私人基金会与公立基金会资助科学的差异何在?——基于英国生物医学领域大规模资助样本的数据分析

Where Lies the Differences between Private and Public Research Foundations? A Large Scale Funding Data Analysis based on British Biomedical Field

公立基金会与私人基金会都是科研资助的重要力量,两者在不同的历史阶段都对科学的发展做出了巨大贡献。对两者资助差异性的分析是有效设计国家科研资助布局,提高科研资助效率的基础。以2009—2018年英国生物医学领域公立基金会与私人基金会资助项目、产出论文中所蕴含的多维数据信息为样本,构建了从投入端到产出端的全过程多维资助差异性分析模型。在传统的统计分析、文献计量方法的基础之上引入了内容分析的方法。基于长周期、大样本、多维度的数据分析,得出了如下结论:(1)公立基金会与私人基金会在资助重点上各有侧重,互为补充。(2)私人基金会在促进合作、提升学术水平、服务技术创新发展方面形成了有益的实践。(3)公立基金会的资助出现"新瓶装旧酒"的问题,而私人基金会的资助则产生"老树开新枝"的效果。基于数据分析所形成的结论为全面、深刻地认识两类基金会的资助差异,合理有效地开展政府科研资助布局与设计提供了证据支撑。最后,基于上述分析结论提出了对我国科学资助的相关政策建议。

Both public foundations and private foundations are important forces in scientific research funding, and both have made great contributions to the development of scientific research in different historical stages. The analysis of the differences between public foundations and private foundations is the basis of an effective national scientific research funding layout design.The topic has drawn the attention of both overseas and domestic scholars: Overseas scholars tend to adopt quantitative research methods, using funding data sample to analyze the differences between the two types of foundations;whilst domestic researchers focus more on quantitative methods to investigate in the traits of private foundations funding, yet most of which ignore the continuity and completeness of data sample, the diversity of views of research, in particular the combination of funding input data and research output data and synthesis of traditional analytical methods and newly-emerged technology. Therefore, this article selects multi-dimensional information contained in the funding projects and output papers funded by public and private foundations in the UK biomedical field from 2009 to 2018 as the data sample to construct a multi-dimensional funding difference analysis model. Besides the traditional statistical analysis and bibliometric methods, the paper also introduces a content analysis method based on machine learning algorithms.In a more detailed manner, the paper finds out that the differences between the two types of foundations lay in 3 aspects on funding input level: a. Public foundations enjoy a larger gross funding amount than private foundations;b. Public foundations tend to support research projects with a more conventional funding cycle, usually between 2 to 4 years, while private foundations tend to support projects either less than 1.5 years or more than 4.5 years;c. Public foundations tend to support research topics within a regular funding scale, usually between 300,000 to 1 million pounds, while private foundations tend to support research with either smaller or larger funding amount, usually less than 250,000 or more than 1 million pounds.In terms of research output performance, the study discovers the differences between the two types of foundations in3 ways: a. Private foundations show a bigger size of research teams and varieties than public ones;b. Private foundations present a better degree of research topic novelty than public foundations in terms of amount, proportions and time sequence;c. Private foundations enjoy a better research output performance than public ones in both academic output and impacts on technology innovation.Based on a long-term, large sample, and multi-dimensional analysis, the following conclusions have been drawn: a.Public foundations and private foundations have various funding priorities and complement each other. In recent year, both foundations are keeping searching for and adjusting their positions, in the sense that public foundations tend to be more’conventional’ in funding cycle project organization and project contents, yet private foundations appear to be more ’adventurous’. b. Private foundations have formed beneficial practices in promoting cooperation, improving academic performance, and serving technological innovation and development, which public foundations are worth learning from. c. The funding from public foundations is accused of "keeping old wine in new bottles", in the sense that public foundations tend to seek novelty through offering new names or creating fancier words to the same research topics, yet the output performance remain less surprising;While the funding from private foundations enjoy the effects of "old trees growing new branches", as meaning that in private foundations, though keeping the original funding framework, new research topics and directions are developed in an interesting manner. The above conclusions provide a basis for a more comprehensive and in-depth understanding of the funding differences between the two types of foundations, and also lay the groundwork for the rational and effective deployment and design of government scientific research funding.Finally, the paper offers three policy suggestions: a. The government shall learn from the private foundations and improve the current state funding system;b. The government shall set up a package of incentive mechanisms and encourage more funding from private foundations;c. Besides private foundations, entrepreneurial, provincial and municipal funding shall also be taken into the state research funding systems.