Breaking the Cycle: Rethinking Global Research Funding and Evaluation Systems 🌍
-
In recent weeks, a heated debate erupted within the Chinese academic community. Frustrated early-career researchers, disappointed by repeated rejections from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), voiced radical ideas: rejecting papers from "big names" as an act of resistance. While this specific event may seem localized, the underlying dynamics resonate far beyond China. They reveal structural flaws in the global research funding ecosystem, from the United States to Europe, from Asia to Africa.
This article explores the core issues at stake: funding concentration, evaluation biases, and the urgent need for reform. More importantly, it reflects on what these challenges imply for the future of science and the people who make it happen.
1. The Global Dilemma of Funding Concentration
China’s funding rate for young investigator grants has reportedly dropped from 17.12% in 2022 to 12.29% in 2025. Similar trends can be observed worldwide:
- In the U.S., NIH R01 success rates hover around 20%, but younger investigators are disproportionately disadvantaged.
- In Europe, ERC Starting Grants are prestigious yet notoriously competitive, with success rates of only ~12%.
- In developing countries, national research grants are often underfunded, further amplifying inequality.
Across contexts, one pattern emerges: resources flow to established labs and star scientists. A single PI at a top university may secure more funding than entire institutions elsewhere. For early-career scholars, especially outside elite circles, the probability of success can dip below 5%.
2. Structural Inequalities in Evaluation Systems
️Evaluation mechanisms often reinforce these imbalances:
- Track Record Bias: Grant review panels heavily weigh past funding and publication history. This tilts outcomes toward those who are already successful, creating a “rich-get-richer” cycle.
- Peer Review Pitfalls: Many funding and journal review systems still operate in single-blind formats, where reviewers see author details. This makes it easy to infer institutional prestige and geographic origin, shaping unconscious biases.
- Career Bottlenecks: In some systems, winning a grant is not just about research; it's a career survival requirement. For instance, in several universities, tenure-track promotion is impossible without securing external funding.
The result? Young researchers face mounting pressure to prioritize grant-writing over research itself, distorting scientific priorities.
3. Staged Evaluation and Beyond
One reform idea gaining traction is staged or segmented evaluation:
- Stage One: Review the idea, its originality, feasibility, and potential impact, without considering prior funding or track record.
- Stage Two: Once the project passes the innovation filter, then assess the applicant’s background and infrastructure to determine support levels.
This approach could give bold, high-risk ideas from less-established researchers a fairer chance. The NSFC has hinted at such reforms, and similar discussions are ongoing at the NIH and ERC.
Other complementary reforms include:
- Double-blind peer review in both journals and grants.
- Diversity quotas to ensure geographic, institutional, and gender inclusivity.
- Seed funding models, where small, low-barrier grants nurture exploratory research before demanding full-scale proposals.
4. The Implications: Toward a More Inclusive Science
What does this mean for the future of global research?
- For early-career researchers: Stability and recognition beyond the binary of “grant or perish.”
- For institutions: A broader distribution of resources, fostering creativity in less-visible universities and labs.
- For science itself: A healthier ecosystem where progress is driven not just by entrenched elites but by a diverse set of voices and perspectives.
If left unaddressed, the current system risks breeding cynicism and disengagement among the very people science depends on most -- the next generation of scholars. The whispers of "collective rejection" may just be symbolic, but they are signals of a deeper discontent that resonates across borders.
5. Reform Is Not Optional
The discontent voiced in China is not an isolated cry: it’s a global chorus. Whether in Beijing, Boston, or Berlin, young scientists are struggling against entrenched hierarchies, limited resources, and evaluation systems that privilege the past over the future.
Reform (be it through staged reviews, blind evaluations, or broader distribution mechanisms) is not just desirable; it is necessary. Without it, we risk stifling the very innovation that research funding was designed to foster.
The challenge is clear: break the cycle of concentrated power, and reimagine research funding as a global commons. Only then can we unlock the true potential of science for all humanity.
