The science we want and the science we need

An interesting piece in the Times Higher on historian David Edgerton’s analysis of the Haldane principle. He’s been saying it for a while, but it is too inconvenient for policymakers to hear it: The Haldane Principle, a sacred cow of UK science policy, doesn’t exist. But its non-existence doesn’t stop it getting invoked every time we talk about research funding.

Academics point to something called a Haldane principle every time their autonomy seems under threat (as in the recent hoo-ha over the AHRC’s “Big Society” programme). According to their version of Haldane, Government should keep its nose out of decisions about research projects or programmes. That’s why the Research Councils are semi-independent. And in Swindon.  As Edgerton puts it, “the Haldane Principle was invented at the moment it was seriously challenged, and would reappear in discussion at just such moments of contention”.

The Haldane principle, if we might want to reinvent it as a useful policy device, should not be about academic autonomy; it should be about who is best placed to make decisions. Government is not close enough or imaginative enough to shape the best possible research so we let scientists decide which are the most promising areas of science.

The current set-up has been pretty good at giving the UK the research it thinks it wants (world-leading, stuffed with Nobels and Nature papers). But talk of Haldane distracts attention from what I believe is a bigger problem – Government’s inability to fund the science it needs.I heard Richard Jones use this analogy to describe what happened when Government was told by the Royal Society that it should conduct research on the risks of nanoparticles. Five years later, it still hadn’t done so, forcing the then science minister Malcolm Wicks to answer, on the Today programme:

‘We need more research and I recognise that. . . . But this is not about money. The research councils. . . have  never  been  better funded. . . . What’s  happened  is  that they haven’t had, and this is what the MRC tell us, sufficiently high quality research applications to award the grants.’

To which Ed Stourton responded: ‘So it’s the scientists’ fault, not your fault at all?’

And the minister replied: ‘Look, it wouldn’t be right for a minister to say, “you scientists do this”. (More on this here… (pdf))

How did we get into a situation in which a science minister feels unable to tell scientists what to do with public money? There are countless topics on which Government needs to conduct research. The more tangible Rothschild reforms of the 1970s reminded Government of this. But, contra Wicks, it is about money. The hidden trend of the last few decades has been a withering in research not funded by the research councils – call it strategic, non-departmental, whatever. Things like national labs and departmental research programmes have collapsed, leaving Government largely unable to conduct the research it needs.

The ever-excellent Dan Sarewitz, writing in Nature, describes what it would really take to make science useful. The US military-industrial complex, for all its terrifying aspects, was awesomely good at getting the research it needed. Talk of economic growth now trumps national defence as a strategic rationale for science, but scientists and Government both pretend that it will simply happen on its own, or simply by shouting the word “IMPACT” at universities.

If policymakers were serious about science being the source of economic growth, what would policy actually look like? I don’t know, but I would suggest that we wouldn’t want to start from here.

About these ads

About Jack Stilgoe

Jack Stilgoe is a lecturer in science policy at the department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The science we want and the science we need

  1. A fascinating debate, to be sure. But does Sarewitz’s argument from the US military industrial complex really stand up as a general model for public investment in science. How much did the US Dept of Defence spend on “science” (i.e. discovery) and how much on “technology” (i.e. developmental work). My definitions may be a bit crude but I hope the intent is clear. My impression (based only on the types of activity and areas that he lists) is that most of that work, which certainly spawned industries, was developmental.

    I’d also ask whether DOD spending was considered value for money? US military budgets (which I guess includes R&D) are gigantic

    That said, though I’m a working scientist and value academic freedom (both for personal reasons and because curiosity-driven research has proven value), it does seem reasonable for the govt to give some direction to research into pressing problems.

    • Jack Stilgoe says:

      Thanks Stephen

      I was not intending to say that the military-industrial complex provides a model, merely that it suggests that different models are possible – it wanted to achieve a certain sort of thing through research and it did it. Different branches of government will have different motivations, and different ways of achieving them. But to rely on research councils to do it is a category error.

  2. Pingback: People vs projects in science funding | Responsible Innovation

  3. Jack Stilgoe says:

    Embarrassingly, I remembered another blog post I wrote at the time of the nano thing, with a stupidly similar title.
    http://www.demos.co.uk/blog/thescienceweneedthesciencewewant

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s