Surreal illustration of scientists racing through a maze for funding.

Is Competitive Research Funding Really Worth It? Unveiling the Hidden Costs

Author's portrait.
Jordan Keane in Mind & Education August 2025 • 4 min read.

"A deep dive into the economics, ethics, and practical implications of how we distribute research dollars."


Science is expensive. Globally, nations invest billions annually in research, expecting breakthroughs that drive economic growth, improve health, and enrich culture. But how efficiently are these funds allocated? Society expects the greatest social benefits from research, yet, the process of determining 'the greatest social benefits' is disagreed upon.

Despite the massive scale of investment, rigorous analysis of science funding mechanisms has lagged. Now, a growing field of study is beginning to tackle this gap, questioning the very foundations of how research dollars are distributed. Determining the best way to allocate resources remains a complex challenge, due to the system's inherent complexity, nonlinearity, and multidimensionality.

One of the core issues lies in defining 'excellence.' While policymakers and scientists often agree that excellence should be funded, the term itself is ambiguous and open to interpretation. The lack of consensus and the increasing scrutiny around the term 'excellence' is viewed with suspicion. All these factors make it challenging to identify and test causal connections. Ultimately, a conceptual and empirical analysis of research funding allocation is crucial to optimize the entire system.

The High Stakes of Competition: What Are the Real Costs?

Surreal illustration of scientists racing through a maze for funding.

Competitive funding systems are the norm. Scientists compete for limited resources by writing proposals. But this model has hidden costs that extend beyond the obvious. These costs span economic, epistemic (knowledge-related), social, and ethical dimensions.

Let's break down these often-overlooked costs:

  • Economic Costs: Time spent writing proposals, the review process, and administrative overhead. Studies show that a significant portion of research funding is consumed by the application process itself, potentially negating the financial benefits.
  • Epistemic Costs: Competitive funding can discourage high-risk, groundbreaking research in favor of more conservative, 'safe' projects. This can stifle innovation and slow scientific progress.
  • Social and Ethical Costs: The pressure to win funding can negatively impact researchers' mental health, work-life balance, and even their decisions about family. It can also incentivize questionable research practices and erode collegiality within the scientific community.
These factors create a high-pressure environment that may ultimately undermine the goals of scientific advancement.

A Path Forward: Reimagining How We Fund Science

The current competitive funding landscape has strengths and weaknesses, but it's time to ask if we can improve. The study identifies several key areas for further research and potential change: Data Accessibility: Making application and decision data public to analyze the current system and evaluate the impact of changes. Alternative Evaluation Systems: Experimentally testing and comparing different evaluation methods, not just relying on traditional peer review. Alternative Distribution Systems: Exploring funding models like lotteries, base funding, or targeted funding based on peer nominations. Social and Ethical Costs: Delving deeper into the impact of funding models on researchers' well-being and research integrity.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

Everything You Need To Know

1

What are the primary reasons that nations invest heavily in research?

Nations invest billions annually in research globally expecting breakthroughs that will drive economic growth, improve health outcomes, and enrich culture. The desired result of these investments is to maximize the social benefits derived from research. However, the process for determining how best to achieve those social benefits remains a point of disagreement and ongoing study. Further study is needed to help optimize the entire system.

2

What are the major drawbacks of competitive research funding systems?

Competitive funding systems have several hidden costs that extend beyond the obvious. These costs can be categorized into economic costs related to the time spent writing proposals and administrative overhead, epistemic costs where high-risk research is discouraged, and social and ethical costs that can negatively impact researchers' mental health and work-life balance. This high-pressure environment may undermine the progress of scientific advancement.

3

How does the ambiguity surrounding the term 'excellence' affect research funding?

The term 'excellence' is often used as a criterion for research funding, but its definition is ambiguous. The lack of consensus and increasing scrutiny around the term, makes it difficult to identify and test causal connections. This ambiguity challenges the process of determining which research should receive funding.

4

What alternative approaches to research funding distribution are being considered?

Several alternative distribution systems are being explored as potential improvements over traditional competitive funding. These include models like lotteries, which would randomly allocate funds; base funding, providing a baseline level of support to researchers; and targeted funding based on peer nominations. Each alternative aims to address the drawbacks associated with competitive grants.

5

What impact does the pressure to secure research funding have on researchers and the scientific community?

The pressure to win funding can have significant negative impacts. Researchers may experience mental health challenges and a poor work-life balance. Additionally, this pressure can incentivize questionable research practices and erode collegiality within the scientific community. Further research is needed to assess the impact of current funding models on researchers' well-being and research integrity.

Newsletter Subscribe

Subscribe to get the latest articles and insights directly in your inbox.