This post is a follow on from a random tweet that I sent a few weeks back in response to a query on twitter from Lord Drayson, the UK’s Minister of State for Science and Innovation. I thought it might be an idea to expand from the 140 characters that I had to play with at the time but its taken me a while to get to it. It builds on the ideas of a post from last year but is given a degree of urgency by the current changes in policy proposed by EPSRC.

Government money for research is limited, and comes from the pockets of taxpayers. It is incumbent on those of us who spend it to ensure that this investment generates maximum impact. Impact, for me comes in two forms. Firstly there is straightforward (although not straightforward to measure) economic impact; increases in competitivenes, standard of living, development of business opportunities, social mobility, reductions in the burden of ill health and hopefully in environmental burden at some point in the future. The problem with economic impact is that it is almost impossible to measure in any meaningful way. The second area of impact is, at least on the surface, a little easier to track, that is research outputs delivere. How efficiently do we turn money into science? Scratch beneath the surface and you realise rapidly that measurement is a nightmare, but we can at least look at where there are inefficiencies, where money is being wasted, and being lost from the pipelines before it can be spent on research effort.

The approach that is being explicitly adopted in the UK is to concentrate research in “centres of excellence” and to “focus research on areas where the UK leads” and where “they are relevant to the UK’s needs”. At one level this sounds like motherhood and apple pie. It makes sense in terms of infrastructure investment to focus research funding both geographically and in specific subject areas. But at another level it has the potential to completely undermine the UK’s history of research excellence.

There is a fundamental problem with trying to maximise the economic impact of research. And it is one that any commercial expert, or indeed politician should find obvious. Markets are good at picking winners, commitees are very bad at it. Using committees of scientists, with little or no experience of commercialising research outputs is likely to be an unmitigated disaster. There is no question that some research leds to commercial outcomes but to the best of my knowledge there is no evidence that anyone has ever had any success in picking the right projects in advance. The simple fact is that the biggest form of economic impact from research is in providing and supporting the diverse and skilled workforce that support a commercially responsive, high technology economy. To a very large extent it doesn’t actually matter what specific research you support as long as it is diverse. And you will probably generate just exactly the same amount of commercial outcomes by picking at random as you will by trying to pick winners.

The world, and the UK in particular, is facing severe challenges both economic and environmental for which there may be technological solutions. Indeed there is a real opportunity in the current economic climate to reboot the economy with low carbon technologies and at the same time take the opportunity to really rebuild the information economy in a way that takes advantage of the tools the web provides, and in turn to use this to improve outcomes in health, social welfare, to develop new environmentally friendly processes and materials. The UK has great potential to lead these developments precisely because it has a diverse research community and a diverse highly trained research and technology workforce. We are well placed to solve todays problems with tomorrow’s technology.

Now let us return to the current UK policy proposals. These are to concentrate research, to reduce diversity, and to focus on areas of UK strength. How will those strengths be identified? No doubt by committee. Will they be forward looking strengths? No, they will be what a bunch of old men, already selected by their conformance to a particular stereotype, i.e. the ones doing fundable research i fundable places, identify in a closed room. It is easy to identify the big challenges. It is not easy, perhaps not even possible, to identify the technological solutions that will eventually solve them. Not the currently most promising solutions, the ones that will solve the problem five or ten years down the track.

As a thought experiment think back to what the UK’s research strengths and challenges were 20 years ago and imagine a world in which they were exclusively funded. It would be easy to argue that many of the UK’s current strengths simply wouldn’t even exist (web technology? biotechnology? polymer materials?). And that disciplines that have subsequently reduced in size or entirely disappeared would have been maintained at the cost of new innovation. Concentrating research in a few places, on a few subjects, will reduce diversity, leading to the loss of skills, and probably the loss of skilled people as researchers realise there is no future career for them in the UK. It will not provide the diverse and skilled workforce required to solve the problems we face today. Concentrating on current strengths, no matter how worthy, will lead to ossification and conservatism making UK research ultimately irrelevant on a world stage.

What we need more than ever now, is a diverse and vibrant research community working on a wide range of problems, and to find better communication tools so as to efficiently connect unexpected solutions to problems in different areas. This is not the usual argument for “blue skies research”, whatever that may be. It is an argument for using market forces to do what they are best at (pick the winners from a range of possible technologies) and to use the smart people currently employed in research positions at government expense to actually do what they are good at; do research and train new researchers. It is an argument for critically looking at the expenditure of government money in a wholistic way and to seriously consider radical change where money is being wasted. I have estimated in the past that the annual cost of failed grant proposals to the UK government is somewhere between £100M - £500M, a large sum of money in anybody’s books. More rigorous economic analysis of a Canadian government funding scheme has shown that the cost of preparing and refeering the proposals ($CAN40k) is more than the cost of giving every eligible applicant a support grantof $CAN30k. This is not just farcical, it is an offensive waste of taxpayer’s money.

