According to Howard Birnbaum, the “‘margarine method’ of spreading research funds equally thin among all possible recipients is a waste of resources.”
Quite the contrary. Despite the insulting sound, “margarine funding” is the best way to encourage serendipity, creativity, and originality in research. All university professors are expected to be efficient teachers and researchers. The highly competitive system of faculty appointments assures that, with rare exceptions, all university professors have the ability and training for both of those roles. Although equal grants for all are indeed impractical, there are viable and fiscally responsible alternatives to the present all-or-nothing funding model.
If we keep in mind the known rule of economics that the first dollars are the most cost-efficient, the funding model under which all active university researchers receive a small default grant, say, $3000 to $5000 per year (but could apply for higher amounts on a competitive basis, if they wish), makes much more sense, both economically and socially, than the “winner takes all” selectivity model. The award of such a minimal grant should be based only on evidence of ongoing productivity—for example, one or two peer-reviewed papers each year. No proposal writing should be required for these default grants, apart from perhaps a one-page summary that should not require a separate peer review if copies of the applicant’s peer-reviewed papers are attached. More details and an extensive bibliography can be found in reference 1 .
