You can't. True research should always entails the questioning of established consensus, going against the current mainstream. Funding is generally decided by committees, where members need to justify their choices to avoid the risk of being put out from the system. The result is that funding always go to support projects within accepted paradigms and never to project challenging accepted visions. The current academic system is doomed to fail. 

Good question - on resolving the funding and research.

A continuing resolution may be to keep sights on the ways/means to report/publish research findings -- and the facets of the work groups, practices, and climate that help support.

Article Social-Organizational Characteristics of Work and Publicatio...

You can't. True research should always entails the questioning of established consensus, going against the current mainstream. Funding is generally decided by committees, where members need to justify their choices to avoid the risk of being put out from the system. The result is that funding always go to support projects within accepted paradigms and never to project challenging accepted visions. The current academic system is doomed to fail. 

Interesting Marco.  Do you think there is any way to break the cycle?  Mary, can you provide any specific examples?

Marco and Beth, good points.

To break this cycle, it helps to approach the research "programmatically," that is, as a program of research that continues and accumulates, progressively.  In this way, one's research can help shape an agenda of discovery - and this improves the prospects of keeping the projects "in" (rather than "out") of the systems of funding.

Mary, well said.

How can researchers build better ways to fund their research that may not be a high priority for existing grants? I just want to address this question from Beth. Briefly, the US federal govt funds two programs--Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) that are more focused on innovation with an applied purpose; therefore it will not work with pure or basic science research.

One practical suggestion is to work in collaboration with industry. The researchers could form a "research development entity" in a specific area and collaborate with small technical businesses. The researchers fund their research portion in the SBIR/STTR and work collaboratively with the small business partner that is focused more on the market and production of the innovation, which is primarily funded in later SBIR phases. In this scenario, researchers do what they do best and it is funded through the Phase I SBIR then the researchers license the technology to the small business through a special license agreement.  In this way researchers can continue to conduct research without having to grow a new businesses. In one case, researchers formed their initial collaborations with a small business for a specific SBIR, but later this business partner returned to the "research think-tank" for solutions to new problems and they subsequently applied for new SBIR grants.Now other small business are using this research team on other problems that can be funded by SBIRs.  I don't know all the details and it is important to understand the regulatory compliance details when applying for these funds, but it was a clever way for the researchers to fund their research efforts and it provided some alternative flow of research funds.

I agree also with what Mary stated above. Researchers should have their own research agenda or plan that is strategic over a long period of time. There are studies that indicate engineering researchers involved in both basic and applied research are more productive and creative. Problems to solve can be "discovered" by the researcher through interaction with industry and those new problems may fall within their research agenda and also align with traditional funding sources. 

The basic problem still remains. Basic research, too far from any conceivable empirical application, will never be funded by schemes designed on the collaboration with business. Furthermore, universities are based on the interaction between teaching and research, and the obvious consequence of current system is that teaching is neglected compromising the long-term sustainability of the whole national research systems.

I understand that I may appear obsolete, but I really cannot see why researchers should spend their time searching for funds. No other worker is given the task of both carrying on her/his production duties _and_ finding the financial resources. It should be the task of the administration to mediate between the internal opportunities and the external funds to be possibly tapped. Researchers should focus on their curiosity-driven activities evaluated exclusively by their peers, while the strategic decisions on resource allocation should be decided on the basis of a weighted consideration of short-, medium-, and long-term goals, not affected by day-to-day financing needs. One question: how much time of highly educated researchers, at every stage of their career, is wasted in activities related to searching for funds? Would not be more productive dedicate specialized staff on this task?

