Embracing Decentralization

Can your research thrive in an alternative organization or funding model?

In an offhand aside in their 2022 essay A Vision of Metascience,

Michael Nielsen

and

Kanjun Qiu

listed the following hypothetical ways to generate more variety in social structures for doing science.

(1) In biology evolutionary innovation often follows catastrophe; this happens in markets too; would it lead to an explosion of discovery if we temporarily but drastically decreased (and then increased) funding to entities such as the NSF? We don't expect this suggestion to be popular, but that does not mean it's wrong. (2) Can we use cryptoeconomics to radically improve the political economy of science, creating far stronger alignment between individual incentives and collective social good? (3) Can we diversify exploration and unleash creativity by decreasing the amount of grant overhead, since overhead incentivizes universities to follow grant agency fashion, and is thus a strong centralizing force?

In the US, items (1) and (3) are now happening. The current US administration has signaled its intent to reduce the outflow of new science grants from federal agencies and is currently pursuing that agenda in several ways: by slowing the funding opportunity release and award processes through informal means such as adding additional approval layers and reducing staffing; holding back funding from specific universities; and proposing reduced budgets for science at several agencies. President Trump has released executive orders directing agencies such as the NIH, DOE, and NSF to adopt greatly reduced overhead rates. While those rate changes are currently held up in federal court, the administration is likely to pursue this goal by other means. Even if none of these policies ever take effect (which is actually a reasonably likely outcome), the expectation that they might in the future is already driving changes in behavior.

While most scientists are justifiably outraged by these policies (“We don’t expect this suggestion to be popular”), chaos creates both problems and space for trying new things. 

As Nielsen and Qiu predicted, these policy changes are driving decentralization. On the ground we are personally seeing an increased flow of US researchers leaving academic and government posts for both for- and non-profit organizations in the private sector. US scientists are going to other countries as well.

How can scientists and scientific funders embrace this decentralization?

1. If you are a scientist, consider whether your research can thrive in an alternative organization or funding model. Can you rally your best colleagues into a small but mighty effort outside of your current institutional context? Can you hustle for a new way to pay everyone? Can you work on things that would have been taboo before?

2. If you are a science funder, expand the list of partners and grantees you deem acceptable. Can you reach across sectors, funding models, or the political spectrum to form new funding coalitions that back new kinds of organizations? Can you develop a rubric for recognizing talented metascience entrepreneurs (in Qiu and Nielsen’s sense) and supporting their efforts?

3. If your research is metascience, get your study going ASAP so you can follow along as things develop. It’s rare to have an advance prediction for a natural experiment and to notice it when it’s beginning. This could be a once-in-a-lifetime chance to learn about the practice of science.

What would it take for you to consider moving beyond current science institutions? Leave a comment!