Is ‘universal basic income’ a better option than research grants?

In principle, an excellent idea. I suggest, however, a slight modification: a basic research income per year (say £50,000 in the experimental sciences, less for theoretical work), combined with additional competitive grants. This would give scientists a feeling that they can choose their research directions indepently of current fads, while giving the more "ambitious" ones an opportunity to scale up their work.

Yes a great idea, but for performance and competence there must be some parameters, like more funds should be given to good performance on later stages after the equal start up in the same field etc

I think this is a great idea, if the balancing of the lump sizes works out and there is another mechanism to apply for extra funds to establish new equipment, etc. However, I have another comment. The way this article is written it suggests that: 1. postdocs were students (they are not) and 2. only tenured academic were 'researchers', when really postdocs and graduate students are lifting the main weight of research work. There are also un-tenured principle investigators who lead their own research groups and currently apply for public funding ... and if I'm not mistaken, not all 'tenured academics' are necessarily leaders of a research group.

I am not opposed to general universal income at an individual level, but a special one for academia that includes research grants would put a damper on any little entrepreneurship in academia, will be a big barrier to entry for new entrants and will provide an even more unfair playing fields to researchers outside the academia. A better and simpler option is to make the grant application process simpler. It is not the writing of proposals that are deemed a waste (basic business cases clarifies the project to all parties including those who propose the research), it is the other administrative matters such as filling out forms, submitting in specific formats etc that are real time wasters with no value add.

I believe NSERC in Canada used to provide a reliable income stream for researchers (subject to a 5-yearly evaluation to check it wasn't being completely wasted), with a separate grant scheme for projects that required additional cash. I'm told it made planning research projects a lot easier as there was much more stability from year to year, and there wasn't the need to 'pad' grant applications to ensure having money to subsidise other projects.

Good idea - though as a historian, I'd be happy with a universal basic research income of less than 1% of the figures suggested here!