Every med student at some point in their lives will undertake some form of research, whether it is laboratory based or clinical. For some students, research will be just a passing interest and for some it will form a large part of their lives, which is why when issues like these are brought to the forefront, it is a cause for concern in the research world. The people in charge of research (basic and applied) recently introduced a new rule in which everyone that applies to conduct any form of research will now have to fill out an extra section in their application form. This extra section is not time consuming and it asks every researcher to state the social and economic benefit of their research. This may be difficult for some researchers to complete, especially those that conduct basic research, nevertheless the assessors say those researchers that do not have a direct benefit will not be scored negatively. However I feel this statement is a little misleading.
Firstly funders will give preference to research that will provide an economic return for them either in monetary terms or by increasing their profile/reputation in the research world. As funds are limited, research that cannot provide such returns will be pushed to the bottom of the pile to be considered as a last resort thus putting them at a disadvantage. Secondly if the assessors are not concern with the economic benefit, then why would they introduce this new section, why the sudden need? And finally, creativity should not be bound by financial constraints. By placing certain restrictions on researchers, some research may not be able take place which in other circumstances may have proved beneficial. For example, if Messelson and Stahl in 1953, had to provide the economic benefit of their (basic) research, then their work may never had been carried out. To outsiders it may look like a couple of grown men, messing about with test tubes wasting time and money. What they were actually doing was laying the foundation for future work by proving the structure of DNA via a series of logical experiments. The results of their basic research is now used in so many other programmes of work and projects like the Human Genome project may not have taken place.
So in conclusion, this new requirement has irritated the research world, so much so that Professor Allen has now launched a petition in order to have the economic benefit section scrapped in the application forms. I can understand how funders would be reluctant to support work that would not bring them any profitable (economic and social) return but at the same time, these restrictions may stifle researchers and their creativity. Clearly there are both advantages and disadvantages to this debate but I think personally I prefer not state the economic benefit but those that want to state their benefits can do.
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/honest-discovery/ The petition
UPDATE:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=408774 – Scrapping EB, October 2009
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment