Discouragement of innovation by overcompetitive research funding

The modern research funding system is generally oppressive to creativity and innovation. More specifically, expert peer review favours trendy projects with predictable outcomes and usually rejects novel higher risk proposals; the system supports mostly me too' projects ('do as others do') and encourages mediocrity and triviality rather than true innovation, the latter being paid only lip service; it encourages proliferation of powerful control cliques operating as old boys clubs ('I'll fund you, if you fund me'); it fosters quasi feudal research empires, with 'soft money' researchers (mostly postdocs) doing all the real work while tenured professors are engaged largely on the conference circuit and in grantsmanship; research supervisors often lose touch with the experimental bench, and yet remain in full control of their laboratories' budget and operation; and such an imperial model of operation discourages the creativity of junior researchers and their ideas are often misappropriated by supervisors. These factors generally render the modern research funding system financially wasteful and resentful of public accountability. Radical changes are required to improve the system's efficiency, to liberate creativity, and to encourage innovation from below. Peer review, though not entirely useless, needs far greater public openness and feedback from a broader research community. Junior research personnel should be part of a professionally managed structure, and not be left at the whim of professors who almost never have the training or skills necessary for competent human resource management. Small base grants should be provided automatically to active researchers, with no need for proposals.