Wilhelm Krull
Taking the Initiative. Risks and Opportunities in
Research Funding
Perspectives of Research – Identification and Implementation of
Research Topics by Organizations
Schloß Ringberg, May 3rd, 2006
Search Processes and Their Surprising Results
Some Characteristic Features of Researchers, Politicians and
Foundation Staff
Foundation people like to deal with risks and even with uncertainties, and if
they don‘t know how to solve the problem, they still remain confident that
they can find someone more knowledgeable to help them.
Researchers are sceptical to begin with, but they are usually convinced
that a new approach (paradigm, method, technique) can be developed and
subsequently contribute to finding a solution.
Politicians usually are activists, or at least have to pretend that they do
something useful. In any case, they can‘t afford to admit that they have not
succeeded in solving the problem.
In a dark room – searching for a black cat which isn‘t there – they take the
following approaches ...
I.
Changes and Challenges
II.
Strengths and Weaknesses
III.
Pre-Conditions of Creative Cultures and What Funding Organizations
Can Do
1. Competence
2. Courage
3. Communication
4. Innovativeness
5. Persistency/Perseverance
6. Diversity
7. Serendipity
IV.
The Role of Foundations
V.
More Research-Friendly Institutional Structures and Processes
VI.
Institutes for Advanced Study
VII.
Conclusion
I. Changes and Challenges
„Change is the only thing in the world which is
unchanging.“
Heraclites
I. Changes and Challenges
Political Challenges
During the next 20 years,
Europe’s economic paradigm
will change fundamentally.
While the manufacturing base
will continuously shrink, future
growth and social welfare will
rely increasingly on knowledgeintensive products and services.
Since the late 1980s, Europe has
been witnessing dramatic changes in
its political and economic structures.
An ageing continent will have to
innovate intensely.
Priority-setting will become even
more important in the future.
I. Changes and Challenges
Major Changes and Challenges in Research and Higher
Education
 Electronic Impact on the creation, distribution, and absorption of new
knowledge.
 The increased emphasis on transdisciplinary approaches.
 The move from bi-, or trilateral internationalisation towards network
approaches and strategic alliances in higher education and research.
 The changing public private interface and its consequences for the
division of labour in our RTD systems.
 The need to integrate evaluation, foresight and priority-setting, and to
increase public involvement.
 The growing public concern about recent scientific developments,
particularly in the area of stem cell research and the use of the human
genome.
I. Changes and Challenges
R&D Expenditure as a Percentage of GDP in the EU, China,
Japan and the USA in 2003
EU-Goal 3%
in Bill. €
Sweden
4.3
Finland
3.5
Germany
4.6
2.5
Denmark
10.5
51.5
4.3
2.4
France
2.2
32.9
Belgium
2.2
5.5
Austria
1.9
4.0
Netherlands
1.9
7.8
Great Britain
30.3
1.8
Luxembourg
0.4
1.7
Ireland
1.3
1.2
Italy
Japan
1.1
Spain
0.8
Greece
2.8
USA
EU-15
1.0
Portugal
3.0
China
1.9
6.2
1.0
1.2
0.8
0.7
0
12.5
1
2
3
4
5
II. Strengths and Weaknesses
Performance Indicators
Region
Tertiary
graduates
2001
Growth per
year in 200103 (%)
PhD
graduates
2001
Researchers
per 1000
labour force
2003
EU-25
2.956.000
4.2
85.000
5.5
USA
2.174.000
6.5
44.200
9.0
Japan
1.068.000
-0.6
13.600
9.7
China
1.948.000
32.1
12.900
1.0
In the 2005 Shanghai University ranking of the best universities, only
two of the top 20 were European, while 17 were American. Among the
Top 500 we find 40 German universities, 38 British, and 168 American
universities.
II. Strengths and Weaknesses
Publication of Scientific Papers.
