Continuing from the earlier discussion (referenced in the link above) advocating for European innovators to prioritize value creation over the traditional emphasis on patents, and delving into the inquiry of scientific fields that deliver "sufficient value for taxpayers' money," it's pertinent to highlight a compelling article featured in a recent The Economist's edition “The World Ahead 2024”.
The article commences by addressing the substantial time investment scientists dedicate to grant applications—revealing, for instance, that Australian researchers collectively spent an astonishing 614 years in a single year pursuing grants. It then proceeds to scrutinize different models of science funding. Notably, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, established in 1953, stands out, with a model funding researchers rather than projects (generously funded for 7 years or more).
This model produced nearly twice as many highly cited articles compared to the standard funding model and boasts a track record that includes over 30 Nobel prizes. The article underscores the transformative success of this approach, leading to the establishment of a new research institute (ARC) at Stanford University in 2021, which adopts similar principles.
PS - In the aforementioned context check also the post "New study suggest that prestigious European grants might be biased"
