News & Blog

Jan. 20, 2026—Across the global research landscape, long-standing funding models are under increasing strain. Growing expectations for societal impact and heightened scrutiny of research outcomes have prompted discussion about whether current approaches to funding science still serve their intended purposes. Heather Douglas, a professor of philosophy at Michigan State University, has contributed to this conversation in her examination of the social contract concept for science (and whether it still applies), while also proposing a more nuanced framework for aligning funding structures with research goals.

At the center of Douglas’ critique is the traditional distinction between “basic” and “applied” research, a framework that has shaped public research funding since the mid-20th century. This model emerged alongside what is often described as a postwar “social contract” for science, in which governments funded basic research, trusting that societal benefits would eventually follow a linear progression from discovery to application. While this framework helped justify public investment, Douglas argues that it no longer reflects today’s reality. A new framework is needed that encompasses what is researched and how it should be funded, based on the reasons for pursuing it.

Key Funding Structures

“The distinctions inherent in a new funding structure should clarify the role of public funding and how funding decisions should be made,” Douglas said. She proposes six types of research activity, with different approaches for funding and topic selection.

Curiosity-based research (often referred to as “basic” or “fundamental”) is driven by open-ended exploration rather than predefined outcomes. Because success cannot be reliably predicted, Douglas argues that competitive peer review by government funding agencies often fails to identify which projects will yield long-term value; a prominent example is the lack of NIH funding for early mRNA research. Instead, she proposes screened funding lotteries with smaller, widely distributed awards, which would reduce administrative burden (by eliminating panel review) and reduce PI grant proposal preparation time while preserving scientific freedom and acknowledging the inherently uncertain nature of discovery.

Engaged public research involves collaboration with specific communities or stakeholder groups that have a direct interest in the research outcomes. This can include patient-focused disease research or community-based research to solve a local problem. Project selection in this category should include interdisciplinary expertise as well as input from the interested community, recognizing that meaningful engagement requires additional time, trust, and accountability beyond traditional academic measures.

“This is the single-most underfunded category, and also the kind that builds the most public trust,” Douglas said.

Mission-directed research focuses on solving clearly defined problems, often tied to public priorities such as health, energy, or national security, or philanthropic interests. These efforts typically involve coordinated teams, clear milestones, and centralized management. In exchange for reduced autonomy, researchers gain stable funding and the ability to concentrate on shared objectives over time. Examples include focused research organizations (explained in this 3-Minute Read) and DARPA, as well as similarly structured ARPA programs (see this 3-Minute Read).

Regulatory research generates evidence that is directly used to inform policy, standards, and compliance decisions, such as studies needed for FDA or EPA product approval. Douglas argues that this work should be privately funded but routed through independent public institutions that allocate funds and oversee methods. This separation helps reduce conflicts of interest and strengthens confidence in research that informs regulatory action.

Big-science research infrastructure encompasses major facilities and long-term national investments that already involve public decision-making, such as supercolliders, fusion labs, and large datasets. Douglas suggests strengthening the process for making these investments through more explicit deliberation, including structured critique of large funding commitments and a neutral decision-making panel to ensure continued alignment with scientific priorities and public benefit.

Private-interest research serves proprietary or commercial goals. Douglas argues that these initiatives should be primarily funded by private actors, with some targeted public-private collaborations when strong national interests indicate such a need (structured using one of the options noted above).

Why It Matters

For university–industry partnerships, a one-size-fits-all funding model can create misaligned expectations and unnecessary friction. Douglas’ framework emphasizes the importance of aligning funding mechanisms, governance structures, and accountability measures with the intent and anticipated application of the research outcomes. Making these distinctions explicit can enhance transparency, facilitate more effective collaboration, and foster greater public trust in the research enterprise.

We want to hear from you. Share your thoughts on research funding models via our LinkedIn.

The 3-Minute Read is a UIDP member information piece and does not represent the opinions of our members or representatives. We welcome your comments on our LinkedIn profile.

Go Deeper

Douglas, H., & Branch, T. Y. (2024). The social contract for science and the value-free ideal. Synthese, 203, Article 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04477-9

Issues in Science and Technology. (2025, November 20). Was Science’s social contract “just a myth”? [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxWUZB-09zE

The HPS Podcast – Conversations from History, Philosophy and Social Studies of Science. (2025, August 7). S5 E4 – Heather Douglas on rethinking science’s social contract [Audio podcast episode]. Buzzsprout. https://thehpspodcast.buzzsprout.com/2180146/episodes/17629158-s5-e4-heather-douglas-on-rethinking-science-s-social-contract