Actually, it's hard to find cases where applied research in and of itself has ever lead to anything. It's almost always, if not always, applications of stuff learned via basic research.
"So easy it seemed once found, which yet unfound most would have thought impossible" John Milton ________________________________________ Robert G. Hamilton Department of Biological Sciences Mississippi College P.O. Box 4045 200 South Capitol Street Clinton, MS 39058 Phone: (601) 925-3872 FAX (601) 925-3978 >>> Liane Cochran-Stafira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 5/8/2007 11:34 AM >>> Hmmm, If we start viewing science through the "social relevance" lens, what will happen to basic research - i.e. non-applied, question oriented work rather than problem driven work? I can think of many examples where basic research has provided unexpected applied benefits. If grant proposals are weighed on relevance, won't we lose the ability to conduct basic research? Liane Cochran-Stafira At 07:09 AM 5/8/2007, Dan Tufford wrote: > >From Futures 39(7) > > > >Scott, Alister, 2007. Peer review and the social relevance of science. >doi:10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009 ><http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2006.12.009> > > > >Abstract > >Recent science-policy debates have emphasised a growing role for science in >helping to address some of society's most pressing challenges such as global >environmental change, caring for the needs of ageing populations, and >competitiveness in a global age. Other 'relevance' pressures include drives >for public accountability, pressure for the 'democratisation' of science and >demands from industry for usable knowledge. Underlying the question of the >social relevance of science is the matter of decision-making and quality >control in science, usually via the peer-review process. Peer review plays a >central role in many of the key moments in science. It is the main form of >decision-making around grant selection, academic publishing and the >promotion of individual scientists within universities and research >institutions. It also underpins methods used to evaluate scientific >institutions. Yet, peer review as currently practised can be narrowly >scientific, to the exclusion of other pressing quality criteria relating to >social relevance. It is often also controlled and practised by scientists to >the exclusion of wider groups that might bring valuable perspectives. This >article sets out to examine peer review through the lens of social >relevance. It challenges peer review as currently practised and makes some >suggestions for ways forward. > >Regards, > >Daniel L. Tufford, Ph.D. > >University of South Carolina > >Department of Biological Sciences > >209A Sumwalt (office) > >701 Sumter St, Room 401 (mail) > >Columbia, SC 29208 > >Ph. 803-777-3292, Fx: 803-777-3292 > >e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >web: http://www.biol.sc.edu/~tufford > > *************************** Liane Cochran-Stafira, Ph.D. Associate Professor Department of Biology Saint Xavier University 3700 West 103rd Street Chicago, Illinois 60655 phone: 773-298-3514 fax: 773-298-3536 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://faculty.sxu.edu/~cochran/