The funding and distribution of research money requires radicaly overhaul. I do not beleive that simply providing more money is the solution. Frankly we’ve had a lot more money, it makes life a little more comfortable if you are in the right places, but it has reduced the pressure to solve the underlying problems. We need responsive funding at a wide range of levels that enables both bursts of research, the kind of instant collaboration that we know can work, with little or no review, and large scale data gathering projects of strategic importance that need extensive and careful critical review before being approved.  And we need mechanisms to tension these against each other. We need baseline funding to just let people get on with research and we need access to larger sums where appropriate.

We need less buearacracy, less direction from the top, and more direction from the sides, from the community, and not just necessarily the community of researchers. What we have at the moment are strategic initiatives announced by research councils that are around five years behind the leading edge, which distort and constrain real innovation. Now we have ministers proposing to identify the UK’s research strengths. No doubt these will be five to ten years out of date and they will almost certainly stifle those pockets of excellence that will grow in strengths over the next decade. No-one will ever agree what tomorrow’s strengths will be. Much better would be to get on and find out.

Posted: April 13th, 2009 under funding.
Comments: 1

This is the second in a series of posts (first one here) in which I am trying to process and collect ideas that came out of Scifoo. This post arises out of a discussion I had with Michael Eisen (UC Berkely) and Sean Eddy (HHMI Janelia Farm) at lunch on the Saturday. We had drifted from a discussion of the problem of attribution stacking and citing datasets (and datasets made up of datasets) into the problem of academic credit. I had trotted out the usual spiel about the need for giving credit for data sets and for tool development.

Michael made two interesting points. The first was that he felt people got too much credit for datasets already and that making them more widely citeable would actually devalue the contribution. The example he cited was genome sequences. This is a case where, for historical reasons, the publication of a dataset as a paper in a high ranking journal is considered appropriate.

In a sense I agree with this case. The problem here is that for this specific case it is allowable to push a dataset sized peg into a paper sized hole. This has arguably led to an over valuing of the sequence data itself and an undervaluing of the science it enables. Small molecule crystallography is similar in some regards with the publication of crystal structures in paper form bulking out the publication lists of many scientists. There is a real sense in which having a publication stream for data, making the data itself directly citeable, would lead to a devaluation of these contributions. On the other hand it would lead to a situation where you would cite what you used, rather than the paper in which it was, perhaps peripherally described. I think more broadly that the publication of data will lead to greater efficiency in research generally and more diversity in the streams to which people can contribute.

Michael’s comment on tool development was more telling though. As people at the bottom of the research tree (and I count myself amongst this group) it is easy to say ‘if only I got credit for developing this tool’, or ‘I ought to get more credit for writing my blog’, or anyone of a thousand other things we feel ‘ought to count’. The problem is that there is no such thing as ‘credit’. Hiring decisions and promotion decisions are made on the basis of perceived need. And the primary needs of any academic department are income and prestige. If we believe that people who develop tools should be more highly valued then there is little point in giving them ‘credit’ unless that ‘credit’ will be taken seriously in hiring decisions. We have this almost precisely backwards. If a department wanted tool developers then it would say so, and would look at CVs for evidence of this kind of work. If we believe that tool developers should get more support then we should be saying that at a higher, strategic level, not just trying to get it added as a standard section in academic CVs.

More widely there is a question as to why we might think that blogs, or public lectures, or code development, or more open sharing of protocols are something for which people should be given credit. There is often a case to be made for the contribution of a specific person in a non-traditional medium, but that doesn’t mean that every blog written by a scientists is a valuable contribution. In my view it isn’t the medium that is important, but the diversity of media and the concomitant diversity of contributions that they enable. In arguing for these contributions being significant what we are actually arguing for is diversity in the academic community.

So is diversity a good thing? The tightening and concentration of funding has, in my view, led to a decrease in diversity, both geographical and social, in the academy. In particular there is a tendency to large groups clustered together in major institutions, generally led by very smart people. There is a strong argument that these groups can be more productive, more effective, and crucially offer better value for money. Scifoo is a place where those of us who are less successful come face to face with the fact that there are many people a lot smarter than us and that these people are probably more successful for a reason. And you have to question whether your own small contribution with a small research group is worth the taxpayer’s money. In my view this is something you should question anyway as an academic researcher – there is far too much comfortable complacency and sense of entitlement, but that’s a story for another post.

