Organisational structures and funding

These two topics are inextricably linked. Some 10 years ago, it became fashionable in the UK to argue that near-market research should be funded by the users. The stupidity of such a generalisation is well illustrated by medical research. Could a cancer-sufferer be expected to fund the research he did not know he was going to need or is the research cost to be added on to that of treatment at a time when he is least able to pay The weaknesses in the generalisation are such as to render further illustration superfluous. 

Every research area could provide examples of the damage done by the blanket application of the proposition. Even where it seems most relevant, there are regrettable consequences. If a drug company has to fund even the most fundamental research that might lead to profit, it will only embark on the development phase where a return on the huge investment can be foreseen. Thus minority requirements are of no interest small markets (for example, minor crops, diseases that only affect a few people or only poor people), air or sea pollution where no owner can be identified, and research where there is no product or service to sell - all will be ignored. 

The fact that the whole idea was flawed, based as it was on a grossly over-simplified model of the way research works, has been pointed out repeatedly. The Institute of Biology, for example, produced a Report (NRPG 1991) that illustrated the inadequacy of the linear model (fundamental — basic — applied research — development — markets), pointing 

ADAS - Pwllpeiran ADAS — Redesdale ADAS — Terrington 

Scottish Agricultural College Organic Farming Unit, Aberdeen 

---