ABSTRACT
Over human history, our curiosity has driven us to explore new intellectual horizons and solve new technological problems. These endeavours have been undertaken for a variety of motives ranging from pure altruism and “blue skies” enquiry to the solution for applied problems. For the past 300-400 years we have seen the emphasis change from the “gentleman” scientist or philosopher (and they were mostly gentlemen throughout this period) to the professional researcher, and the rise of the research “enterprise” supported by the public purse, as well as directly commissioned research by industry and commerce. The days of the “dilettante” researcher who could support himself by private means are now long gone, and the public funding of research has arisen in its place, especially from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present. We have come a long way from the first “professional” scientist, Robert Hooke, the paid “servant of the Royal Society”, whose task was to prepare experiments for the Fellows on a regular and frequent basis. What has driven this inexorable development? First, research has become more complex and more and more expensive, demanding sophisticated equipment and substantial infrastructures, including major international research collaborations that are beyond even the means of a single state to support, such as the International Space Station, ITER (the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) and CERN (originally Conseil Européen pour la Recherche Nucléaire, though the name changed to the current Organisation Européenne pour la Recherche Nucléaire). But what motivated the original move to publicly funded research? Certainly perceived economic benefit has been seen as an increasingly strong driving force and remains a key political justification for public investment in research. Then there are the demands of an increasingly technologically complex modern society, with its new demands for advances in such areas as medicine and information technology. In order to support research, governments have devised a variety of funding structures and methodologies that have been based on two inter-linked principles. The first is that of the “self-governing republic” of science. In other
52 •
words, researchers have successfully contended that they are the only people, especially within their specialisations, able to judge proposals and understand their scientific and technological content; that is, they govern science through peer review. The second is that this is a public good available for the benefit of society at large and so justifies the use of tax-payers’ money. Research, then, is a national interest. Both come together in the words of Winston Churchill who, repeating those of Haldane, said that “scientists should always be on tap but not on top”. This pithy statement also indicates that the final decision rests with politicians, and this brings with it its own dangers. Haldane (1918) enunciated this view in his report, which says:
Although the operations of the Medical Research Committee [discussed below in the description of the UK funding system] are within the province of the Minister . . . the Minister relies on the MRC to select the objects upon which they will spend their income and to frame schemes for the efficient and economical performance of their work.
