Ways to foster the scientific system II: beyond research agendas and targeted funding – trust the scientist!

This Open Issue of The European Journal of Social Science Research is a special one. Usually, the Editorial Board tries to compile its open issues in a way that all articles a bound by a common theme, a converging question or a comparable methodological approach. Consequently, articles that cannot be subsumed under one overarching idea – though already published digitally – are not promptly published as part of a print edition, that is, one could argue, they are being ‘left behind’. Although the consequences are negligible in the given context, as the existence of physically printed papers is of dwindling importance, it is, nonetheless, rather unfortunate and maybe indicative of a systemic issue scientists face in today's academic systems: the (negative) influence of external selection criteria. How does one stay open, one might ask, while being bound by limited resources, and how does one reduce the (negative) influence of external selection criteria of science-unrelated, subjective and oftentimes mediocre substance?

To allocate resources, there must be selection criteria and processes. But what is true for compiling an open issue for Innovation might also be true in the context of fostering innovative research; there is a risk, and the consequences here would be less negligible, that most promising research proposals are ‘left behind’ because they do not meet the ‘right’ criteria.

Back in 2021 I argued, that ‘to foster excellency, cutting-edge research and innovation, one has to foster, trust and support the human resource’ (Wedel 2021). The bottom line: Why not invest in people and give scientists the freedom to do what they are trained to do instead of investing into a scientifically questionable promise (research proposals) to produce consistent research results in accordance with a pre-planned timetable that can be defined by milestones and assessed simultaneously by an external evaluation all designed to meet a research agenda which is a result of national and supranational policy processes? The intentions might be good, no doubt, but the results oftentimes are – as we all experience on an everyday basis – a bureaucratic nightmare, characterized by a need to meet poorly defined if not inaccurate performance indicators and outdated milestones, instead of following the agile path of unpredictable research efforts. In today's research world, Scientist, whose integrity should not be quantified no matter how complex the matrix, must act as salespeople, managers, and bureaucrats justifying their every step by way of constant reports, presentations and documentations instead of utilizing their scientific expertise in the interests of research, and research alone. Science is no algorithm. One cannot program its success and solidify its outcome by way of an inflexible administrative accompaniment. Why do we consolidate the idea of freedom of research in exactly that fashion? Is there really a lack of alternatives? And are we prepared to rigidly evaluate the benefits of the status quo? Because if public research agendas and targeted funding programs do not lead to freedom of research and ideally foster innovation, they do not fulfil their purpose. Looking at the recent example of Artificial Intelligence (AI) research seems a good starting point to reflect upon integrity of public research schemes. ‘In 2023, industry produced 51 notable machine learning models, while academia contributed only 15’ (HAI 2024). In short, Academia plays no significant role in AI research today. One explanation: Years ago, while industry was heavily investing in AI Research & Development, public research agendas and funding schemes did not foresee such efforts. By the time funding for AI research was made available through public channels (likely inspired by industry successes), academia had already lost track. Of course, this assumption must be scientifically analyzed before jumping to conclusion. The realization that the current procedures may not lead to optimal results, however, has long since found its way into the political discourse.

In 2004, the European Parliament (EP) adopted a recommendation on the promotion of the freedom of scientific research, where it emphasizes the fundamental importance of such a freedom as an essential element of democracy and a cornerstone for innovation and societal progress, while expressing concern over the erosion of this freedom within the European Union (EU). Indeed, in today's EU, innovation, competitiveness and the academic environment are challenged by brain drain and a self-censorship among researchers (EP 2004). The EP urges the Commission and Member States to ensuring non-interference in research agendas, adequate funding and stresses the importance of open access to publicly funded research. Following the Annex to said resolution, the freedom of scientific research

'entails the right for individual researchers to freely define research questions, choose and develop theories, gather empirical material, and employ sound scientific research methods, to maintain scientific integrity, to challenge conventional wisdom, to publish and communicate freely, and to propose new ideas and theories as well as disseminate them freely'. (EP 2004)

To safeguard this ideal, governmental bodies in Member States, including Union institutions, agencies and bodies, should be obligated to respect, protect, promote, and ensure the freedom of scientific research and institutional autonomy.

As beautiful as this sounds: Freely defining research questions without the resources to freely develop theories, gather empirical material and employ sound scientific research methods because the institutional autonomy and scientific integrity are not backed by adequate financial autonomy and supportive promotion schemes, leads the idea of freedom of scientific research de-facto ad absurdum. The academic environment today is one of dependence.

Money, however, does not seem to be the problem. In Germany, e.g., according to current figures, the state, industry and universities invested a total of 121.4 billion euros in research and development (R&D) in 2022 (BuFI 2024). But where is the innovation? A Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation (EFI) took a close look at Germany's position in the field of key technologies. The result: Apart from a few areas, such as the life sciences, Germany is lagging behind internationally, especially in digital technologies, and its performance in international rankings is ‘almost disgraceful’. In the long term, this gap will become even greater, threatening on-going technological dependence, particular in areas such as AI (EFI 2024).

Maybe it is time to evaluate and re-think our approach to the freedom of research and in particular the approach to foster innovation by means of pre-defined research agendas and targeted research funding. It does not seem to be working that well. Let us re-search better approaches, maybe consider human and scientist-centered promotion schemes, and bring about the innovation we so intensively desire to the subject matter of research agendas and targeted funding itself. One starting point could be a more open allocation of resources: Research should not be ‘left behind’ because it does not meet the criteria of an agenda-based research framework. It is those frameworks we should leave behind. Yes, this is a polemic, and it comes with a clear message: ground-breaking research cannot be prescribed top-down. Politicians and science managers do not know better than the scientists who actually are experts in their field. Society, and the executive branch should trust and allow scientist to do what they are trained to do!

In the meantime, dear reader, enjoy these 25 (!) unique scientific contributions as part of this Open Issue of The European Journal of Social Science Research.