Proportion of total papers published in %
The EU represents the largest source of scientific publications
50
40
Europe
United States
30
Asia-Pacific
region
20
10
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
III. Strengths and Weaknesses
European Research in Global Competition
 Europe faces increased global competition – particularly in the field of
research and technological development
 The rapid growth of scientific output in Asia-Pacific nation is in stark
contrast to slow growth in Europe and stagnation in the US. Within six
or seven years the Asia Pacific region will exceed the US.
 In a number of relative indicators – such as publications per inhabitant,
per scientist or publications per million Euros spent in our universities
– the EU also leads the US and Japan.
 In ‘triad patents’ per million spent in business R&D, some European
countries – Germany, Sweden, and the Netherlands – clearly
outperform Japan and the US.
 Research is not supported sufficiently in Europe, particularly with
respect to risky, open-ended ‘frontier research’.
III. Strengths and Weaknesses
The Rapidity of Change and the Slowness of Institutional
Response

Europe has been loosing ground in the field of basic breakthroughs.
Fifty years ago, European scientists dominated the Nobel Price
lists. Today, Nobel prices and similarly prestigious awards are won
mainly by scientists working in the USA.

The gap in R&D-investments between the EU and the US is steadily
increasing.
Apart from a few research areas such as astrophysics, space
research, nuclear physics, and molecular biology, Europe suffers
from an almost total lack of transnational support of basic and
strategic research.
More emphasis on excellence and transnational competition (ERC)
may help to reverse the trend.


III. Pre-Conditions of Creative Cultures
Pre-Conditions of Creative Cultures and what FundingOrganisations Can Do
Competence
Courage
Communication
Diversity
Persistency/Perseverance
Innovativeness
Serendipity
1. Competence
1. Competence
Differentiation in quality and excellence
Competence can best be developed in an intellectually stimulating
environment. It takes time, trust, and considerable investments.
Concentration of funding not just on researchers that are already excellent,
but also on those who have the potential to become excellent. – Attracting
the next generation.
‘Talens scouts’ needed?
1. Competence
Attracting the next Generation of Researchers
 Identify the most promising undergraduates early on.
 Qualifications gained in national institutions must be valid
throughout Europe.
 Young researchers should pursue their own ideas much earlier and
more independently. Because German researchers finish their
doctoral training at the average age of 33, their need to gain
scientific independence quickly is even greater and more difficult to
achieve than for their counterparts in countries where the graduation
age is much lower.
 The flow of highly qualified researchers between countries and
between private and public sectors requires more flexibility and
permeability.
 Universities and research institutions have to provide attractive
career prospects, including tenure track options.
1. Competence
How Should Young Researchers be Trained in Their Disciplines?
A more structured graduate and doctoral education is necessary
New curricula also have to comprise non-disciplinary topics such as
- intellectual property,
- science ethics,
- history of the discipline,
- interpersonal communication,
- media skills
The aim should be to enable the researcher to explain and communicate
- what his research is about,
- how he is conducting it,
- and especially why he is doing it
He or she should become a ‘steward of a discipline’.
1. Competence
‚Steward of a Discipline‘
„The Ph.D. holder should be capable of generating new knowledge and
defending knowledge claims against challenges and criticism; of
conserving the most important ideas and findings that are a legacy of past
and current work; and of transforming knowledge that has been generated
and conserved into powerful pedagogies of engagement, understanding
and application […]”
“The formulation of stewardship is discipline-specific. […] We are
committed to locating this initiative in the context of each discipline,
recognizing that there will be discipline-specific lessons as well as crossdisciplinary insights to be gained.”
George Walker, Senior Scholar
Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching
2. Courage
2. Courage
Researchers and funders must both be courageous and adventurous.
Based on their autonomy, foundations can and should provide incentives
for research in promising areas and stimulate new developments.
They should use their independence to
make offers to researchers in fields that are underdeveloped,
or appear to be particularly promising
support high-risk projects which do not receive public support
foster research in and on regions and countries that are not on
current political agendas.
2. Courage
Examples from The Funding-Portfolio of The Volkswagen
Foundation (I)
Dynamics and Adaptivity of Neuronal Systems: Integrative Approaches to
Analyzing Cognitive Functions.
