pull down to refresh

Let’s take a prominent example. The European Research Council awards the most prestigious grants in Europe. Obtaining one is a golden ticket to a tenured academic position. Universities arrange courses on how to write a successful application and hire consultants to support this. Academics are assessing lists of past grantees to see how to position their research and steer toward “ERC-compatible” research. And above all, they spend months writing a proposal, with a funding success rate of a bit above 10 percent. The European Union is claiming the ERC as one of the biggest success stories in its Research and Innovation programs. And universities are fully aligning themselves with this culture.
Is that wise? True, ERC excels at establishing and cementing the careers of so-called elite researchers, but that’s only within its own academic definition. Does it actually bolster European competitiveness in the real world?
Where’s the real-world impact?
Let’s take a look at the numbers. Since 2007, the program has funded over 17,000 projects, generating over 200,000 scientific papers. This research led to 2,200 patents and other intellectual property rights applications. That means only 1 percent of all the results are actually useful as IP. The grantees furthermore founded 400 startups. That’s only 2 percent of all projects leading to an entrepreneurial venture. This is in spite of the fact that these projects tend to attract the best students and are carried out at the best universities. Where’s the real-world impact? These innovation indicators are extremely low, if you ask me.
These numbers look pretty low, indeed. One should do better, especially in applied fields where the impact should be immediate.
I work in extremely fundamental physics. Lots of its research from the last 100 years has been forgotten. Pointless or just intellectual masturbation. But the research that sticked has changed the course of humanity. And often, it was built on the failures of the research that came before it.
This type of research does not get measured in number of patents or start-ups. Even if most, if not all, of today's start-ups are built on that tech from the last 500 years. If not for academia, there are not many places that are inventivized to do research that may only turn out useful in 50 years.
Take quantum physics. The abstract stuff. Like entanglement and superposition. Not just the appliied stuff like tunneling through a wall. The abstract stuff has been an intellectual curiosity, mostly. Yet, in the last decade, IBM, Google and others are pumping billions in it trying to make useful quantum computers. That's possible thanks to the academic research that preceded it. I remember giving a talk 20 years ago on quantum computers and qubits (I'm no expert, i was just interested in it). The audience laughed, the people where not ready for it. Even amidst academics.
But the few that did fundamental research on this, did it out of passion. Or maybe the foresaw the future, who knows. In any event, it was research that is only now starting to pay off. Good thing these things didn't't get patented. I'm generally against IP, but that's for another time. I've already gone enough on a tangent with my rant.
ERC grants are notoriously hard to get. I failed once. So, at least, one would expect them to pay off. This kind of piece reminding about how the system sometimes falls is useful, hence the share. Just felt like adding some personal thoughts to counter the clickbaity title.
I agree, you can't measure quality research output via patents and startups.
That's possible thanks to the academic research that preceded it. I remember giving a talk 20 years ago on quantum computers and qubits (I'm no expert, i was just interested in it). The audience laughed, the people where not ready for it. Even amidst academics.
I think I may have mentioned to you before, but I was a physics major in undergrad. I had the opportunity to potentially work with a quantum information professor at my university, but ultimately didn't pursue it.
I ended up doing economics, which has been fine, but part of me always wonders. Cutting edge physics still gets me excited, and i've been pretty jaded by academic economics as you may or may not be able to tell from my other writings on SN.
reply
I ended up doing economics, which has been fine, but part of me always wonders.
Come back. Just treat those years doing economics as your patent-clerk years~~ (I imagine the reference is clear).
When I started doing my PhD, after a few weeks, i got hit by the politics going on in the lab, including the fact one postdoc may or may not have slept with my boss to further her career. My illusion of people doing science for the sake of science got shattered. It's not all sunshine even in fundamental physics.
Luckily, i later got to work with people who truly love the science and have a level of intellectual integrity i can only aspire too.
reply
Haha, maybe once my kids are out of the house I may look at doing some amateur physics
I imagine everyone in academia has their stories of feeling jaded, since you usually enter it with some lofty ideas of what the research world is like.
reply
reply
Universities arrange courses on how to write a successful application and hire consultants to support this. Academics are assessing lists of past grantees to see how to position their research and steer toward “ERC-compatible” research. And above all, they spend months writing a proposal, with a funding success rate of a bit above 10 percent.
As a side note, LLMs have completely changed what it means to write a research proposal now. For better or worse, time will tell. I hope time will be spent better.
reply