With the American economic dominance since the second world war, there is a perception that the American way is the right way.

Not necessarily so.

Science in America is funded by a flawed process and that process is being exported to the rest of the world including Scotland.

Funds for scientific research in America are distributed on scientific merit. The scientific merit is judged by the lead scientist submitting an application which is then subjected to peer review. The bureaucrats at The National Institutes of Health and other funding bodies select other scientists who are prominent in the same field to review the application. These reviewers are the applicants peers.

In an ideal world, this system would be perfect. But we don't live in an ideal world.

The reality is that nothing radical or innovative will be funded since the "peers" represent the conservative consensus viewpoint.

The funding mechanism tends towards support for work that the "peers" are comfortable with. In this atmosphere, scientific breakthroughs are an incidental part of the system rather than the main object of the system.

The grant application must show evidence that the theory being proposed has some experimental basis. In other words, you have to show that the research you are proposing will be successful. This is illogical since if you know it is going to work, you don't need the money to do the research.

The other consequence of this requirement is that American scientists have to lie and cheat. They have to use some of the money for existing research to do the preliminary studies that will support their next application.

It should be possible to treat qualified scientists as trained professionals. Give them lab space and a basic budget, free of any constraints and let them follow their imaginations.

Too radical?

95% of current research money is wasted. The science that results is worthless. It is derivative, uninspired and serves to keep the researcher busy and out of trouble. The only benefit to society comes through these researchers teaching the next generation of scientists.

Grants tend to run for three to five years. If other funds are not secured to allow the work to continue after the initial grant period, the research group is broken up. A very valuable resource of trust, experience and community is lost. With secure funding, this would not happen.

Will money be wasted in an unrestrained system? Of course. Five or ten year reviews of a scientists published work will show if he or she deserves a place in the research community.

Scientists working today in the present system spend up to 50% of their time writing grant applications, reviewing other scientists applications or filing annual reports to show that they are following the protocol laid out in their original application.

A 50% productivity gain by a stroke of the pen is a rare event.

Scientific careers change. Some projects require collaboration between scientists. These various possibilities could be accomodated if there was a free market in these "Research Support Units". Say a scientist wants to take some time out from lab work to write a book. He or she could trade their "Research Support Unit" to another scientist who needs additional funds for a particular project. The trade would be for future considerations or other commodities within the scientific world.

Most of the scientists at the Calice Meeting in Manchester are having funding problems of one sort or another. Research funds are subject to political whim which is no basis for stable confident work in the lab.

I did discuss these proposals with a number of colleagues in Manchester. While lip service is paid to the ideal of peer review, most acknowledge that the practical reality is far from the ideal.

In a free and independent Scotland, we have the opportunity to give research scientists the freedom to do innovative work without bureaucratic interference.