 Support of pilot-projects to develop a promising field, at a point in
time where this field was not supported by public funders - (Funding
an MEG at the University of Konstanz in 1995).
 More than 80 % of the projects funded were international cooperations.
 Support of international co-operation: all partners are funded based
only on scientific merit.
The expost-evaluation of success and failure (‘impact’) of the initiative
by an international expert panel has just started.
2. Courage
Physics, chemistry, and biology with single molecules (SM)
Examples from The Funding-Portfolio of The Volkswagen
Foundation (II)
12 March 1999
1996 – 1997
first hint on SM (G. Wegner, MPI Mainz),
draft paper on physics & chemistry with SM
(C. von Borcyszkowski, TU Chemnitz, et al.),
interdisciplinary peer review panel suggests to
include biology with SM.
Nov. 1997
establishment of the funding initiative
1998 – 2003
grants: 15.6 million Euro for 53 research
projects (incl. project extensions), four status
symposia, and two summer schools,
Oct. 2002: 16 project leaders got tenure.
Nov. 2002
closing of the funding initiative
… The specific advantages of single-molecule studies will prove crucial in many fields,
in applications as well as in fundamental investigations. … [W.E. Moerner and M. Orrit]
3. Communication
3. Communication
Thought-provoking discussions are essential to scientific progress.
It is an important task of researchers and funding-institutions to:
 foster interdisciplinary and intercultural exchange
 strenghten the interaction between international and German
researchers by:
configuring adequate research structures
establishing study groups
developing research networks and exchange-programs
 foster the cooperation between research centres and universities in
Germany
 address their role in society.
3. Communication
Traditional vs. New Roles for Researchers
Traditional roles
New roles
Transfer of knowledge to selected
target groups
Actively shape broader public
perception and participation
Provide facts and results
Offer compelling stories and guidance in
action
One-way flow of communication:
transmitter-receiver asymmetries
Interactive, dialogical communication:
achieving symmetric dialogue
Support scientific literacy of interested
audiences
Build trust and form research-friendly
attitudes
Foster public understanding of
science
Create public appreciation and
opportunities for public involvement in
science and technology
4. Innovativeness
4. Innovativeness
To foster innovativeness is to appreciate unconventional ways of thinking.
Radically new approaches and transformative research endeavours
require different modes of communication, selection, and support
(successive grants, long term commitments).
The challenge remains how to separate the wheat from the chaff without
discouraging the most original thinkers and creative researchers.
4. Innovativeness
163
5. Persistency
5. Persistency/Perseverance
The involvement of funding-institutions should be based on trust and longterm commitment instead of brand making and short-term financing.
Trust
Quality assurance and
evaluation
6. Diversity
6. Diversity
A clear need for more transdisciplinary approaches and new
opportunities for young researchers

Need for a realignment between scientific values and society’s
needs

Common wisdom: new knowledge is usually formed at the
boundaries of established fields. Interfaces must be activated.

Subject-oriented organisation of European universities and
corresponding career patterns do not work in favour of problemoriented research approaches

Marked emphasis of universities on discipline-based specialisation
prevents researchers from committing themselves to inter- and
trans-disciplinary research.
6. Diversity
Discipline-Based versus Problem-Oriented Research
Discipline
Problem
Rigor
Relevance
Stability
Change
Paradigm
Complexity
University career
Career in Research
Institutions
Graduate schools may offer a way out ...
6. Diversity
An Increase in Diversity and Size May Create a Decrease in
Integration and Flexibility and Inhibit Progress in Research
high
Breakthroughs
Degree of
Communication
Degree of Scientific Diversity
Source: J. Rogers Hollingsworth: The Role of Organizations and
Institutions in the Innovation Process, 2003
high
6. Diversity
How to Encourage Transformative Research
The aim of private funding of transformative research must be to
- overcome disciplinary boundaries and
- to put new research topics, fields, structures, and approaches on the
research agenda.
Transformative research only scarcely originates on its own. The readiness
to engage in ground-breaking research has to be encouraged and
facilitated.
