Rising Tides and Targeted Science Funding: The Gain for Basic Research

A key point of Harvey Black's Feb. 18 article in The Scientist on targeted research initiatives and earmarking of funds1—that, by sidestepping peer review, this practice may subvert scientific inquiry and, more specifically, reduce funds for basic research—is a valid concern. However, criticism of targeted research programs on this tenet alone amounts to throwing the baby out with the bathwater. After all, these initiatives are often created to fill specific needs otherwise unmet or

Written byJeff Cheek

| 4 min read

Listen with Speechify

0:00

4:00

Admittedly, I am a biased observer on this issue. Colorado was one of the few states with the foresight to invest some of its proceeds (from the national Master Settlement Agreement with the tobacco industry) in research focused on tobacco use and its consequences. Modeled after the highly successful research program in California, which is supported by a tax on tobacco products,² the Colorado Tobacco Research Program (CTRP) funds a broad portfolio of projects ranging from molecular biology to policy analysis. Coordinated by the California program, CTRP applications undergo a rigorous peer review modeled after that of the National Institutes of Health. While this ensures that scientific excellence is maintained, the fact remains that our programs are mandated to support only research that is relevant to our mission—programs such as ours are indeed "targeted."

Ideally, a comprehensive funding agency should balance its support for both basic and applied sciences, since ...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!

Join for free today

Already a member? Login Here