4. The basic geography of research funding in the United States dates from the system's establishment after the Second World War. Scientist, credited with the development of the atomic bomb, found their prestige at an all-time high, and the agencies set up by federal government to support their work had no hesitation in awarding the lion's share of the money to places where the scientists wanted to live and work. Mostly that meant Ivy League institutions on the east coast, the strong public universities in the mid-west, and Stanford and the University of California system in the west.
5. The amount of funds available has since expanded to some $23 billion, which the federal government will this year spend on basic and applied research in universities. Hundreds of less-celebrated institutions have been seeking a share of the spoils, as have state governments such as Florida’s. A successful research university is increasingly seen as a route to economic development. States that have traditionally received little research funding hope that building such institutions and encouraging spin-off companies will create high-paying jobs and attract new companies.
6. “When a university gets money, the effect is not confined just to that university,” says Daniel Greenberg, a Washington-based journalist and author who has been writing about research policy for decades. “When you have a university with a thriving chemistry department you might get a paint manufacturer who says: ’This is a good place to locate a plant, because we can get consultants down the road very easily.’”
7. Most-federal science funds are distributed by government agencies on a competitive, peer-reviewed basis. Despite occasional carping that the peer-review system acts as an “‘old-boys’ network“, most analysts consider it to be in pretty good shape. In general, good science is done by the best scientists, who are attracted to the best institutions in search of the best research environment. It's a fair system - but a self-perpetuating one. States such as Texas, Florida and Arizona, which have enjoyed massive growth in their populations and economies during recent years, are still struggling to make their mark in science.
8. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has come to dominate the research scene since its budget doubled to $27 billion in the five years to 2003, and it now accounts for two-thirds of funding for academic research and development. But the agency's rise in funding has now flattened out. And some observers say that the boom, which benefited every academic research centre in the nation, has fostered delusion of grandeur in the “have-not” states.
Big Ideas
9.Joe Cortright, an analyst at Impresa, an economics consultant based in Portland, Oregon, says that a study he did in 2002 for the Washington-based Brookings Institution showed a clear trend. Almost everywhere had twice as much biomedical funding in 2001 as in 1995, he says.
10.“What the governor hears is ‘Our state doubled its funding.’ This has let a lot of people to believe, natively, that their community is a big player,” Cortright says.
沪公安联网 31011502019103