r&d

Will Open Science Make It Even Harder to Build Science Communities in China?

Cesar O. Castro — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:46:05 -0700

Description

Taken from a blog post by Anthony Townsend, IFTF researcher. Not only do I agree that this presents a potentially significant problem for China, but it is possible that smaller, moer highly networked scientific communites will meet or exceed the R&D output of China.

Here's his post:

A pair of reports last week suggest that China's science community, while thriving, still has a long way to go before it becomes the kind of knowledge-circulating system needed to support world-class technical innovation.

First as Lan Xue argues in Nature, the aspiration of Chinese scientists to publish in internationally-recognized journals means that their research results do not circulate freely amongst their peers. In a sense, much of the output of Chinese science is "being published in a language that few researchers in China understand and at prices that few of them can afford".

Second, domestic conferences don't seem to be picking up where written discourse is disconnecting. A survey of 380 scholars conducted last year by Chen Shijun from the Scientific and Social Research Centre at Tianjin University found that only 2 in 5 were satisfied with the quality of the gatherings. The report in SciDev.net lists the many problems with organization, presenter selection, and paucity of real debate and discussion.

One has to wonder how China is going to solve some of these problems, especially as the scientific world seems to be moving rapidly towards a community model characterized by highly internationalized, English-centric web publishing and intensely collaborative workshops and conferences. If these reports are to be taken at face value, it seems that young Chinese researchers are not being adequately prepared or exposed to either of these key elements. On the other hand, though, given China's size and the potential for creating semi-independent national science networks large enough to flourish without constant outside stimulation, Chinese science has the potential to go its own fruitful way. In doing so, it might avoid some of the potential downsides of web-enabled science, such as the narrowing of scholarship described in James Evans' recent study of electronic publication. His takeaway: "as more journal issues came online, the articles referenced tended to be more recent, fewer journals and articles were cited, and more of those citations were to fewer journals and articles. The forced browsing of print archives may have stretched scientists and scholars to anchor findings deeply into past and present scholarship."

Science and Technology Places

Source

http://www.iftf.org/node/2254

The Planck Club: Another call for supporting science differently

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:42:36 -0700

Description

A recent letter to the Financial Times, signed by a number of prominent British and American scientists, decries the growth of "third-party assessments such as peer review" as inimical to radical scientific innovation. Leaving aside arguments about the degree to which "normal" versus "revolutionary" science differ, or can be prospectively identified and supported, the letter is another piece of evidence that a growing number of scientists see the traditional structures that regulated and rewarded their work:

Scientific advances are not predictable. Lasers, nuclear power, transistors, computers, antibiotics, molecular biology, for example, all took us by surprise. Luckily, for most of the 20th century scientists could usually pursue their own agenda, and we could enjoy sciences prodigious harvest. But success led to increasing numbers of scientists so that by the 1970s there were more than the funding agencies could support. In response, they required researchers to submit written proposals from which they selected the best, a policy that works well enough for the mainstream but fails at the margins where unpredictable and transformative discoveries are made.

Third-party assessments such as peer review would have been anathema to, say, Planck, Einstein, Avery, Townes, Crick and Watson, Kendrew, Perutz and about 300 others of similar calibre we call them the Planck Club whose work dominated the 20th century. However, their modern successors cannot escape them. In spite of increasing investments since 1970, there has been a dearth of new science. This is now a severe problem. As [economist Robert] Solow proved, we curb the supply of new science at our economic peril. However, current policies ensure we are doing that.

Science does not lack opportunity. There are few, if any, fields that we fully understand. The potential for growth is therefore as high as it was 100 years ago, say, but we will create a 21st-century Planck Club and its attendant harvest of unpredicted breakthroughs only if we can restore the freedom that leads to them.

There is a proven way of doing this. Costs would be relatively low some $20m-$30m a year for a global scheme but as prospective peer review must be excluded, it is probably too radical a solution for national funding agencies alone. There may be other ways forward such as, for example, collaboration between private investors and national agencies.

