[eklipse]

What is the best way of managing scientific research?

a) Giving scientists as much money and resources as they need (or is reasonable for the state) - letting them 'get on with it', allowing them the freedom to set their own goals and pursue their own avenues of interests - then reap the benefits and products of their work as and when they come to fruition.

b) Running scientific research like a business - having a 'CEO' (possibly a non-scientist) to decide which branches of research are worthy of pursuance. The direction of the research is governed strictly by the quest for profit and market demand - projects will be axed at the will of the management if they are deemed unproductive or unnecessary.

c) A combination of the above (if possible) or something completely different.

Or, perhaps there is nothing wrong with the way scientific research is currently undertaken. No need to change anything.


As a related question, why is it that so many technological advances come from the military sector? Why is it that some of humanity's greatest innovations come in the form of 'better-ways-to-blow-ourselves-up'? Why is it that we can build stealth fighters with satellite guided laser precision bombing capabilities but we can't keep a space shuttle in service that can successfully survive reentry?

[BRussell]

I think we should let anti-gay groups decide which grants get funded.

[finboy]

Originally posted by eklipse:


Or, perhaps there is nothing wrong with the way scientific research is currently undertaken. No need to change anything.


As a related question, why is it that so many technological advances come from the military sector? Why is it that some of humanity's greatest innovations come in the form of 'better-ways-to-blow-ourselves-up'? Why is it that we can build stealth fighters with satellite guided laser precision bombing capabilities but we can't keep a space shuttle in service that can successfully survive reentry?

Wish I had an answer. Your questions are ones that I struggle with daily.

I can offer some insight into the military connection, though. Urgency and immediate application. In a military context, if we don't build it (or a defense for it) someone else will, and we'd better not be caught (like Peyton Manning) with our pants down. Play a few rounds of Age of Kings and you can see a compression of that phenomenon.

In that sense, AoK is ultimately realistic -- it's a rush to get the best technology the fastest, and what you do with it depends upon your motives and values as a society.

[tie]

Originally posted by eklipse:
What is the best way of managing scientific research?

a) Giving scientists as much money and resources as they need (or is reasonable for the state) - letting them 'get on with it', allowing them the freedom to set their own goals and pursue their own avenues of interests - then reap the benefits and products of their work as and when they come to fruition.

b) Running scientific research like a business - having a 'CEO' (possibly a non-scientist) to decide which branches of research are worthy of pursuance. The direction of the research is governed strictly by the for quest for profit and market demand - projects will be axed at the will of the management if they are deemed unproductive or unnecessary.

c) A combination of the above (if possible) or something completely different.

Or, perhaps there is nothing wrong with the way scientific research is currently undertaken. No need to change anything.


As a related question, why is it that so many technological advances come from the military sector? Why is it that some of humanity's greatest innovations come in the form of 'better-ways-to-blow-ourselves-up'? Why is it that we can build stealth fighters with satellite guided laser precision bombing capabilities but we can't keep a space shuttle in service that can successfully survive reentry?

Generally, (a) and (c), not much need to change anything. We need to keep politics out of it, and let professional scientists do their peer review with guidance from grant administrators. NASA's ISS is a great example of how it shouldn't be done: lobbying Congress for funds though there is no scientific value. (The military has advanced despite political meddling, but that's an exception!)

The military versus NASA is interesting. I think it is largely cultural. The military has tons of money, and no doubt wastes a lot of it, but still manages to continually innovate and compete. NASA on the other hand seems to stagnate where it has money (the space shuttle, ISS) and innovate when the money is tight (Mars probes, etc). (Some exceptions of course, like Hubble.) To be fair, I think (?) the space shuttle is more complicated than any stealth bomber -- but that is largely because NASA hasn't worked hard enough to improve the space shuttle. If the military doesn't watch itself, it could fall into the same kind of trap; its tools become too complicated and expensive to actually use. But in the military, if this happens, there are always competing weapons systems.

[boots]

We currently have a) and b) in operation. As a research scientist in the the academic world, I have the freedom to choose what problems to look at. I write proposals, they go out for peer review to make sure the science behind the idea is sound. If I can sell the significance and it is scientifically sound, I will stand a good chance of getting money for the research. Some of it is government money (national institutes of health, national science foundation, etc.) and some of it is private (research corporation, Dreyfus foundation, American Cancer Society, American Chemical Society, etc.). But all of it is up for grabs.

