Memorandum 56
Submission from Dr Martin Dominik
In general, it makes a lot of sense to focus
on the strengths rather than on the weaknesses. However, would
it be of greater importance to discuss strengths of specific research
sectors, or of the general approach to science funding? I would
like to argue in favour of the latter, making the point that the
implementation of procedures to achieve excellence should be our
main priority, regardless of research area.
As a Royal Society University Research Fellow, currently
working on the detection of planets orbiting stars other than
the Sun, I am regularly given the frustrating experience that
we are not making efficient use of one of our most valuable strengths:
people and their creativity. In fact, I would judge this to be
the crucial resource for making the difference in an international
competitive arena over the coming decades. If we manage to set
the right environment conditions to allow the existing creative
potential to unfold, it would give us an unparalleled competitive
advantage, by far outweighing any other possible measure taken.
Maximizing impact of science on our society,
both on its culture and its economy, seems to be a promising strategy,
while focussing on immediate economic returns will come short
of efficiently advancing our society and aiming at largest benefits.
The largest innovation potential is with fundamental research,
whose outcome, by its nature, cannot be predicted. Curiosity has
been proven to be a major driver of innovation, and we need to
ensure that scientists who come up with groundbreaking ideas are
given the opportunity to futher develop and realize these. Most
strikingly, we lack of suitable procedures to identify future
innovators, which would need to involve a proper assessment of
the quality and innovation potential of their work. In my opinion,
the Royal Society University Research Fellowship programme is
a rare gem within the funding landscape, doing a good job on selecting
researchers with a large potential to contribute to the benefit
of our society and investing into people rather than projects.
If, at the other extreme, for a research project to be funded,
a proven concept and a long track-record are required (which in
particular disfavours young talent), we can only be average, but
will never achieve excellence. Big successes will only arise if
we are willing to take some risk, the more predictable a research
project is, the smaller its gain.
I am seriously concerned about procedures where
priorities on research activities are set by scientists, which
thereby become judges on their own case and sometimes even write
part of the legislation. Self-appraisal schemes such as citation
counts are unsuitable to measure the impact of scientific work
on society, because the value to all of us is the determining
factor rather than the relevance for a small group of specialists.
I think that one needs to accept that science is an integral part
of our society, and does not form a separate world with its own
rules. Applied research fits into a market model with consumer
demand for new or advanced products. When it comes to basic research
however, one usually neglects the "consumer". Given
that the genuine role of a scientist is to increase the knowledge
of the society rather than just his/her own, why should one refuse
to listen to the wider public? If society would not accept the
fact that fundamental research, following our curiosity, is beneficial,
there would not be any public-sector funding at all. Are we not
facing a democracy problem by thinking that members of the general
public are not qualified to have a say on science issues? Where
would this country be if we decided to adopt such policies in
general? In fact, I found the unbiased judgement of "laymen"
frequently being better than that of experts, some of who just
speak in favour of their personal interests rather than the common
good.
I therefore arrive at the conclusion that a
transparent public dialogue about the investment in science and
innovation would be most likely to arrive at a result that is
most beneficial to society. In contrast, discussions behind closed
doors are more likely to serve the interests of those immediately
involved at the cost of others (which might even include communities
officially "represented").
April 2009
|