Memorandum submitted by Dr Sumedh Anathpindika
(FC 03)
1. I take this opportunity to express myself
on an issue, crucial to the future of science in Great Britain.
I am mindful of the gubernatorial endeavour of achieving excellence
in science by having as many British universities as possible,
at the forefront of global scientific research. The "research
impact evaluation", obviously a part of this policy, aims
at promoting and supporting the best research projects. Taking
a step further, I may claim that armed with this shrewd policy,
the government is aiming to shoot two birds in a single shot;
on the one hand it attempts to achieve its goal of promoting Britain
as a hub for scientific excellence and on the other, tighten fiscal
allocations towards research in pure sciences. It appears that
the progenitors of this ingenious scheme of "impact evaluation"
have somehow concluded that science and scientific research is
just another game of trickery, where results become available
at the click of fingers. I submit, Sir, this is not only a dangerous,
but a ludicrous and preposterous hypothesis.
2. Scientific research being peer-reviewed
is self-regulatory, and results fundamental in nature cannot simply
be evaluated by their possible economic worth; for they may have
none, however, they could have ground-breaking applications in
engineering. While this could be true to some extent, there are
yet other branches of physical sciences, purely theoretical in
nature, such as astrophysics that have little economic worth.
Clearly, astrophysical research, though borrows and contributes
to numerous techniques from several other physical sciences, has
little social impact besides satiating human fascination towards
the cosmos. Having said this, I must quickly add that the foundations
of modern astrophysics, laid in the early part of the 20th century,
provided great impetus to developments in physics and engineering.
Quantum mechanics, is one of its fruits that drew the curtains
on the second World-war, and whose applications now span every
aspect of human life; for quantum mechanics, we luxuriate ourselves
in various possible ways.
3. We can ill afford a policy that forces
out results, such a policy, will only encourage scientific malpractices
resulting from the desperation for seeking quick, sensational
results. Science cannot ever flourish in the midst of insecurity
and several young scientists have quit their academic careers
owing to this insecurity. I know of at least half dozen (British)
colleagues who, in the last two years, have take such a dramatic
step. The situation is paradoxical since, on the one hand government
agencies such as the British council has been diligent in promoting
British universities as centres of excellence in scientific research,
attracting post-graduate students from across the world, while
on the other there is hardly any funding for further research.
Thus, while the universities are churning out a substantial number
of young doctorates, the system is unable to absorb them. Young
men and women with doctorates from subjects such as astrophysics
are unlikely to be employed by multinational companies for want
of other technical skills, and themselves are suffering in the
prevailing bad economic climate. Scientists are therefore increasingly
pondering about funding and issues alike, much less about scientific
issues.
4. While a healthy competition is desirable,
cronies cannot be admitted in the field. The present system, I
am afraid, encourages formation of large conglomerates where only
a handful of senior people dominate and stymie new ideas, divergent
with their views, incorrect they may be. Scientific research must
be free of such fetters. Britain has an illustrious tradition
of scientists and philosophers because of the socio-economic freedom,
and governments in the past have been custodians of this freedom.
The government of the day, though pledges to uphold that tradition,
seems to practice a policy that antagonises the glorious tradition.
5. The need for a review mechanism is undisputed,
however, physical and natural sciences must be decoupled from
engineering sciences. The criteria of "impact evaluation"
must be revised and seen in context with general research in a
particular field to which the respective research proposal belongs.
It must be realised that advances in engineering cannot be sustained
without corresponding research in pure sciences, and so funding
in pure sciences must be much more liberal. Currently with just
a handful of funding opportunities such as the STFC and schemes
patronised by the Royal Society, success rates are simply appalling.
For Britain to become a global destination in science and technology,
research funding increase substantially, a blanket policy of evaluating
research proposals must be given up; research must appear as a
viable career option, that it does not at the moment, is a matter
of deep regret.
January 2010
|
