No abstract

No abstract

The relationship between the distribution of research funding and scientific performance is a major discussion point in many science policy contexts. Do high shares of funding handed out to a limited number of elite scientists yield the most value for money, or is scientific progress better supported by allocating resources in smaller portions to more teams and individuals? In this review article, we seek to qualify discussions on the benefits and drawbacks of concentrating research funds on fewer individuals and groups. Based on an initial screening of 3,567 articles and a thorough examination of 92 papers, we present a condensation of central arguments. Further, we juxtapose key findings from 20 years of empirical research on the relation between the size of research grants and scientific performance. Overall, the review demonstrates a strong inclination toward arguments in favor of increased dispersal. A substantial body of empirical research also exhibits stagnant or diminishing returns to scale for the relationship between grant size and research performance. The findings question the rationale behind current funding trends and point toward more efficient ways to allocate resources. In addition, they highlight the need for more research on the interplay between science-internal mechanisms and policy priorities in accelerating concentration of funding.

Lycaenid butterflies of the Aricia agestisartaxerxes complex pose an unresolved taxonomic and conservation problem in northwestern Europe. Two key issues require resolution: (i) how many species of Aricia occur in northwestern Europe and what are their distributions?; (ii) how is the morphological variation observed in northwestern Europe best explained? We investigated phylogenetic relationships and phylogeographic patterns in this species group using mitochondrial and nuclear markers in comparison with morphological variation. A 325 bp fragment of the mitochondrial cytochromeb gene was sequenced from 179 individuals representing 18 populations from the UK and Scandinavia. Seventeen enzymecoding loci were analysed from 538 individuals from the same populations. Highly congruent phylogenies between mitochondrial and allozyme markers demonstrate that the sample is composed of two closely related species, A. agestis and A. artaxerxes. Both marker types also suggest that Scottish and northern Scandinavian A. artaxerxes populations are conspecific, and consequently do not support the endemic status of A. artaxerxes in the UK. The subspecies division of British populations of A. artaxerxes is also not supported by phylogenetic analyses. Allozyme and mitochondrial analyses cluster two populations from the Peak District, UK, differently. The former suggests that they are A. artaxerxes whilst the latter suggests they are A. agestis. Further research is required to find the reason for this disagreement, which could be associated with the different dynamics of nuclear and mitochondrial genes across a hybrid zone between the two species. © 2002 The Linnean Society of London, Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 2002, 75, 27–37.

No abstract

No abstract

This article outlines the evolution of a national research funding system over a timespan of more than 40 years and analyses the development from a rather stable Humboldt inspired floor funding model to a complex multi-tiered system in constant flux. Based on recent contributions to Historical Institutionalism it is shown how the system has changed gradually along a number of dimensions through layering-and displacement processes and how the sum of mainly minor adjustments over time has led to a radical transformation of the funding system as a whole. It is also shown that the traditional academically oriented research council system has been remarkable resilient against far-reaching restructuring attempts. This change resistance has, however, on several occasions led the political system to implement change through other funding channels which for prolonged periods of time has made the councils somewhat marginalized.

No abstract