Jo Ann: Thank you for the information re: innovative products and collaborative business ventures.  They are certainly an important aspect of research that is prominent in engineering or pharmaceutical research whose aim is to manufacture a particular item. I believe these projects have a great opportunity for support.  On the other hand, pure research does not normally fall into this category but may have long reaching implications for science. The reason that this has come to the fore is that I am a health generalist who endeavors to resolve or at least inform policy makers on existing problems.  In some cases, a small stipend (1,000 USD) may be earned for producing an informative piece of research. In other cases, solutions to gaps in federal communication have evolved over a period of 2-3 years simply from researching  other related areas such as regulations guiding clinical trials.  In this case, there is no entity that I am aware of that rewards an outsider for solving a problem BEFORE it becomes a hot research item on someone's grant list.  In effect, you can have a solution in hand but may not be awarded anything because you have already moved forward on the research on your own. Of course, there are other examples where there are shortcomings to accessing research funds in time and resource management among regular teaching or other duties.  In this aspect, I agree with Mary because administrative support via dedicated personnel or assigned work for graduate researchers is vital to optimizing research time.  Research agendas for doctoral graduates prior to becoming an assistant professor also hold certain obligations which may require the new hire to alter their present path to go where the money is to advance to Associate and later full Professor. This, of course, is more prevalent in research 1 or 2 schools but can play a role in achieving tenure at teaching universities. Hence, the reason behind finding ways to link researchers of various status within an academic institution and those who may not be affiliated with a place of higher learning to a pool of resources.  I was thinking along the lines of course development in grant writing as part of the core curriculum to receive a PhD to try to boost opportunities ahead of the game when teaching or other items may have to be a priority. Thanks for listening!

Thank you, Beth. I always appreciate gaining a better understanding and clearer perspective of how researchers go about research and obtaining funding in different disciplines and at different institutions. Trying to fund something before it is officially recognized as a priority is a big challenge!  You may want to consider crowd sourcing. I haven't looked into it, but I keep hearing about it.  I also recommend an association called the National Organization of Research Development Professionals (NORDP). Developing research and funding is the main topic. In addition, NIH has a BRAD opportunity that helps build research capacity at smaller institutions. I am an the evaluator on one BRAD at a PUI. It won't fund the research, but it can help your organization build their capacity to conduct research. 

On another note: I teach grant writing and some time ago I was asked by my university to develop and offer a grantsmanship series for PhD students of all disciplines. It is on the very basics of how to identify funding opportunities, steps to take when contacting a program officer, proposal writing tips, key collaborations/ relationships, budgeting, etc. It's a 5 part series. We have them identify funding sources, write clear research objectives, prepare a short summary of the research proposed, etc.. We offer to review their draft proposals and provide feedback during the semester or they can just attend the workshops. On completion the students are awarded a certificate from the university. Some have been able to obtain funding for their dissertation research. They all tell us it is the most practical workshop series they've ever taken. Only 25 students per semester and it fills in 2 minutes.

Fantastic JoAnn!  Thank you so much. I wish I had been aware of the complete series while at UCF.  Doctoral students get a general overview at COHPA but most are often inundated with keeping up with their course loads, work, investigating research topics, etc. to capture the vast need for this information until they are faced with fees for data or other funding requirements in order to focus on research.  But clearly grasping this aspect of academia/business application is vital to the overall development of a researcher in any field.

I agree that research sometimes has to go against the consensus, I think it's up to researchers to "change the consensus" by being more convincing, and by being able to communicate (sell?) their research projects for the advances they could bring to society, in the short or long term. It's not always an easy game but it's also a good exercise for researchers to explain why their research is important to deciders.

Experiment is an online platform for funding and sharing scientific discoveries, available at https://experiment.com/.

Experiment is an all-or-nothing crowdfunding arrangement: this means the proposed project must reach its funding target, or no one's pledges will be charged. Backers fund directly to requesting scientists, so there is no middleman or overhead involved.

Experiment invites research proposals across anthropology, art and design, biology, chemistry, computer science, data science, earth science, ecology, economics, education, engineering, materials science, mathematics, medicine, neuroscience, paleontology, physics, political science, psychology, and social science.

Bill Gates thinks "This solution helps close the gap for potential and promising, but unfunded projects."

I wish I could up vote your answer more than once Oliver!  thank you.

Besides Experiment, other quality crowdfunding sites have emerged to help fund impactful scientific research that may otherwise not receive backing. A list of about 40 crowdfunding portals for scientific research indicating the research area, crowdfunding mode, and portal fee is at http://fundedscience.com/resources/portals-for-research/.