Since the time scientific granting agencies were created more than half a century ago, the outpouring of scientific data has been staggering. The tree of knowledge has grown countless limbs and branches, some pointing in directions never dreamed possible. Yet, along with this phenomenal growth have come problems.

 

The most serious of these problems is the recent dearth of breakthroughs, i.e., of game-changing discoveries that have profoundly impacted our society. Many scientists acknowledge this problem. Others, including non-scientists, impressed by the massive outpouring of data and optimistic media releases, sense that impact must certainly be imminent given the astonishing mass of data. However, when pressed to cite half a dozen scientific discoveries (not technical advances) made over the past several decades that have already succeeded in changing the world, most cannot cite more than a handful. Realized breakthroughs have been in short supply.

 

Recognizing the gravity of this problem, the granting agencies have begun taking some measures to deal with it, especially in the US.

 

The NSF, in response to a letter-writing campaign to open the system to fresh ideas, instituted the “Frontiers in Biomedical Research” program in 2003. Shortly afterward, the National Science Board set up a commission to deal more extensively with the issue of transformative research, and following two years of deliberations and hearings the Board issued a unanimously approved report in 2006. The report concluded that the dearth of transformative research output was a problem of great seriousness, and instructed the NSF Director to develop plans to remedy the problem.

 

The NIH has tread along a similar pathway.  In response to another letter-writing campaign from scientists in 2003, Dr. Ellie Ehrenfeld, then Director of the Office of Scientific Review, set up a workshop in 2004 to deal with the matter of scientific conservatism. Three recommendations came forth. One was adopted by the NIH Director to become the NIH Director’s Pioneer Award. Another, more recent (December’ 07) NIH-sponsored workshop on “Fostering Innovation” brought many recommendations from a panel of distinguished scientists that included two Nobel Laureates. A new “NIH Director’s Transformative Award” came into being.

 

These decade-long campaigns and workshops have begun changing the face of the granting organizations. Both of those two organizations contain an increasing number of “transformative” programs, designed to identify and fund research that has paradigm-shifting potential. The US-Israel Binational Science Foundation has set up a similar one. Whether these programs are yet working as effectively as intended is a matter of debate. But what is clear is that the agencies themselves recognize that the breakthrough problem exists, and that something needs to be done about it if science is to advance at the expected pace.