So the question is; do I make a valid contribution? And does that provide value for money? And again for me Scifoo provides something of an answer. I don’t think I spoke to any person over the weekend without at least giving them something new to think about, a slightly different view on a situation, or just an introduction to something that hadn’t heard of before. These contributions were in very narrow areas, ones small enough for me to be expert, but my background and experience provided a different view. What does this mean for me? Probably that I should focus more on what makes my background and experience unique – that I should build out from that in the directions most likely to provide a complementary view.

But what does it mean more generally? I think that it means that a diverse set of experiences, contributions, and abilities will improve the quality of the research effort. At one session of Scifoo, on how to support ground breaking science, I made the tongue in cheek comment that I thought we needed more incremental science, more filling in of tables, of laying the foundations properly. The more I think about this the more I think it is important. If we don’t have proper foundations, filled out with good data and thought through in detail, then there are real risks in building new skyscrapers. Diversity adds reinforcement by providing better tools, better datasets, and different views from which to examine the current state of opinion and knowledge. There is an obvious tension between delivering radical new technologies and knowledge and the incremental process of filling in, backing up, and checking over the details. But too often the discussion is purely about how to achieve the first, with no attention given to the importance of the second. This is about balance not absolutes.

So to come back around to the original point, the value of different forms of contribution is not due to the fact that they are non-traditional or because of the medium per se, it is because they are different. If we value diversity at hiring committees, and I think we should, then looking at a diverse set of contributions, and the contribution that a given person is likely to make in the future based on their CVs, we can assess more effectively how they will differ from the people we already have. The tendency of ‘the academy’ to hire people in its own image is well established. No monoculture can ever be healthy; certainly not in a rapidly changing environment. So diversity is something we should value for its own sake, something we should try to encourage, and something that we should search CVs for evidence of. Then the credit for these activities will flow of its own accord.

Posted: August 18th, 2008 under academic credit, citation, diversity, economics, funding, scifoo.
Comments: 7

Image from Wikipedia via Zemanta

Following on from the discussion a few weeks back kicked off by Shirley at One Big Lab and continued here I’ve been thinking about how to actually turn what was a throwaway comment into reality:

What is being generated here is new science, and science isn’t paid for per se. The resources that generate science are supported by governments, charities, and industry but the actual production of science is not supported. The truly radical approach to this would be to turn the system on its head. Don’t fund the universities to do science, fund the journals to buy science; then the system would reward increased efficiency.

There is a problem at the core of this. For someone to pay for access to the results, there has to be a monetary benefit to them. This may be through increased efficiency of their research funding but that’s a rather vague benefit. For a serious charitable or commercial funder there has to be the potential to either make money, or at least see that the enterprise could become self sufficient. But surely this means monetizing the data somehow? Which would require restrictive licences, which is not at the end what we’re about.

The other story of the week has been the, in the end very useful, kerfuffle caused by ChemSpider moving to a CC-BY-SA licence, and the confusion that has been revealed regarding data, licencing, and the public domain. John Wilbanks, whose comments on the ChemSpider licence, sparked the discussion has written two posts [1, 2] which I found illuminating and have made things much clearer for me. His point is that data naturally belongs in the public domain and that the public domain and the freedom of the data itself needs to be protected from erosion, both legal, and conceptual that could be caused by our obsession with licences. What does this mean for making an effective data commons, and the Science Exchange that could arise from it, financially viable? Read more »

Posted: May 11th, 2008 under Collaboration, academic credit, data commons, data formats, funding, linking papers to open data, open access, open data, open-science-charter, osci-protocol, science21.
Comments: none

Following on from my post there has been lots of discussion both in the comments to the post and also support and ideas on other blogs. I also had a good talk (I know, face to face, how archaic :) with Jeremy Frey about the idea. Here I want to collate a few of the comments and ideas. Read more »

Posted: April 6th, 2008 under drug discovery, funding, open data, open science, organic chemistry, undergraduate teaching.
Comments: 4

A whole series of things have converged in the last couple of days for me. First was Jean-Claude’s description of the work [1, 2] he and Brent Friesen of the Dominican University are doing putting the combi-Ugi project into an undergraduate laboratory setting. The students will make new compounds which will then be sent for testing as antimalarial agents by Phil Rosenthal at UCSF. This is a great story and a testament in particular to Brent’s work to make the laboratory practical more relevant and exciting for his students.

At the same time I get an email from Anna Croft, University of Bangor, Wales, after meeting up the previous day; Read more »

Posted: April 3rd, 2008 under docking, drug discovery, funding, open data, open notebook science, open science, organic chemistry, screening, undergraduate teaching.
Comments: 7