Adam Miklósi

An overview The picture that emerges when one looks at the global situation for funding in ecology and evolution is that, while all biological research is suffering, these fields are faring somewhat worse. Surprisingly, this is despite the fact that research in evolution and ecology will be vital if we are to stand a chance of solving the problem of increasing numbers of humans on a planet that has limited resources and finite recuperative powers. We were reminded again of the problem just last month when the human population hit 7 billion. The other major theme running through many of the comments made by the evolutionary biologists and ecologists interviewed for this article is related to how we fund research more generally. It’s a view that the public at large and governments do not fully appreciate the value of basic research; however, it is to this branch of investigation that we owe most of our knowledge. Coupled with this, there is a view that the grant approval system might be ill-equipped to properly disperse funds. This is particularly problematic for basic research, many scientists would seem to argue, because the course of such research is unpredictable. Compounded with this is the sense that low-risk grant proposals are given preference. This is reminiscent of a point made by the evolutionary biologist Laurent Keller in an essay he wrote a few years back for the American Naturalist, in which he recounted several instances in his own scientific career, and those of others, in which an important discovery was made purely through chance. The argument is essentially that we should put less stock in what is written in a grant proposal and more of it in the quality of the individual applying for funding. If scientists do decide this is a better way to fund research, they’ll have to make the case themselves to their government granting agencies. Otherwise, it will be business as usual.