We also have technology companies who do research under the "CEO" model you describe. Think about the Pharmaceutical companies. These are run for profit, and the CEO's are ultimately responsible for guiding the research to the areas that will return profits.


As to the military question: It's a complex answer. Both of your models are in operation for this too. The department of defense issues grands to academic researchers who do basic research on everything from biochemistry and chemistry (chemical warfare issues), materials science (better armor, etc) and basic physics research. They also contract to "for profit" companies like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. Many of the technologies developed for military use will also have application in a much broader context, so there is a lot of technology transfer. But the focus on military application is pretty narrowly defined, so the science is not as diluted as in the general academic and professional sphere. That's probably why it seems like they get things done quickly.

So I would argue that c) not much needs to be done to change the system. The only change I would make is to open up more money for pure science and see what basic discoveries we can make. The US focuses on applied science, and the significance of a project plays a large role in the funding. Japan, for example, focuses on basic research, and as a result they are leaders in the chemical community for novel discoveries.

[Y3a]

Kelly Johnson and Lockheed's "Skunkworks" advanced projects entity is your BEST example of how to do it right.

[BRussell]

I'm a current NIH grantee, and have been several times in the past. Every so often, some group will start to read the grant abstracts and go nuts about them.

From this Washington Post article.

A coalition of conservative church groups said yesterday that it will ask the Justice Department to investigate how scores of research studies relating to health and sexuality gained federal funding through the National Institutes of Health.

An NIH official said the studies, including several aimed at documenting the behaviors of prostitutes, intravenous drug users and others at high risk of spreading sexually transmitted diseases, are an important part of an effort to devise better public health and education strategies. But the coalition called them "smarmy projects" representing at least $100 million in wasted federal money.

The group's call for Justice Department intervention is the latest volley in an escalating war of words and actions in recent weeks between the Washington-based religious group and the NIH and its congressional and institutional supporters, who see the attack as part of a larger effort to foist conservative religious values on the federal scientific enterprise.

"There needs to be some adult supervision at NIH," said Andrea Lafferty, executive director of the Traditional Values Coalition, a public policy organization that says it has more than 43,000 member churches. "We have nameless, faceless bureaucrats doling out money like a federal ATM to do things like study the sex habits of Mexicans before and after they cross over the border. This doesn't pass the straight-face test."

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), calling the coalition's tactics "scientific McCarthyism," has in the past four days sent two angry letters to Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson calling upon him to stand up to the coalition in support of the NIH. The agency is internationally renowned in part for its system of scientific peer review, in which committees of established scientists decide which grant proposals have the scientific and medical merit to deserve funding.

"That's the right way to make scientific decisions," Waxman said yesterday. "The wrong way is to use a political and ideological review process, which is what the coalition is urging."

Here's a letter from the "Traditional Values Coalition."

Dear Congressman Waxman:

I have just received a copy of the letter you sent to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Tommy Thompson expressing your "outrage" about questions raised concerning National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants.

Congressman, if you think you are mad wait until you see how angry the American people get when they discover that you and your allies at NIH have been using federal tax dollars to study "lot lizards" - prostitutes who service truckers in parking lots.

Some of the more questionable topics "researched" with taxpayer funds were:
• "Trucker Networks, Drug Use and Disease Transmission" -- examines truckers who have sex with other truckers of the same sex ("truck chasers") and female sex workers ("lot lizards" and "CB prostitutes")


• Psychobiology/Mental Health in Spirit Possession Religion -- a study of "mediums, or individuals who regularly entered altered states of consciousness as part of religious ritual."


• "Social Context and HIV Risk Among Mexican Gay Immigrants"-- describe homosexual and bisexual Mexican immigrants incorporation in U.S. gay life; to compare behaviors of homosexual/bisexual immigrants w/ U.S. born counterparts.


• "Jealousy: Emotional Reactions and Gender Differences" --"studies jealousy in homosexual individuals."

"Preventing HIV Among Intravenous Drug Users in Yaroslavl, Russia"


• "Race/ethnicity and the Meaning of Cohabitation"----to better understand the meaning and implications of cohabitation. "Cohabitation is recognized as an important feature of family formation and children's well-being."