The needs for transformative approaches and for new opportunities for
young researchers have to be tackled as two sides of the same coin.
Examples: ‘Showcase’ (Wellcome Trust), and ‘Off the Beaten Track’
(VolkswagenStiftung). Committee of the U.S. Science Board on
transformative research.
6. Diversity
Trust in Public Institutions Versus Institution Building
Private Institution
Building by
Foundations
Privately operated institutions
with the goal of offering an
alternative to the education
provided at German state
universities.
Continuous Support of
Public Institutions with an
Emphasis on Structural and
Topical Renewal
7. Serendipidy
7. Serendipidy - Giving Time and More
Creativity needs room for the unexpected. The most important
prerequisites for a successfully performing research institution are
research-friendly, inspiring environments, as well as efficient governance
and decision-making structures.
Efficient and effective administrative structures support scientists in
research and teaching and unburden them as far as possible from
bureaucratic responsibilities. They provide the researchers with as much
time and space as possible to interact with their colleagues and to focus on
their respective research questions.
Nevertheless, inspiring thoughts can not be planned for.
7. Serendipidy
Richard Feynman and The Wobbling Plate
Legend has it that observing a wobbling plate snapped Feynman out of a
period of burnout - the episode is described in "The Dignified Professor", in
Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman, pg. 157-158.
“It was effortless. It was easy to play with these things. It was like
uncorking a bottle: Everything flowed out effortlessly. I almost tried to resist
it! There was no importance to what I was doing, but ultimately there was.
The diagrams and the whole business that I got the Nobel Prize for came
from that piddling around with the wobbling plate.”
7. Serendipidy
Success and Failure in the Labyrinth of Research
Cabinet Office: R&D Assessment. A Guide for Customers and Managers of Research and
Development. London 1989,12.
IV. The Role of Foundations
Foundations in Europe
 European foundations are a very heterogeneous pool of institutions
whose defining characteristics often depend on local factors and the
regulatory environment.
 In comparison to the US, foundations in Europe have played a less
prominent role until now.
 In recent years the importance of foundations has significantly grown.
According to the latest comparative statistics in Italy and Germany,
around 50 percent of registered foundations have emerged since 1990,
while other countries such as Belgium, Finland, France and Sweden
report between 19 and 29 per cent increases in the number of
foundations.
IV. The Role of Foundations
The Role of Foundations in Encouraging Change
 Unlike publicly financed agencies which have to provide equal
opportunities for all institutions, private foundations
- can act much more freely, flexibly, and quickly
- can put objectives in front of rules and regulations
- do not have to wait for political consensus
 They can act autonomously
- in supporting the first experiments in new areas,
- in taking risks
- in being front runners in institutional reform.
IV. The Role of Foundations
Due to the perpetuity of their funds, foundations have the capacity to be
reliable partners, willing to foster risky projects, and to help researchers
to break new grounds
They are independent from election periods, but also independent from
shareholders’ views
They can strive to give insights, to develop ideas, and to find solutions
where politicians, or industry cannot or do not want to embark upon
such endeavours
Their independency contributes to the inspiring effect that private
funding has on the development of research and higher education, but
also to the willingness of citizens and enterprises to spend their money
on these purposes.
IV. The Role of Foundations
Limits and Limitations of Foundations
Given the billions of Euros spent by public authorities and enterprises, the
impact of comparatively small-scale foundations is limited.
Therefore, foundations heavily rely on partnerships.
Nevertheless, foundations have the flexibility to quickly respond to the
needs of the research community, to pilot projects, and trigger spending on
research by bigger funders.
By fostering risky projects, encouraging change, and helping the most
creative researchers to break new grounds foundations can create at least
a few islands of success.
V. More Research-Friendly Institutional Structures
The Urgent Need for More Research-Friendly Institutional
Structures and Processes (I)
The most important prerequisites for a successfully performing research
institution are inspiring environments as well as research-friendly and
efficient governance and decision-making structures.
A move towards a more professionally organized and autonomous
university is needed.
