403 |doi=10.1093/scipol/scx074 |issn=0302-3427 |doi-access=free |hdl=1887/65584 |hdl-access=free |archive-date=2023-04-30 |access-date=2022-04-09 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230430002914/https://academic.oup.com/spp/article/45/3/392/4600842 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite book |last1=Wallace |first1=L. |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1156814189 |title=Transforming research excellence. |last2=Tijssen |first2=Robert |date=2019 |isbn=978-1-928502-07-4 |location=Cape Town |oclc=1156814189}}</ref> Novel measurement systems such as the Research Quality Plus has been put forward to better emphasize local knowledge and contextualization in the evaluation of excellence.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Lebel |first1=Jean |last2=McLean |first2=Robert |date=July 2018 |title=A better measure of research from the global south |journal=Nature |language=en |volume=559 |issue=7712 |pages=23–26 |bibcode=2018Natur.559...23L |doi=10.1038/d41586-018-05581-4 |issn=0028-0836 |pmid=29973734 |s2cid=49692425|doi-access=free }}</ref> A wide range of interventions has been proposed to improve science funding.<ref name="a038">{{cite journal | last=Gigerenzer | first=Gerd | last2=Allen | first2=Colin | last3=Gaillard | first3=Stefan | last4=Goldstone | first4=Robert L. | last5=Haaf | first5=Julia | last6=Holmes | first6=William R. | last7=Kashima | first7=Yoshihisa | last8=Motz | first8=Benjamin | last9=Musslick | first9=Sebastian | last10=Stefan | first10=Angelika | title=Alternative models of funding curiosity-driven research | journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | volume=122 | issue=5 | date=4 February 2025 | issn=0027-8424 | pmid=39869812 | pmc=11804678 | doi=10.1073/pnas.2401237121 | doi-access=free | page=}}</ref><ref name="b807">{{cite journal | last=Aczel | first=Balazs | last2=Barwich | first2=Ann-Sophie | last3=Diekman | first3=Amanda B. | last4=Fishbach | first4=Ayelet | last5=Goldstone | first5=Robert L. | last6=Gomez | first6=Pablo | last7=Gundersen | first7=Odd Erik | last8=von Hippel | first8=Paul T. | last9=Holcombe | first9=Alex O. | last10=Lewandowsky | first10=Stephan | last11=Nozari | first11=Nazbanou | last12=Pestilli | first12=Franco | last13=Ioannidis | first13=John P. A. | title=The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence | journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | volume=122 | issue=5 | date=4 February 2025 | issn=0027-8424 | pmid=39869808 | pmc=11804526 | doi=10.1073/pnas.2401232121 | doi-access=free | url=https://www.pnas.org/doi/pdf/10.1073/pnas.2401232121 | access-date=9 March 2025 | page=}}</ref> [[Open peer review]] can improve the quality of [[scholarly peer review]].<ref name="x870"/> A systematic review found a scarcity of [[randomized controlled trial]]s on [[peer review]] interventions.<ref name="x870">{{cite journal | last=Bruce | first=Rachel | last2=Chauvin | first2=Anthony | last3=Trinquart | first3=Ludovic | last4=Ravaud | first4=Philippe | last5=Boutron | first5=Isabelle | title=Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis | journal=BMC Medicine | volume=14 | issue=1 | date=2016 | issn=1741-7015 | pmid=27287500 | pmc=4902984 | doi=10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 | doi-access=free | page=}}</ref> Another question is how to allocate funds to different disciplines, institutions, or researchers. A recent study by Wayne Walsh found that "prestigious institutions had on average 65% higher grant application success rates and 50% larger award sizes, whereas less-prestigious institutions produced 65% more publications and had a 35% higher citation impact per dollar of funding."<ref>{{cite web |title=Research Dollars Go Farther at Less-Prestigious Institutions: Study |url=https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/research-dollars-go-farther-at-less-prestigious-institutions--study-64529 |access-date=2018-07-23 |website=The Scientist Magazine® |language=en |archive-date=2018-07-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180727163354/https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/research-dollars-go-farther-at-less-prestigious-institutions--study-64529 |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Wahls |first=Wayne P. |date=2018-07-13 |title=High cost of bias: Diminishing marginal returns on NIH grant funding to institutions |url=https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/07/13/367847 |journal=bioRxiv |language=en |page=367847 |doi=10.1101/367847 |doi-access=free |archive-date=2018-10-03 |access-date=2018-07-23 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181003235821/https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/07/13/367847 |url-status=live }}</ref>
Edit summary
(Briefly describe your changes)
By publishing changes, you agree to the
Terms of Use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 4.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)