ABSTRACT
Purely discovery-driven biological research “…performed without thought of practical ends…” establishes fundamental conceptual frameworks for technological and medical breakthroughs that often occur many years later. Despite the critical importance of discovery-driven research for scientific progress, there is increasing concern that it is increasingly less favored by funding agencies than research with explicit goals of application and innovation, resulting in a decline in discovery-driven research output. This in turn appears to promote the use of genetically modified organisms (those with advanced molecular toolkits for gene manipulation and visualization) for which genetic models of human disease can be studied at molecular and cellular resolution using state of the art methodology, and to discourage use of other experimental organisms that provide necessary evolutionary context. This field of neuroscience encompasses both applied and discovery-driven research, providing an opportunity to empirically determine whether funding and publication rates for the latter have indeed declined. Additionally, the diversity of experimental organisms traditionally employed in neuroscience research provides a means to quantify changes in use of study organisms that lack genetic tools over time. In particular, the basic research field of neuroethology is characterized by its distinct approach to selection of study organisms based on their adaptive behaviors, evolutionary history, and suitability for answering the question of interest, providing a stronger basis for the assumption that findings reflect fundamental concepts of nervous system function and behavior. A 30-year analysis of National Science Foundation (NSF) funding of neuroethology research finds that the agency has funded progressively fewer researchers with smaller average award amounts, with a decline in awards for research on non-genetically modified organisms. Neuroscience funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) shows the same trend but also increasing support for genetically modified organisms. The same pattern is observed in the neuroscience literature but occurs prior to changes in funding, suggesting that the shift to genetically modified organisms was likely initiated by researchers but may potentially have been later reinforced by funding agency and journal publisher preferences.