Three things are interesting here. First, the letter is signed by several Nobel laureates and other luminaries: this isn't a complaint by junior people whose careers are squeezed. Second, they acknowledge the radicalness of the a system in which traditional review mechanisms are suspended in favor of extreme, potentially paradigm-changing, freedom. Finally, $20-30 million is well within the reach of a handful of entrepreneurs. No one would want to fund this privately, but a consortium of people? If you know the right people, that wouldn't be that hard to do.

Amateur, DIY, and citizen science

Source

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b1338bc6-303c-11dd-86cc-000077b07658.html

Pentagon initiative to fund social science research

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 11:24:30 -0700

Description

The New York Times reports on a new Pentagon program to make more systematic use of social scientists.

Eager to embrace eggheads and ideas, the Pentagon has started an ambitious and unusual program to recruit social scientists and direct the nation’s brainpower to combating security threats like the Chinese military, Iraq, terrorism and religious fundamentalism.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has compared the initiative — named Minerva, after the Roman goddess of wisdom (and warriors) — to the government’s effort to pump up its intellectual capital during the cold war after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in 1957.

Although the Pentagon regularly finances science and engineering research, systematic support for the social sciences and humanities has been rare. Minerva is the first systematic effort in this area since the Vietnam War, said Thomas G. Mahnken, deputy assistant secretary of defense for policy planning, whose office will be overseeing the project.

But if the uncustomary push to engage the nation’s evolutionary psychologists, demographers, sociologists, historians and anthropologists in security research — as well as the prospect of new financial support in lean times — has generated excitement among some scholars, it has also aroused opposition from others, who worry that the Defense Department and the academy are getting too cozy.

$50 million will be routed through the National Science Foundation, in an effort to make the program feel more familiar-- to reduce anxiety among researchers about working with the military, and increase the scholarly rigor. Needless to say, the program has its detractors among academics:

“I am all in favor of having lots of researchers trying to figure out why terrorists want to kill Americans,” said Hugh Gusterson, an anthropologist at George Mason University. “But how can you make sure you get a broad spectrum of opinion and find the best people? On both counts, I don’t think the Pentagon is the way to go.”

Mr. Gusterson is a founder of the Network of Concerned Anthropologists, which was created because of a growing unease among scholars about cooperating with the Defense Department.

The American Anthropological Association, an 11,000-member organization, has also told administration officials that while research on these issues is essential, Defense Department money could compromise quality and independence because of the department’s inexperience with social science. “There was pretty general agreement that this was an issue we should weigh in on,” said Setha M. Low, the organization’s president, who contacted dozens of anthropologists about it.

Ethics in Science

Source

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/18/arts/18minerva.html

Declining Number and Quality of Scientific Laboratories in the United States

Jerry Sheehan — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:17:37 -0700

Description

In the next five years continued fiscal pressures from the Iraq war will exert major pressure on discretionary funding for science in the United States. These pressures will crowd out funding for the creation of new (non dod) labs, maintenance of existing labs, and equipment refresh. Long term structural problems in the U.S. Federal budget (entitlement programs, health care, deficits) will persist making the this pressure more intense and permanent.

An additional substantial structural problem related to the funding of America's science labs is the dramatic under capitalization of the instruments and facilities. These so called Advanced Research Instruments and Facilities (ARIF) were identified by the National Academies of Science in their Rising Above the Gathering Storm report as needing new funding of approximately $500 million. The primary problem identified by the Academies is that funding for ARIF has been fragmented across agencies and historically very limited. [1] Put simply, we have no fiscal plan to support the "refresh" needed for equipment in our leading edge laboratories.

What will the impact be of either the declining number of public scientific laboratories or their inadequate instrumentation?

1) A decrease in the quantity of science and innovation generated in America's laboratories. This decline will not only impact the advancement of knowledge, but will result in missed technology transfer opportunities with accompanying negative economic impact.

2) A decline in the number of scientific awards. In the last 20 years, eight of the nobel prizes in physics and five in chemistry were awarded to scientists who were inventors of new scientific instruments. Without substantial new funding for instrument development we will see a decline in new tools. [1]

3) A need for non-governmental resources to step in and provide primary funding for the operation of laboratories or new equipment needed to keep those facilities at the leading-edge. In FY08, budget pressures resulted in $98 million dollars being cut from high energy physics which had dramatic effect on Fermilab.[2] To stay fiscally afloat the Lab forced its scientific staff to take unpaid leave. Currently, Fermilab has once again become fully operational due to a $5m anonymous philanthropic donation made to the University of Chicago. [3]

Signals

So many labs, so little money

Corporate Labs Disappear. Academia Steps In.

