Letter: Funding by 'peer review' helps tomorrow's Nobel scientists
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.I SHARE Tom Wilkie's pride in the achievements of our Nobel Laureates, many of whom, like Sir John Cornforth, have been role models for me and other research scientists of my generation. However, Wilkie confuses the absence of Nobel-class research in Britain with what he sees as poor treatment of our past research leaders ('A land unfit for genius', 16 October).
There is much wrong with the funding of British research in both its quantity and distribution. But to suggest that a Nobel prize-winner should be provided with funds as he wants them is to undermine further the fair allocation of a scarce resource. The process of 'peer review' ensures that projects receiving support are those that appear most deserving to fellow scientists independent, on the whole, of political interference. Allowing a select few to bypass this process is not only disruptive to those who work within it, it also means fewer funds are available for the younger researcher who may be producing prize-winning research.
This sort of special pleading does no favours for British science and draws attention away from the real problem: the Thatcherite distortion and shrinkage of public investment in scientific research.
Gavin Reynolds University of Sheffield
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments