Small step funding models fit better for climate research

Abstract

The nature and purpose of research into climate change has evolved over the past half century. In the last decades of the twentieth century, the focus was on understanding the climate system, detecting human influences on it and establishing how a changing climate might impact future society. In the present century, the more pressing focus for research has been informing the design and implementation of effective mitigation and adaptation interventions.

The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of climate change research for half a century¹, yet successive governments have adopted different models for funding such research. The most recent innovation has been the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), modelled on the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). ARIA is a government research and development funding agency intended to “unlock scientific and technological breakthroughs that benefit everyone” (https://go.nature.com/3D6jyQ1). As with DARPA, ARIA adheres to the ‘moonshot’ model of research and innovation², a metaphor intended to capture the intention of a monumental effort and a lofty goal. However, 25 years ago, a very different funding model was used to support research into climate change in the United Kingdom, which led to the creation of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the year 2000. Both initiatives originated in newly elected governments eager to demonstrate their support for UK science (Box 1).