One of the big drivers of resources in science is perceived prestige. I use the word “perceived” because perception is not necessarily related to reality–particularly as far as research institutions are concerned.
But what drives the perception of prestige? In the world of car advertising, unit cost is a big component. The fact that a premium brand costs a factor of two or so more than a less prestigious brand is actually a big driver of the perception of prestige.
I’m convinced that in the world of higher education, cost is also a factor in people’s perceptions of prestige. Amherst College costs a whole lot of money in tuition, and oh, by-the-way, it’s also a very prestigious undergraduate liberal arts college.
This is not to say that cost stands alone as far as cars and colleges are concerned. Amherst’s reputation is also tied up in what it’s alumni have done, and various other metrics that range from endowment/student to its physical plant.
What about science?
One aspect of science funding that is quite interesting is the fact that not all sponsored research support is equal. There’s nothing quite as prestigious as dollars from Howard Hughes Medical Institute or NIH in biomedical research. Same dollars coming from a US National Lab or a congressional earmark are viewed very differently.
By the same token, the same science published in PNAS is viewed through a different prism than if that work were published in say…Nature.
Scientist pedigree also plays a role in the perception of prestige. Knowing that a body of work was produced by a very famous scientist’s trainee as opposed to someone without that background matters a lot.
Should science care about the perception of prestige?
Jim
Discoverers and Discoveries 