- Topics
- Aerospace
- Animals
- Anthro and Archaeology
- Bio and Medicine
- Brain and Behavior
- Business and Economy
- Computers and Electronics
- Education and Outreach
- Energy and Environment
- Geoscience
- Internet and Communication
- Media and Entertainment
- Nanotech, Chem and Materials
- Physics and Numbers
- Security and Defense
- Software
- Space
- Transportation
- Reader Blogs
- Shameless Commerce
- Register/Login
How Government Funding of Science Works
Government Funded Research on African-American Children - Math & Science Scores improve
The Good News: The Achievement Gap in Math and Science is closing between both African-American and Hispanic students and white students in elementary school math, and between African-American and white students in elementary and middle-school science.
This is Government funded/sponsored research and it is your tax money at work (US citizens). In light of the dialogue concerning the sewer study in black neighborhoods, I realize there is a huge misunderstanding about government funding research. I hope to set the record straight. Most of our nation's (and most other nations, too) science, technological, and engineering innovations are funded with public money. The National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Institutes of Health, the National Institute of Mental Health, Centers for Disease Control, and even the Smithsonian Institute are all major funders of STEM research. Private foundations also leverage funds to researchers.
Though each organization has its own forms to fill out and hoops to jump through, all pretty much have the same process.
1. Organizations ANNOUNCE the availability of funds for research. The Agency announces funds are available and each major program (discipline related) get so much of the pie. Not every program gets the same amount of money (that's a completely different topic to tackle). Let's take the field of Engineering for example - program divisions would be Materials Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Air and Transportation Engineering, and so on.
2. Researchers (most often from colleges or universities) survey their portfolio of research and see if they are doing something that might fit the bill. Researchers are often college professors (faculty) who have earned doctorate degrees in their field of study. Researchers train graduate students (those pursuing master's and doctorate degrees), so they can apply for and use this money, too. Sometimes, there are special funds set aside ONLY for students, faculty cannot apply.
3. Researchers write a proposal for the money (a grant) that outlines what type of research they are doing (or will do) and how they will use that money. Grant writing is a long and grueling process - sometimes. Essentially, you are writing a research proposal to be evaluated by the most critical and qualified people in your field. There is way too much money on the line to just give it to someone who has a neat idea, but doesn't have the ability, capability or proven track record to get things done.
4. In exchange for the money the researchers must adhere to all legal boundaries (state, federal, and professional) as well as ethical boundaries. These are also considered in the grant proposal. Any red flags and a researcher has to re-do the whole proposal or sometimes is disqualified from funding for that round. Researchers are also expected to disseminate results - not only to other professionals in his/her field, but to the public as well. Why? Because the public paid for it. Also, this new information is knowledge designed to enhance/enrich our lives. Others (practitioners, students, and other researchers) can use this information to make decisions about policy, their lives, business, pursue future research, etc.
The story above is such as example. And can't you just imagine the many applications of this finding and the study itself informing struggling school districts? So, to clarify, government sponsored funding is typically how most research is funded AND it isn't designed to take advantage of any group of citizen. It is a very critical process and though the jargon can be overwhelming to non-scientist/engineering, it is open and subject ot public scrutiny.
Stay informed.
Submitted by The_Urban_Scientist on Sun, 2008-05-04 11:54.

Re: "How Science Funding Works" Critiques
No, a first grader did not write this post, but the intended audience are non-scientists, non-engineers -- i.e. general audiences. So, if you are a researcher, this was rather superficial.
I blog about science with the objective of reaching general audiences and to engage researchers in doing more outreach (read: broader impact). You'll notice MOST of my posts are "Education & Outreach".
Plus, I've come to realize that the ScienceBlog audience is shifting from scientists/researchers/grad students to a more general audience of non-experts. Many people read the posts to get a quick update on new discoveries or to have an opportunity to vent about the social or political impacts of STEM innovations.
I failed to mention all of those important caveats (biased reviews, % of money, etc.) because it was unnecessary to get the main points across which are
Most STEM research is
a) publicly funded,
b) researchers compete for those monies, and
c) research should be disseminated to the general public.
Your Weekly Science News Summary - what is that? That's new to me. Would you please share?
The Urban Scientist
www.SciEdSociety.blogspot.com
How Government Funding of Science Works
This posting was of great use in learning new information.
--------------
chirani
Wow, check out this site called http://www.fluc.com
. Free SMS and free mobile ads!! Its fantastic
This is too elementary to be of any value to a researcher.
I was going to send this to my oldest son who is getting his Ph. D. in Physics. I didn't because this article is singularly uninformative. In each item mentioned, the article fails, for use use in a science setting.
In Item 1 it fails to say if there is a service available to find grants in any or all areas.
In Item 2 it does mention there are some grants only open to graduate students, which is informative, but it fails to even suggest the percentage of funds given to university affiliated groups versus everyone else by field.
In Item 3 there is no hint of how narrow the grant deciding panel specialties are. In other words are the panelists really going to know a researcher's extremely narrow field or give grants primarily to sub fields the panel knows. Nor does this item give an idea of what percentage of grants are rejected outright at this step or whether the percentage is the same for university affiliated researchers and others.
In Item 4 there isn't a clue as to how extensive the grant mandates are. The umbrella of a university with all the specialists in personnel law, ethics panels, etc. is an asset to an applicant.
The article even fails to mention an often expensive component of federal grant payments, which is the federal indirect rate that pays for supervision, and anything else that isn't directly charged to the grant (university or organization overhead).
I regret this article was referenced in my weekly Science news summary. It wasted my time to read it and more to complain about it. If anywhere this article belongs in a high school science fair information package.
Who wrote this, a first-grade?
Who wrote this, a first-grade?
You forgot the part about biased reviews.
You forgot the part about inequitable distribution of grant funds. How more money than ever before goes to fewer scientists than ever before.
You forgot the part about how the above is choking American science to death.
Post new comment