Scientific research is performed for the good of all mankind, but one of the inherent paradoxes is that it is too complex and specialized for most of its beneficiaries to grasp. So arcane is the knowledge and training required to pursue a scientific trade that even a scientist doesn't necessarily understand the workings of other scientists in different fields. As a cell biologist, I'm quite comfortable manipulating genes and observing living cells in action using complex machinery and chemistry, but I'm clueless when it comes to the secrets of the cosmos or in parsing mathematics more intricate than the workaday equations I use in the lab.
The one thing the various professional sciences do have in common is their great expense - and the fact that the majority of this funding is from the public purse. A complicated ecosystem of funding has evolved to cope with dispensing limited funds to all of the projects deemed worthy of support, most of it grounded in meritocracy - in other words, money should be given to those projects that fellow scientists deem the best. It makes sense to allow scientists to make these detailed decisions, given that they are, in theory, best equipped to understand what is being proposed. I would feel very uncomfortable, for example, if asked to make these sorts of decisions in an area - such as particle physics - that I know nothing about. And I guess a non-scientist would feel similarly unequipped.
But what about the Big Picture? Is there room for public debate about what general areas on which we, as humankind, should be focusing our experiments - and therefore, our money? A recent survey of over a thousand Americans conducted by the Pew Research Center found that their respondents were generally optimistic about future technology making the world a better place, but they had strong opinions about what they wanted (flying cars, time travel, medical advances) and did not want (genetic modification of offspring, robotic healthcare workers, implants providing a constant flow of information). How much should such attitudes shape science funding?
I believe that public debate, such as the relatively modest one we are trying to foster on Occam's Corner this week, is very important. But I do worry about how closely society's desires would map onto the detailed decisions to fund specific projects. The problem is that the actual research that leads to these desired outcomes is not always predictable - not even by the experts - and often funding one type of science reaps the most benefits in an entirely different field.
Take medical breakthroughs as an example. Peter Mansfield, a physicist from London, did a lot of seemingly esoteric work in the 1960s around magnetic resonance of polymers and metals, and how to mathematically interpret the resulting signals. The people who decided to fund this work would have had no idea that one day Mansfield would share the Nobel Prize for laying the foundation work for the full-body MRI scanner - a piece of technology that has revolutionized medical diagnosis. There are thousands of stories out there about how basic research into one area has benefitted another quite serendipitously, and with all the forward planning in the world, I doubt this will ever change significantly. On the other hand, when a very targeted, applied task is heavily funded and organized - the virtual eradication of polio, for example - expected benefits can also be achieved. Except when reality refuses to cooperate - as in Nixon's 'War on Cancer' which, despite some modest advances, remains largely un-won some forty years on.
It's important, therefore, to understand the unpredictable nature of research, and the unexpected benefits (or unfortunate failures) it can throw out. Above all, it's crucial to appreciate that we must always support basic, blue-skies research to allow such serendipity to foster the science that will underpin knowledge and technology that we can't even imagine at the moment. Any public discussion of prioritizing research directions should be made in this context.
Reminder:
A live panel will be gathering online on Occam's Typewriter from 12-2 pm BST on Monday 16th June to discuss the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills' capital consultation. The live Q&A is open to all and will take place in the comments section below the launch article. Please create a Guardian comment account to join in.
Jenny Rohn, novelist and rock chick, is a cell biologist at UCL and Chair of Science is Vital. She's also on Twitter as @JennyRohn Entities 0 Name: Occam Count: 2 1 Name: Peter Mansfield Count: 1 2 Name: Big Picture Count: 1 3 Name: humankind Count: 1 4 Name: BST Count: 1 5 Name: Department of Business Count: 1 6 Name: Chair of Science Count: 1 7 Name: Pew Research Center Count: 1 8 Name: Jenny Rohn Count: 1 9 Name: Mansfield Count: 1 10 Name: London Count: 1 11 Name: UCL Count: 1 12 Name: Nixon Count: 1 Related 0 Url: http://ift.tt/1mALvLk Title: How should the government invest in science research? - live chat Description: How should the government invest in research? The Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) wants to know and has launched a consultation exercise to gather the views of anyone who would like to have a say.
Post a Comment for "Big picture science: who decides?"