Abstract
Policy makers push for consortia science geared towards addressing important issues. Such consortia are expected to target societal problems, be international, to engage in trans- or interdisciplinary research, to involve stakeholders and have specific plans for implementation. For example, Horizon Europe focuses on five missions that are being targeted by such type of consortia. This, however, does not seem to be the type of funding that active researchers appreciate the most: a recent letter signed by over 24.000 researchers clearly shows their preference for ERC grants. What are the underlying reasons for this difference? Here, we share insights on how natural science and medical researchers experience the impact of these funding schemes using interviews. Our findings highlight that the two different types of funding schemes have a different performative effect on research, and that ERC-type funding aligns most with how scientists think research should best be conducted.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
