According to the Great Beyond, several prominent British scientists have called for a revolt against new rules that require them to “include a two-page summary of the potential economic and social impacts of their research in funding proposals to the nation’s research councils”. The scientists say that, “In research worthy of the name, we are not aware of anyone who would be competent at foretelling specific future benefits and therefore in complying with the request in any meaningful manner,” to which a representative of one of the grants councils replies, “The impact statement is not designed to ask peer reviewers or applicants to predict future benefits. It is intended to allow the applicant to highlight potential pathways to impact, especially through collaboration with partners, and to help the research councils support them in these activities.”
Regular readers will know how I feel about academic paperwork and bureaucracy, but in this case, I’m on the side of the research councils. Yes, a dollar spent on blue-sky research might one day yield a cure for cancer, but that same dollar spent on primary education for disadvantaged children might one day yield the next Darwin or Einstein. Being paid by the public to chase your ideas wherever they may lead is a privilege, not a right; having to write two pages to explain how those ideas might one day benefit the public seems only fair. (And I have to admit I’m curious how many of the scientists who object to being required to do so simultaneously bemoan the lack of public understanding of science.)
Hmmm. Ok, I hate paperwork as few others do, but I hate snootiness as well. It’s pretty astonishing that any academic would say that the only research that is “worthy of the name” is that for which we have no clue at all how it might be helpful. This means that almost all my current research isn’t worthy of the name…Screw them! I hope they have to write 20 pages
I also notice that their metrics are pretty crap: Nobel prize winners. I mean, Nobel prize winners are nice, but surely there are *many* metrics for evaluating good or even great science. Nobel prizes are an artificially scarce good. I mean, which would you rather have at your univeristy, 1 Nobel prizer winner or 10 people who did comparable work, or 100 who did nearly as good work? (Note that several Nobel prize winners were pretty useless after winning the prize
)
Why not advocate for people saying, “Dunno, but it’d be cool.” as their impact statement? RCs can evaluate that as well as a “OMG! It’ll bring in a BAZILLION POUNDS *and* cure cancer!!!” statement.
Basic science research is important — the benefits are not always known. Similarly for mathematical research. Which is better:
(1) A scientist realizes the need for a new model and develops one himself (which he is not an expert at)
(2) Mathematicians develop one ahead of time, for purely mathematical reasons, and the scientist may immediately take advantage.
Substitute scientist with engineer and mathematician with scientist and you get the same argument.
Research is justifiable even if it is not immediately obvious how it will impact the world.
What good is the dollar spent on producing the next Darwin or Einstein when they will spend their lives filling out paperwork instead of doing research?
I’d love to see their reaction to what’s required in a U.S. National Science Foundation proposal!
Herman, I hope no one denies that. But I don’t see that asking people to think about it is bad. If the answer is, ‘Hey, its basic research” then good enough. If the RC decided to *not fund* basic research, then that would be bad. But I don’t see that that’s true.
One impact is, of course, “Advancing our fundamental understanding of the world.”
Two pages of potential impact discussion in a fundamental research project is not a “summary”, that’s a full sci-fi novel. While you can have ideas of “potential pathways to impact”, I don’t see how you get from that to two pages of *relevant* content. And I don’t consider it useful that scientists have to come up with two pages of marketing-type B***S*** for every project.