Federal funding for scientific research is often inefficient. In today’s Martin Center article, Duke professor John Staddon explains why and suggests how it could be improved.

He writes:

The relevant variable, beyond the basic qualifications of the researcher and the proposed budget, is the quality of the scientist. I intentionally refer to an individual, not a research team. Creative products, whether in art, literature, or science, are almost invariably made by an individual or a small group (and even Watson and Crick were unusual). A team may well be necessary to confirm a discovery, look for exceptions, and so on. But the original finding, achieved either via creative thought or serendipitous perception, is usually due to a thoughtful observer who is usually a single man (yes, again usually a man).

Unfortunately, government funding doesn’t focus on individual qualifications. Instead, these days, it’s far more important to have a sufficiently “diverse” research team. And, making things worse, the kinds of questions to be researched is becoming more and more politicized.

Staddon continues:

So we need a better system for evaluating basic science. It should be both competitive and long-term. It should support individuals, not projects, but the competition should not be between individuals but between programs. The competition should be between different ways of selecting promising scientists, not between the scientists themselves.

We clearly need to rethink our approach to the funding of scientific research. Maybe Congress will get around to that some day.