Labels

Search This Blog

Monday, March 23, 2009

Who ate my snark???

I finally write two blog posts tonight following days of inactivity and they both disappear! Both were inspired by this article in New Scientist.

The first was a beautiful piece of snark aimed at the idiocy of the decisions of our favourite CEO of a research council (remember peer-review advises it doesn't decide) whilst the other was a discussion of the issues raised in the article.

The first appears and sits on top of the blog right up until I hit post for the second. Then everything goes screwy and both are gone next time I load up the page!

Hey-ho.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Boost for science

I take it all back they clearly know what they are doing!

It is great to see that DIUS is attempting to follow the path that Obama has laid down. They are certainly tackling my fear that current plans are a zero-sum game; a £1bn boost to science spending would alleviate this worry significantly.

It's up to the treasury now. It will be interesting to see whether they think that science is as good an investment as toxic debt generated by irresponsible bankers.

Monday, March 16, 2009

The great debate

I said in my earlier post that I support the debate over the future of research in the UK and I thought I would clarify. I think scientific research has a role to play in driving the economy, a big role, in fact. I also said that I was worried about the government's plans, mostly that they don't really have any, and what they do have is ill thought through.

I know, I know, they are only consulting at this time, but the rhetoric from Denham and others is such as to make one wonder.

Today, scientists are being told that they have to identify the economic impact of their work. Every grant application has a section devoted to economic impact. This has been viewed with scorn in some quarters. Distinguished scientists have called for a modest-revolt against this practice, especially since the economic impact statement has no teeth (the statement is not considered in the funding process). I'm not sure what the worth of these compulsory plans is beyond adding to the red-tape and bureaucracy that scientists find themselves plunged ever deeper into. The idea of a revolt has been challenged:

But he[Denham] criticised recent suggestions from researchers that they should refuse in principle to describe the relevance of their research.

"It can't be right to expect billions of pounds of funding and then systematically deny the taxpayer any insight into its potential applications to the economy, public policy or popular understanding," he said.

I fear that the secretary of state is missing the point, and is quite frankly attempting to score points by turning those who oppose the idea of 'economic impact' into the enemy. Cheap rhetorical tricks abound in the paragraph above.

Sometimes with scientific ideas and research it is quite clear how it could lead to something of economic or societal worth. Other times it is far less clear, yet ten or twenty years down the line ideas come into their own and their worth becomes apparent.

If something has clearly identifiable benefits in the short term then by all means the mechanisms should be in place to encourage the researchers to pursue those impacts. However, to force all applicants to create an economic impact statement is not efficient and, dare I say, not particularly economical.

One also has to consider that some ideas on their own will never result in an economical benefit, does that mean that they should not be funded? What about the greater advance of human knowledge, or are we no longer concerned about the cornerstones of civilization? How about if some aspect of some obscure piece of research, when combined with a number of other equally obscure things results in a revoltionary discovery?

This drive towards economic impact is essentially asking scientists to predict the future - has anyone ever seens some of those old clips where they attempted to do this? Where is my personal jet-pack?!?

The government maintains that blue-skies research will not be damaged and will be supported since a broad-base is still required, but in the next breath they speak of 'finite budgets'. Regardless of MP Ian Taylor's (of the opposition!) protestations to the contrary this most certainly is a zero-sum game. If funding is focused on some areas it needs to be de-focused from others.

Unless the government fancies printing some more money.

What concerns me most is that the government is acting like it is grasping at straws. To a casual observer it looks as if they have grasped the fundamental point that science is a good thing and have decided to run with it, but have not really looked where they are running.

An uncharitable observer might suggest that the government is desperate for something to pull them out of the economic hole that their bliond faith in the city has dropped us into. Science fits the bill since, to their credit, they have been pumping money into the system for many years now. But they seem to want pay-back now without realising that science cannot work that way in all quarters. They have to accept that the benefits of some of the science they funded will not show through until successive (and unlikely to be Labour) governments. Investment in science pays off for everyone in the longterm and is unlikely to bring short-term political benefits to the investing party.

If the government cocks this up then they could put UK science back in a time of growing international competition. Do they really want to screw up (yet again)? If not they need to tread a lot more carefully than they have been doing and they have to be clear about what they really want from science, otherwise I wonder how big a constituency scientists make in the next general election...

Watching the Watch-dog

Am watching the IUSS committee evidence session on "Putting science and engineering at the heart of Government policy"

The key question at the start of the session aimed to discover what the current debate really is about. Is it:

1) should we restructure UK science funding to target or focus research into key areas of benefit to the economy?

or

2) having decided to target research what areas should we choose to target?


Adrian Smith (Director General of Science and Research, DIUS) stated that it was clearly 1.

This was all well and good until it was pointed out that John Denham made a speech that said it was not a case of if but of what we should target.

Quite frankly this whole thing is puzzling and disturbing in equal measure. Although I support debate over the future of UK research and how it can help shape the future economy, I am far from convinced that the UK government really knows what it wants. The testimony of Professor Smith did nothing to re-assure me.