2025-02-11

Japan can be a science heavyweight once more — if it rethinks funding

Japanese funding agencies predominantly support research within strict disciplinary boundaries, leading to underfunding of interdisciplinary research and missed breakthrough opportunities. The authors propose five directions to foster interdisciplinary research in Japan, including shifting to researcher-focused funding and embracing high-risk projects, while highlighting successful models like OIST's approach to cross-disciplinary collaboration.

Original archive.is archive.ph web.archive.org

Log in to get one-click access to archived versions of this article.

read comments on news aggregators:

Related articles

The NIH is Being Slashed and Burned, not “Reformed”

The NIH's recent 15% cap on indirect funding to grantees is facing legal challenges and criticism, as only Congress can legally modify NIH funding formulas. Concerns arise about the impact on research institutions, particularly state universities, with potential significant budget reductions affecting biomedical innovation. The policy change threatens America's global leadership in biomedical research, with estimates suggesting Harvard alone could lose $70 million in funding.

John Carlos Baez (@johncarlosbaez@mathstodon.xyz)

Senator Ted Cruz released a database of over 3,400 NSF grants totaling $2.05 billion, labeling them as 'woke DEI grants' based on keyword mentions of social justice, race, gender, and environmental justice. The controversy includes legitimate research projects like Emily Riehl's mathematical work, raising concerns about academic freedom and potential impacts on researchers' careers.

What's Happening Inside the NIH and NSF

A detailed expose of the Trump Administration's unprecedented actions to disrupt and restructure US scientific funding agencies, including NIH, NSF, and CDC, through funding freezes, communication bans, and policy changes. Recent directives have targeted diversity programs, restricted scientific communications, and caused widespread uncertainty among researchers and staff, leading to potential long-term impacts on American scientific research.