You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
Researchers studying research have found that some research proposals can be ineffective for research at large, according to new research.
Funding proposals that require scientists to declare what about their project will be “transformative” to their field can set back the field as a whole, according to a study from Oregon State University researchers. Sarah Gravem, a postdoctoral scholar in integrative biology and lead author of the study, said asking scientists to attempt to shift the paradigm in every proposal is not only unrealistic, but potentially harmful.
One of the problems with the emphasis on transformative research is that it results in less money funding incremental research, which is needed to make the baby steps required to transform a field.
The National Science Foundation defines transformative research as “driven by ideas that have the potential to radically change our understanding of an important existing scientific or engineering concept or leading to the creation of a new paradigm.”
The push by the NSF and other for transformative research was rooted in wanting to propel the U.S. ahead of other countries when it comes to scientific inquiry, Oregon State researchers said in a release announcing their study. However, the result has been staking bets on long-shot proposals instead of concrete, less flashy research.
“To start out with that transformative question is a backward way of thinking,” Gravem said. “Surely you have to think big to come up with big answers, and everyone is striving for that, but truly transformative research is an unobtainable standard to place on people at the proposal stage. Trying to make every project paradigm shifting can mean ignoring the incremental and basic science that eventually goes into shifting paradigms. It’s a detriment to ignore the building blocks in favor of the building.”
