Kevin Vranes has a phud in Physical Ocean- ography and Cli- matology. He now studies sci- ence policy and politics at the "Since they're funded by taxpayer dollars (through the NIH, NSF, and so on), should scientists have to justify their research agendas to the public, rather than just grant-making bodies?"
Leave it to the SB uppers. They ask a question made for Janet and me but then only want us to write 300 words on it.
Anyway, here goes:
Nobody has a patent on the justification for why the U.S. government funds science, but most scientists who have a little knowledge of science policy history in the U.S. think they have such a patent. Ask a question of a scientist who has thought about funding philosophy and the standard line is repeated over and over: BLACK BOX.
That is, taxpayers give the scientists a pool of money. Scientists decide how that money should be allocated, mostly via peer review in grant competitions. The taxpayer gets in return untold economic and health benefits. The "untold" is the rub of the "black box." Money goes in and churns around in the black box and benefits come out (this is called the linear model), but nobody -- not even the scientists!! -- know in advance which studies will produce results down the road. Political interference will only stifle innovation and slow the black box Economic Benefit Machine.
Unfortunately this view is absurdly naïve and indulgently self-serving to scientists. Hell, when I first started studying science policy while getting a physical science phud I believed it wholeheartedly. Then I realized where my bread was buttered and why I had an inherent conflict in believing such a thing.
After studying science policy in much more depth for the past few years and working in the sausage factory, I have a new view: it's the public's money!
Science policy scholars, the AAAS and NRC panels have tried to quantify the financial benefits the American economy gets by funding basic research and most studies have concluded that the economic results/funding allocated equation comes to a better than 1:1 ratio. What they haven't done is shown is that the benefits are only to be gained if the system remains run by scientists with political/public interference taboo.
Without evidence that the benefits of our funding scheme only come when grant supplicants don't have to justify their funding to non-scientists, it's not only legitimate for the public to ask questions, it's in the public's best interest to get involved.
[NOTE: I had a specific interpretation of the phrase "justify their research agendas." I took this to mean justify as in write a bit about why this is important and be willing to talk to the public about it. I did not take this to mean "the public gets to vote on your proposal and say YEA or NAY" or that the public gets equal voting weight as peer review panels. I think that's how PZ interpreted it. If that's what "justification" means in this case, then my answer is NO.]
Comments
# 1 | Trisha | May 26, 2006 5:03 PM
I'm not sure what is meant exactly by 'research agendas'. If it means what topics they are actually getting funding to do research on - then maybe.
I can't help but think that if it was up to the public to decide what research gets funded that 'scientists' would be getting grants to research intelligent design or some such nonsense.
I do feel very strongly however that the results of publicly funded research should be available to the public. That's bothered me for a long time.
Having said that I'm sure there are many legitimate areas of research that are not getting as much funding as the general public would like and it does seem like tax payers should be able to have at least a little bit of influence over that.
# 2 | kv | May 26, 2006 5:14 PM
see the late NOTE I added at the end of the post....
# 3 | Rob Knop | May 26, 2006 7:29 PM
Without evidence that the benefits of our funding scheme only come when grant supplicants don't have to justify their funding to non-scientists, it's not only legitimate for the public to ask questions, it's in the public's best interest to get involved.
If you follow this to its logical extreme, then a good number of scientific fields that are funded right now will be eliminated.
I justify the doing of astronomy in that I am expressing our species' natural curiosity about the Universe we're in. I, and others, are doing the hard work to answer those questions; the payoff the public gets is in the understanding we gain, and the degree to which that manages to get translated into books, public talks, and TV shows accessible to the layperson.
But... if you're gonna start requiring financial payoff to be justified, then very quickly Astronomy looks like something that can be cut to zero. Condensed matter physicists, sure, that's pretty obvious. Even some "fundamental" physicsts are doing stuff that will have surprising results decades down the road. (Who thought that quantum mechanics was going to lead to modern computers when they were first working on it??)
Yes, the public should get involved. But if you get the public involved on the level of choosing fields, or, worse, choosing individual grants... well, the black box has some advantages to it. You may as well put the issue of evolution vs. creationism to a vote, and declare the answer as truth.
-Rob
# 4 | Joseph j7uy5 | May 28, 2006 4:25 PM
First, I might suggest that you use the phrase, "provide the rationale for" instead of "justify." When you use the word "justify," you can't get away from the connotation of the word "just," as in morally proper. If you have to justify something, you are already on the defensive. When you provide the rationale for something, you are speaking from a position of authority.
You have a point, that there is no proof that giving scientists relatively free reign leads to a better economic payoff, but it is hard to imagine how one would test that hypothesis. In the absence of proof, it makes sense to ask the people who are in the best position to make the best guess...and that would be the researchers themselves.
# 5 | kevin v | May 30, 2006 1:34 PM
Rob - funny you should bring that up. I sometimes argue that exploration astronomy is one of the least cost-effective basic research activities we do, but it enjoys lots of funding anyway because the public loves it so much. To my eyes the media will cover lavishly latest developments in astronomy and the media isn't dumb -- their bread is buttered by the reading/viewing/listening public so they have to know what sells. Don't take this as me bagging on astronomy, though. It's my first love and what got me into science in the first place. I was reading Hawking's Brief History in junior high. When people noticed I wasn't majoring in astronomy in college I had to say, "I like it too much to study it at that level of analness."
Josheph - "and that would be the researchers themselves" which is precisely the conflict of interest I alluded to in the post. AAAS is the main organization discussing science funding policy and who do they represent but the scientists of the U.S.?