"Gender, Migration, and HIV risks Among Mexicans"---compare sex behaviors of Mexican immigrants in a receiving city in the Southeastern U.S. to sex behaviors in two sending communities in Mexico; analyzes migration related determinants of sexual behaviors; includes analyses of usage of prostitution and gay sex encounters; will provide culturally grounded and reliable information.


• "Social Setting and HIV Risk: Opportunities for Prevention"----project claims that no study to date has investigated in-depth the ways in which the bathhouse/sex club environment influences sexual risk behavior.


Your letter makes numerous references to the "rigorous peer review" which preceded the approval of these grants, "the scientific integrity of NIH" and "the public health benefits of this research." I know there are important studies being conducted at NIH which do benefit the public. But I do not believe and I do not believe the reasonable person would see evidence of this scientific value or rigor in the grants in question. Our review of many of these grants suggests that the NIH has become nothing more than another federal ATM for grant traffickers - a National Endowment for the Arts with a chemistry set.

[boots]

Originally posted by BRussell:
I'm a current NIH grantee, and have been several times in the past. Every so often, some group will start to read the grant abstracts and go nuts about them.

Heh. That's why it's peer reviewed for significance.

Not that there aren't abuses, but.....


BR, what area are you in. My NIH training grant ended last year, and I'm no longer at an R1 institute. I haven't tried for an area grant yet, but probably will once I get my own group up and running (to the extent that undergraduate groups run themselves )

[Millennium]

Allow both a) and b) to take place. That way, both types of research can occur, and the benefits of both can be realized.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by boots:
Heh. That's why it's peer reviewed for significance.

Not that there aren't abuses, but.....

Yeah, but ultimately Congress holds the purse strings, so presumably they could cut off funding even from specific grants.

BR, what area are you in. My NIH training grant ended last year, and I'm no longer at an R1 institute. I haven't tried for an area grant yet, but probably will once I get my own group up and running (to the extent that undergraduate groups run themselves )

I'm in psychology, and I currently have an AREA grant. It's on health-related behavior change. Good luck with yours.

You know you can get an R01 at a smaller institution, and they've encouraged me to apply for one when this one is over. It's relatively rare, but it is possible. You could also get a small grant (R03 I think?). The problem is that those grants are peer-reviewed with basically the same qualifications in mind as for the R01, so you might as well just apply for the larger grant. Or at least that's what they've told me.

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Or, perhaps there is nothing wrong with the way scientific research is currently undertaken. No need to change anything.

As a related question, why is it that so many technological advances come from the military sector? Why is it that some of humanity's greatest innovations come in the form of 'better-ways-to-blow-ourselves-up'? Why is it that we can build stealth fighters with satellite guided laser precision bombing capabilities but we can't keep a space shuttle in service that can successfully survive reentry?

An interesting topic...

I think there's definitely a lot wrong with the way scientific research is handled, but here I am talking mainly about the fields of physics and space exploration.

Space exploration is incredibly underfunded. It seems to me that Governments only ever properly fund programs that are going to produce some sort of economic benefit. IMO, if we are going to make any serious headway in space exploration, eklipse's a) is what needs to be done.
Take the propulsion systems they still have on rockets, it's painful to watch lift off! Then look at the insides of the rockets, they are still based on design from the 60's-they haven't even been changed!

As for the most advanced technologies coming from the military, that shouldn't be the case but it is and I don't see that changing any time soon. Unfortunately we're still in the big 'arms race'. Security is still a major concern for the superpowers because political circumstances are so fragile.

The significant amounts of money are going in to the wrong areas of development IMO.
We need to start realising the potential benefit from speeding up the process of scientific discovery.

[boots]

Originally posted by BRussell:

I'm in psychology, and I currently have an AREA grant. It's on health-related behavior change. Good luck with yours.

You know you can get an R01 at a smaller institution, and they've encouraged me to apply for one when this one is over. It's relatively rare, but it is possible. You could also get a small grant (R03 I think?). The problem is that those grants are peer-reviewed with basically the same qualifications in mind as for the R01, so you might as well just apply for the larger grant. Or at least that's what they've told me.

My annual budget is pretty modest...is doesn't warrant R01 funding unless I get a couple of post-docs. We're a PUI with no graduate program....

AREA-type grants and NSF grants (mostly RUI and CCLI) are our mainstay.