Give some research money to the researcher, not to a detailed plan, and let them use it for a long time
Steps to make it happen
- Groups that give out research money set aside part of their budget as money entrusted to people.
- Researchers apply by showing their past work and the questions they want to answer, not a detailed schedule.
- People who are chosen receive money in one lump that they can use for about seven years.
- If a researcher changes the research topic along the way and explains why, the money does not stop.
- At the checkup in the middle, reviewers talk with the researcher to see whether the effort is serious, instead of counting results.
- When the work ends, the researcher shares the results with everyone, including what did not work.
- It becomes normal for researchers to look many years ahead and take on bold questions.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal takes part of the research money that countries, regions, international bodies and others give out from public funds and sets it aside as a special share. This share goes to the researcher as a person, for a long period in one lump, and not to a plan that says what will be found out by what year. Each society decides how large a share to use, but the usual plan-based research money stays alongside it, so the two are combined and one does not replace the other. All fields are covered, and a fixed share is reserved especially for young and mid-career researchers who hold fixed-term positions. In the review, judges who are not biased toward any field, region or gender read each application and decide by the quality of the person's past work and the depth of the question the person wants to take on, not by the number of papers or the rank of the journals. The period is meant to be around seven years, and the researcher can spend the money flexibly, by his or her own judgment, on salaries, equipment, joint research and more. Universities and institutes that host the researcher are asked to guarantee the researcher's position during the period and not to take excessive fees out of the research money. The checkup in the middle is done by conversation, not by numbers in a report, and payment is stopped only when research misconduct or abandonment of the research is clear. At the same time, so that money does not pile up with certain people, there are limits on receiving several of these grants at once and on receiving them again and again in a row. Projects that cannot do without managing the plan itself, such as building a huge experimental facility, are left out of this share.
BenefitsRoom to take on bold questions over a long time
When money is guaranteed for a long period, researchers are freed from writing applications every few years and can spend that time on the research itself. Because there is no need to rush results according to a plan, it becomes easier to take on questions that may fail but would be a big win if they succeed, and questions that can be answered only after many years of patient observation. Being able to switch topics flexibly when an unexpected clue appears along the way is also important for growing the seeds of new discoveries. For young and mid-career researchers in unstable fixed-term positions, knowing that their position and money are secure for about seven years can matter enough to decide whether they stay in research. The reviewers also carry less of the burden of reading huge numbers of applications in detail every year, so they can judge each person's work more carefully. By combining this with the usual plan-based research money, society can have both research that checks results in a short time and research that settles in for the long run, and it is also a benefit that the variety of ways of doing research is itself protected.
DrawbacksChoosing people can deepen bias and weaken accountability
The strongest point raised by opponents is that a review that judges people and not plans tends to favor researchers at famous universities, in wealthy regions, and those who already have a record. There is a lot of room for the judges' assumptions and personal connections to enter, so bias by gender or home region could actually grow, and the result could be that money gathers even more with those who already have. Also, if a long-term share is created without raising the total budget, the research money that other researchers can receive shrinks by that much, and the research conditions of the many who were not chosen get harder. Public money comes from people's taxes, so there is also the criticism that handing it over for a long time without showing in detail beforehand what it will be used for weakens the duty to explain how it is spent. Even if seven years pass without results, it is hard to cut off the money, and it may become difficult to spot waste. Problems also remain over whether the universities and institutes that host researchers can truly guarantee their positions during the period, and what will happen to the researchers after the period ends.
Learn the background
In many societies, public research money is given out for short plans that last a few years. Researchers write an application every few years and are expected to produce results exactly as scheduled. As a result, voices in many places say that a large part of researchers' time goes to writing applications and reports, which cuts into the time for real research. Topics that seem likely to give sure results in a short time are also more likely to be chosen, so bold questions with unpredictable results, and research that needs many years of digging deep, tend to be avoided. Many young researchers work on short terms tied to research money, and quite a few leave research without being able to see their future. Yet when we look back at the history of science, many big discoveries came from unexpected detours that left the original plan, or from long trial and error. This proposal starts from the worry that a system that only checks results against a schedule may leave no room for such detours.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes