Comments on: Accounting for Research http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/accounting-for-research.html Science Blog from Freelance Science Writer David Bradley Sat, 07 Nov 2009 00:41:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Ad Lagendijk http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/accounting-for-research.html/comment-page-1#comment-437288 Ad Lagendijk Thu, 22 May 2008 10:45:39 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1648#comment-437288 David, thanks for the post. A few reactions. Scientists love to compare themselves to artists. For some reason they implicitly have in their minds great artists, like Leonardo Da Vinci or Rembrandt. But the factual situation is that a very large majority of artists do not make any money. Even worse they are on well-fare. So if scientists wants the same independence and artistic freedom as artists enjoy,  they should, like artists, refrain from asking governments for funding. A particular important aspect of the relation between science and society is that science can satisfy the curiosity of man. The ultimate example is astronomy. This discipline has no economic use, but it is probably the science discipline that can count most on the support of laymen. In the western societies there are too many scientists given the support that democratically elected governments are willing to spend on science. This naked fact will never be admitted by any politician as he would be butchered by his political opponents. As a result we have all this fighting for grant proposals. And scientists are confronted with all this extra conditions on supportable research: it should be relevant, having an <em>application horizon, </em>sustainable, or it should be classifiable with whatever management-speak label. The answer of scientists, when confronted with a request from society to justify their research, of "wait and see" is arrogant. Defending  the Higgs-boson or quantum computer with the success of the transistor and chip would, if accepted by society, boil down to a carte blanche for the scientists. The attitude by many scientists to hype up their field to such an extent that miracles are promised is immoral. Even if the media and the public at large fall for these untenable commitments. So, IMHO, we need a reasonable gain for society. The question is the time frame. Wanting it next year is ridiculous. Not having made substantial progress towards societal relevance in 50 years seems to concern research that should have stopped much earlier. What about 25 years as the delivery date.  Ad Lagendijk <a href="http://www.sciencesurvivalblog.com" rel="nofollow">sciencesurvivalblog</a>   David,

thanks for the post.
A few reactions.

Scientists love to compare themselves to artists. For some reason they implicitly have in their minds great artists, like Leonardo Da Vinci or Rembrandt. But the factual situation is that a very large majority of artists do not make any money. Even worse they are on well-fare. So if scientists wants the same independence and artistic freedom as artists enjoy,  they should, like artists, refrain from asking governments for funding.

A particular important aspect of the relation between science and society is that science can satisfy the curiosity of man. The ultimate example is astronomy. This discipline has no economic use, but it is probably the science discipline that can count most on the support of laymen.

In the western societies there are too many scientists given the support that democratically elected governments are willing to spend on science. This naked fact will never be admitted by any politician as he would be butchered by his political opponents. As a result we have all this fighting for grant proposals. And scientists are confronted with all this extra conditions on supportable research: it should be relevant, having an application horizon, sustainable, or it should be classifiable with whatever management-speak label.

The answer of scientists, when confronted with a request from society to justify their research, of "wait and see" is arrogant. Defending  the Higgs-boson or quantum computer with the success of the transistor and chip would, if accepted by society, boil down to a carte blanche for the scientists.

The attitude by many scientists to hype up their field to such an extent that miracles are promised is immoral. Even if the media and the public at large fall for these untenable commitments.

So, IMHO, we need a reasonable gain for society. The question is the time frame. Wanting it next year is ridiculous. Not having made substantial progress towards societal relevance in 50 years seems to concern research that should have stopped much earlier. What about 25 years as the delivery date. 

Ad Lagendijk
sciencesurvivalblog

 

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/accounting-for-research.html/comment-page-1#comment-424032 David Bradley Sat, 10 May 2008 07:40:30 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1648#comment-424032 Very good point Jason. Yes, you're right even art hanging in a cheap clipframe or on the side of a bus can be inspiring... db Very good point Jason. Yes, you’re right even art hanging in a cheap clipframe or on the side of a bus can be inspiring…

db

]]> By: Jason Cardillo http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/accounting-for-research.html/comment-page-1#comment-423619 Jason Cardillo Fri, 09 May 2008 20:51:00 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1648#comment-423619 Your question is an interesting one, and highlights the fundamental difference between basic research and applied research (and development). Our company has been struggling with this issue for 25 years and decided long ago that, in a twist on the famous phrase, value is in the eye of the beholder. One of the key reasons that basic research is so undervalued is that researchers are, stereotypically, unwilling to communicate what it is they are doing through fear of having to “dumb it down” not only for non-scientists, but even those conducting research in other fields. If as you say, research is art, I would argue that one of the primary values of art is to inspire. Art is unable to inspire locked away in a cabinet (or lab), invisible to those who may see value in it for them. One never knows who will take inspiration from the Renoir (or fullerene) and create something with measurable value. Your question is an interesting one, and highlights the fundamental difference between basic research and applied research (and development). Our company has been struggling with this issue for 25 years and decided long ago that, in a twist on the famous phrase, value is in the eye of the beholder. One of the key reasons that basic research is so undervalued is that researchers are, stereotypically, unwilling to communicate what it is they are doing through fear of having to “dumb it down” not only for non-scientists, but even those conducting research in other fields.

If as you say, research is art, I would argue that one of the primary values of art is to inspire. Art is unable to inspire locked away in a cabinet (or lab), invisible to those who may see value in it for them. One never knows who will take inspiration from the Renoir (or fullerene) and create something with measurable value.

]]> By: Alex http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/accounting-for-research.html/comment-page-1#comment-422311 Alex Thu, 08 May 2008 17:25:25 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1648#comment-422311 Very timely article. An observation that struck me was, 'It (science) can have a future impact on society at entirely unpredictable points in time' which I think is a most poignant parallel between the body of science and fine arts. There is always a necssary tension between accountability/directed research and discovery science. But will that tension dramatically change during an economic downturn? Scientists depend on funds and artists don't? Very timely article. An observation that struck me was, ‘It (science) can have a future impact on society at entirely unpredictable points in time’ which I think is a most poignant parallel between the body of science and fine arts. There is always a necssary tension between accountability/directed research and discovery science. But will that tension dramatically change during an economic downturn? Scientists depend on funds and artists don’t?

]]> By: CMC guy http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/accounting-for-research.html/comment-page-1#comment-422285 CMC guy Thu, 08 May 2008 17:01:43 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1648#comment-422285 David likewise agree excellent post and see basic research funding as an investment/gamble because never know what or when a tangible application may ultimately result. Science exploration may be more about the journey then the destination since can spawn new pathways that may or may not provide beneficial applications. As you suggest sometimes more pressure comes from attempting to explain connection to public. Rather than freely admitting that there may be no immediate impact of certain work, beyond the science goals, there can be over pushing for such a technology so looks like it failed on promises. Even when you get to the applied side it remains hard to judge science accountability since outcomes can fail or be slow although do have more defined objectives. David likewise agree excellent post and see basic research funding as an investment/gamble because never know what or when a tangible application may ultimately result. Science exploration may be more about the journey then the destination since can spawn new pathways that may or may not provide beneficial applications.

As you suggest sometimes more pressure comes from attempting to explain connection to public. Rather than freely admitting that there may be no immediate impact of certain work, beyond the science goals, there can be over pushing for such a technology so looks like it failed on promises. Even when you get to the applied side it remains hard to judge science accountability since outcomes can fail or be slow although do have more defined objectives.

]]> By: David Bradley http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/accounting-for-research.html/comment-page-1#comment-421653 David Bradley Thu, 08 May 2008 06:32:37 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1648#comment-421653 Prashant, thanks for the comment, it's possible. Maybe I should do a follow-up bearing that point in mind, given that the original version of this article was written before the notion of the semantic web had really begun to take hold. db Prashant, thanks for the comment, it’s possible. Maybe I should do a follow-up bearing that point in mind, given that the original version of this article was written before the notion of the semantic web had really begun to take hold.

db

]]> By: Prashant http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/accounting-for-research.html/comment-page-1#comment-421505 Prashant Thu, 08 May 2008 03:33:23 +0000 http://www.sciencebase.com/science-blog/?p=1648#comment-421505 Excellent point about the unpredictable ways and points of time in the future that today's science will impact. Question is whether developments like the semantic web make it easier or even possible to quantify this impact? Excellent point about the unpredictable ways and points of time in the future that today’s science will impact.

Question is whether developments like the semantic web make it easier or even possible to quantify this impact?

]]>