Therefore, research institutions have to:
constantly tap their resources and realize their potential,
ensure efficiency in their spending,
accelerate and simplify their processes,
intensify communication within the organization and beyond.
V. More Research-Friendly Institutional Structures
The Urgent Need for More Research-Friendly Institutional
Structures and Processes (II)
 Foundations can encourage and support institutions and their
leaders to engage in change processes towards achieving research-,
and innovation-friendly structures
 Two basic concepts are institutional conditions sine qua non for
ground breaking research:
-
an organisational structure which facilitates
crossdisciplinary interaction,
-
strong leadership connected with very high quality
standards
 Research institutions have reacted to the increasing complexity of
knowledge creation and research with an increase in size and
diversity. This often creates an increase in bureaucracy and
hierarchic structures.
VI. Institutes for Advanced Study
Institutes for Advanced Study - Islands of Success
The goal of an Institute for Advanced Study, of which the first was founded
in 1930 in Princeton, is to offer outstanding researchers the opportunity to
concentrate on their chosen research projects, and to absorb ideas and
inspirations from other disciplines and differing national traditions of
science and scholarship.
An intellectually heterogeneous atmosphere often produces a productive
friction that modifies a Fellow's own approach, and thus leads to lasting
innovations. This special form of critical self-examination is possible only in
a framework of freedom and intellectual richness resulting from the
simultaneous presence of a variety of schools of thought.
VI. Institutes for Advanced Study
Institutes for Advanced Study - Islands of Success
Instead of becoming new ivory towers in an otherwise still suffering
research environment, Institutes for Advanced Study can be also be the
starting point for social and political engagement of their fellows.
The pause for thought provided by Institutes for Advanced Study is often
being used by their fellows to rethink and reconfigure their own priorities
and ultimately engage in new fields of research.
Many universities are currently considering to establish a kind of institute
for advanced study, including elements of graduate education. They are
designed to serve as breeding grounds for new ideas and thus as
incubators for subsequently to be conducted transformative research.
VI. Institutes for Advanced Study
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
The selfexplained goal of FIAS is to link up strong scientific capacities in
the Frankfurt area with the stimulation of theoretical research in those
disciplines which run the risk of falling behind in the attempt to understand
the rapidly accumulating experimental data and facts.
The Institute has primarily the purpose to serve as a superstructure for
basic research, bringing together theorists from the disciplines of physics,
chemistry and biology in a common organisational and intellectual
framework.
VI. Institutes for Advanced Study
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
It is planned to implement:
 Up to 12 positions for Senior Fellows and Fellows (some of them
tenured) and one Philosopher in Residence (non-tenured) at the
level of Full Professors or Associate Professors.
 Up to 15 Junior Fellows (at the level of "Junior Professors" recently
established in Germany, basically corresponding to Assistant
Professors) with non-tenured positions.
 About 24 scholarships for graduate students, the latter being
recruited from the attached Frankfurt International Graduate
School for Science (FIGSS).
VI. Institutes for Advanced Study
VII. Conclusion
Conclusion: Mutual Risk-Taking Instead of Individual Risk
Avoidance.
 Allow for more ‚creative spaces‘ within large grants, e.g.
collaborative research units, centres, and clusters.
 New modes of funding required, e.g. medium-, to long-term
fellowships up to ten years (Lichtenberg; Dilthey; Schumpeter;
Royal Society; Wellcome Trust).
 Time and space for some thorough rethinking of common wisdom
needed, e.g. research professorships and extra grants for senior
researchers (Institut universitaire de France membership for five
years; „opus magnus“ for two years).
 Reconfigure the review process, and actively encourage risk-taking
by applicants, reviewers, and decision-makers, e.g. based on a two
stage process including presentations and interviews.
VII. Conclusion
Conclusion
More competition for prestigious grants and awards will hopefully lead to
an enhanced competitiveness of European research.
Many challenges can only be met, if we take a long view. We must be
prepared to exercise judgement, and to make long term commitments
whilst maintaining the flexibility to respond to new challenges.
“It’s not enough that we do our best; sometimes
we have to do what’s required.”
Sir Winston Churchill