My brief thoughts on how science funders could be poisoning the well of research creativity by over-regulating the structure of grant applications and why they are doing this.

1. Discussion on Innovation
Disclaimer: I’m not going to talk about innovation because it
means so many different things to different people. I am going
to talk about the importance of protecting and fostering scientific
creativity – as this is the fragile flower upon which scientific
innovation depends. And it is being endangered.
Jim Lepock Symposium, June 7, 2016

2. The Problem with Scientific Research
Research is inherently unpredictable and the only thing
going for it is that it inexpliquably, but consistently, delivers
new ideas, new ways of doing things and new benefits to
society.
$
$$
$
$$
$
$
$
$ $
$
Promises
(in Klingon words)
Something..
Maybe
in 10 years..

3. Science is Terribly Inefficient, Corrupt & Fraudulent!
Inefficient: Funders can’t accurately predict
where the next advance will come from.
This, err, FRUSTRATES them.
Solution: Regulate!
Fraud: Everyday claims of irreproducibility,
plagiarism, outright fraud. Can scientists
even be trusted?
Corrupt: Scientists get to decide who among
their fellow scientists are to be allocated
funds! How is this even a thing?

4. 1. Reduce scientific collusion through virtual review!
Bonus: saves travel and hotel expenses - double win!
2. Force grant applications to be written in a tightly
structured, inflexible manner to make it easier to judge by
less competent people. Fairer!
3. Make reviewing faster by removing feedback to
applicants. 90 minutes per application is enough! Bonus, no
renewable grants! Ideas good. Continuity bad.
4. Increase reporting burden on grants to keep check that
nefarious things aren’t being done. Invent expensive new
metrics and other quantification methods. Encourage short-
term impact stories to impress politicians.
Rescued by Administrative Solutions*
*any resemblance to CIHR policies purely coincidental

5. But Science Doesn’t Work that Way!
• Scientific impact typically lags 5-20 years and often
passes through *many* hands and minds
• Creativity is not quantifiable at the time it is occurring
• Science is a continuous, incremental learning process, it
learns from correcting its mistakes
• Science is largely non-formulaic (albeit, repetition is).
Also reason why “moonshots” in biology are doomed to
fail
• Most metrics lag (e.g. citations), those that don’t have
major issues (e.g. JIF)
• Won’t know (+ve or -ve) impact of science procedural change
until too late.

6. So What Can/Should We Do?
• Be more open and accessible!
• Be more communicative, but…..
• Enough with the hype! Educate, don’t exaggerate
• Public confidence in science is fragile (see persistence of
pseudoscience), never take it for granted
• Encourage risk, happenstance, challenge
• Seek and correct for bias (including career structure)
• Ask how many scientists can/should Canada support?
• Recognize full spectrum of research
• No level of misconduct is tolerable – see it, declare it