Vol. XLII, No. 4, Summer 2026
By Heather Douglas
In “A Science Funding System Beyond the Linear Model” (Issues, Spring 2026), Heather Douglas asks funders to move past the distinction between “basic” and “applied” research. She proposes six categories: mission-directed research, engaged public research, private-interest research, regulatory research, Big Science infrastructure, and curiosity-based research. Each would have its own funding structure and standards of evaluation, rather than being judged by publications, citations, future grants, and claims about eventual public benefit.
The author’s proposal is the rare critique that is as actionable as it is creative. It requires no radical politics; it should have bipartisan appeal; and it is crafted specifically to fit the vagaries of the modern scientific enterprise.
The proposed taxonomy also makes it easier to see how funding decisions become career pressures: The more a project depends on collaboration, public accountability, or long timelines, the less likely it is to fit the metrics that still govern hiring, tenure, and promotion. Early-career researchers are often asked to pursue ambitious work while also producing steady publications and winning grants. Interdisciplinary researchers face similar pressure when their work does not fit a department’s expectations. Community-engaged researchers take on the additional labor of building relationships, maintaining trust, and producing outcomes outside the university, even when those activities are not fully counted as scholarship.
Importantly, Douglas’s proposal extends beyond funding agencies. If different kinds of research require different forms of accountability, then hiring, tenure, and promotion systems need to recognize those differences. Otherwise, the categories change for funders but not for careers.
Engaged public research is the clearest example. Douglas notes that this work often requires interdisciplinary teams, long timelines, and sustained communication with public partners. It may produce slower publication cycles, and its success may depend on whether the relevant community judges the work to be responsive and useful. If tenure committees continue to treat journal articles and grant totals as the main evidence of achievement, then engaged public research will remain professionally risky, even with a dedicated funding category.
If tenure committees continue to treat journal articles and grant totals as the main evidence of achievement, then engaged public research will remain professionally risky, even with a dedicated funding category.
The same issue appears elsewhere. Regulatory research should be judged by independence, transparency, and usefulness for public decisionmaking, not by whether it produces commercially attractive results. Big Science infrastructure raises questions about contribution, credit, governance, and opportunity cost that individual publication counts cannot capture. Mission-directed research may involve redirection or termination when a project no longer serves its mission, which can look like failure if academic evaluation ignores the structure of the work.
Curiosity-based research, especially under a lottery system, raises another problem. A lottery may reduce conservatism, bias, and the Matthew effect that disproportionately rewards eminent or famous scientists, but it also makes explicit what is already true: Funding outcomes contain uncertainty. If universities continue to use external funding as a proxy for quality, then early-career scientists could remain exposed to a familiar danger: no grant money, no prestige, no career advancement.
Douglas’s funding ontology should therefore be paired with reforms in academic evaluation. Departments should consider what kind of research a scholar is doing before evaluating productivity. Without such an alignment, funding reform may reduce some institutional risks while leaving the professional ones intact.
Associate Professor of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Yale University
Founding Director, Yale Initiative for Science and Society
Resident Professor, Santa Fe Institute
“What Kind of Research Do You Do?” Issues in Science and Technology 42, no. 4 (Summer 2026).
Over four decades, Issues has hosted many articles discussing science’s “social contract”—the idea, as physicist Harvey Brooks articulated it in 1988, that the scientific enterprise would provide “social benefits in exchange for an unusual degree of self-governance and financial support free of strings.” Today, this contract is clearly defunct: The federal government has cut funding for science, cast doubt on scientific findings, and prioritized investment in research outside the university system. Whatever the future of federally funded science is, it’s no longer “free of strings.” As the scientific enterprise tries to decide how to respond, it first needs to figure out what happened. This collection is part of an exploration of science’s social contract that is generously supported by The Kavli Foundation, Rita Allen Foundation, and Dana Foundation.
Alana Quinn
American astronomer Henrietta Swan Leavitt’s research laid the foundation for modern astronomy’s understanding of the structure and size of the universe.
Antonio Delgado Fornaguera, Sara Frueh
Copyright © 2026 Arizona Board of Regents. All Rights Reserved.
PO Box 877705, Tempe, AZ 85287
The material published on this site reflects the views of the individual authors only, not the policy or opinion of any institution or organization.
Sign up for the Issues in Science and Technology newsletter to get the latest policy insights delivered direct to your inbox. When you do, you’ll receive a special offer for nearly 50% off a one-year subscription to the magazine—or simply subscribe now at this special rate.