What was Missing in Australia's $1.9 Billion Infrastructure Announcement
It’s not hard to get excited over money that will support imaging of the Earth, or the Atlas of Living Australia. But important as these projects are, there’s a whole set of infrastructure that rarely gets mentioned or noticed: “soft” infrastructure. These are the services, policies or practices that keep academic research working and, now, open.
The US now faces a dilemma over the future of this national achievement and the supporting arrangements making it sustainable. The ‘social contract’ for science and research now looks more tentative than at any time since the Space Race.
Australian Budget Delivers for Science Facilities and Medical Research
Research facilities and medicine were among the winners for science in Australia's 2018/19 national budget. The government will push to invest almost Aus$1.9 billion (US$1.4 billion) over the next 12 years in shared research infrastructure. Scientists welcome relative windfall after years of stagnating funds.
European Commission Proposes EUR100B for Research Programme
The European Commission outlined a €100 billion budget for its new research programme, running between 2021 and 2027. The figure includes €97.6 billion for Horizon Europe, that’s an increase of almost 30%.
A Commission factsheet puts the R&I total at €114.8 billion from 2021-2027 – or just about 10 percent of the overall EU budget. But even that number leaves out many other research activities scattered around the Commission.
Federal Partners Release Interagency Strategic Plan for Microbiome Research
A group of 23 U.S. government agencies, including the NSF, have joined to produce the Interagency Strategic Plan for Microbiome Research, which outlines the objectives, structure and principles for coordinated research in this important field of study.
Scientists' Early Grant Success Fuels Further Funding
A new paper suggests that positive feedback in funding may be a key mechanism through which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few extremely successful scholars, but also that the origins of emergent distinction in scientists' careers may be of an arbitrary nature.
Article suggesting that positive feedback in funding may be a key mechanism through which money is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few extremely successful scholars, but also that the origins of emergent distinction in scientists' careers may be of an arbitrary nature. (The article is closed access and requires a subscription to view the full text legally.)