A week after my arrival in Tokyo from Taipei I read an interesting article (http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/is-there-a-creativity-deficit-in-science/) on Ars Technica about the process of rewarding funds for scientific research. Ars Technica is a technology news and information website that frequently covers interesting scientific discoveries, or informs the public about the current status of scientific funding. The article, titled 'Is there a creativity deficit in science?' by Ben McNeil, is well worth reading. Even though it focuses mostly on funding in the medical sciences and in particular on the role of the USA's National Institutes of Health (NIH), the largest public funding organisation worldwide, it draws certain conclusions about scientific funding that are applicable globally.

First, only proposals that pass unscathed through intense peer review are funded. However, a proposal that is immune to criticism is, by design, a cautious one that takes minimal risks and provides incremental results. Ideas that are 'Vague, but exciting', as Mark Sendall commented on Tim Berners-Lee's propsal to create the World Wide Web, are often considered too high risk and are killed during the peer review process. Indeed 'any one reviewer can kill a grant proposal based on arbitrary metrics of quality -- or even if they suspect the idea just won't work', the article states. Unfortunately, this is all too true. This vested power by reviewers has likely caused the shift towards conservatism and taking minimal risks in proposals, which is the reason for the current creativity deficit.

Second, proposals that tend to get funded are those where the work has already been done. Indeed, it is 'extremely difficult to obtain funding for groundbreaking, high-risk research', but proposals for which the experiments are already done and for which one can show convincing preliminary data have a much higher chance of success. Japan's Kakenhi system is no exception: it is said that often only those proposals where the results are known beforehand will be funded. Thus, if I want extra funding I feel obliged to follow this trend, even if the final proposal may not be very exciting.

Third, and maybe most importantly, once again turning to the NIH, the fraction of scientific funding that goes towards researchers below age 37 has plummeted by a factor of six in the last three decades. This is compensated by the funding flowing towards older and more established researchers. This trend does not apply just to the NIH but exists in other sciences too. It is said that the decade following age 30 is the golden age for scientific research, before the `curse of knowledge' begins to set in: a cognitive bias where experience stifles one's ability to produce or accept new, unconventional and creative ideas. Yet it seems these young, potentially brilliant researchers have little chance of doing their work and getting funded. The problem is not a shortage of money, but an unwillingness for the reviewers to reward risks. This brings me to ELSI.

At ELSI it is of vital importance that we avoid the above traps when it comes to funding, rewards and interaction. It is imperative that we take risks, that we discuss ideas that may be outrageous but where the benefits and results could be outstanding. Simultaneously we should also allow ourselves to follow ideas that are deemed crazy by our peers without repercussion. From my experience scientific institutes that welcome new ideas from all ranks usually flourish and provide a dynamic environment to work in, while those that insist on a top-down approach where information flows one way tend to stagnate and interaction is reduced.

During my several visits to ELSI it was always said that it is an exciting new place where everybody has a voice and everyone should and can contribute. I took this statement with some salt, having heard it elsewhere but seldom having seen it in practice. Fortunately my skepticism appears unwarranted and indeed everybody is treated equally and interacts freely with each other. The multidisciplinary mélange of scientists at ELSI generates very stimulating discussions. To work at ELSI is exciting, but also challenging and daunting, because everyone is required to broaden their horizons and become aware of what the other groups are doing. For some this is a challenge they dive in to, others hesitate because multidisciplinary interaction or collaboration is neither obvious nor straightforward. Fortunately, the general atmosphere and drive of the other researchers quickly dissipates such fears and collaborations are easily forged. It is good to be a part of this group, I am already overflowing with ideas and in the future I hope to learn a lot more exciting and interesting science.