Prizes, not prices, to stimulate antibiotic R&D

Alex Soojung-Kim Pang — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 03:00:00 -0700

NOTE: This content was aggregated from RSS feed. Original source is http://www.scidev.net/en/science-and-innovation-policy/prizes-not-prices-to-stimulate-antibiotic-r-d-.html?utm_source=link&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=en_scienceandinnovationpolicy

James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, argues on Sci Dev that prizes could be used to encourage work on new antibiotics:

Many of the challenges associated with the development of new antibiotics and vaccines are familiar, and common to other medicines. Research and development (R&D) is expensive, particularly for clinical trials involving people, and product development can be a lengthy process — two unattractive features for most investors, who tend to be risk-averse.

Investors might also be deterred by patent thickets. Many of the scientific benefits of R&D, including those generated by failures, are difficult or impossible to appropriate under patent laws....

For an incentive system that efficiently rewards products that improve healthcare outcomes, and does not lead to rationing and ethical dilemmas over access, it is better to use prizes rather than prices.

In theory, prizes can dominate prices in every important policy area when implemented as part of a scheme that separates the market for innovation from the market for products....

For antibiotics, a reward system of cash prizes could value new products using economic models similar to those used to value stock options, inventories and other financial instruments. A new antibiotic would be valued not only for its use during the patent term, but as part of an ongoing portfolio of products needed for new diseases, conditions or resistance problems that are expected to emerge over time.

Prizes can be paid even in cases where current consumption is zero, or close to zero, as long as the new product enhances the security and sustainability of the treatment programme....

Finally, some smaller firms have expressed interest in the development of a system of prizes that rewards early stages of drug development.

Specifically, they propose a system of prizes to reward success in meeting benchmarks in product development, including the relatively early phase I or II clinical trials.

Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership?

Jess Hemerly — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:12:02 -0800

Description

Abstract:

This paper develops four propositions that show that changes in the global job market for science and engineering (S&E) workers are eroding US dominance in S&E, which diminishes comparative advantage in high tech production and creates problems for American industry and workers:

(1) The U.S. share of the world's science and engineering graduates is declining rapidly as European and Asian universities, particularly from China, have increased S&E degrees while US degree production has stagnated.

(2) The job market has worsened for young workers in S&E fields relative to many other high-level occupations, which discourages US students from going on in S&E, but which still has sufficient rewards to attract large immigrant flows, particularly from developing countries.

(3) Populous low income countries such as China and India can compete with the US in high tech by having many S&E specialists although those workers are a small proportion of their work forces. This threatens to undo the North-South pattern of trade in which advanced countries dominate high tech while developing countries specialize in less skilled manufacturing.

(4) Diminished comparative advantage in high-tech will create a long period of adjustment for US workers, of which the off-shoring of IT jobs to India, growth of high-tech production in China, and multinational R&D facilities in developing countries, are harbingers.

To ease the adjustment to a less dominant position in science and engineering, the US will have to develop new labor market and R&D policies that build on existing strengths and develop new ways of benefiting from scientific and technological advances in other countries.

Science in the United States

Source

Freeman, Richard B. "Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership?." NBER Working Paper No. W11457, 2005.

Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future

Jess Hemerly — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:09:23 -0800

Description

Book description:

In a world where advanced knowledge is widespread and low-cost labor is readily available, U.S. advantages in the marketplace and in science and technology have begun to erode. A comprehensive and coordinated federal effort is urgently needed to bolster U.S. competitiveness and pre-eminence in these areas. This congressionally requested report by a pre-eminent committee makes four recommendations along with 20 implementation actions that federal policy-makers should take to create high-quality jobs and focus new science and technology efforts on meeting the nation's needs, especially in the area of clean, affordable energy:

1) Increase America's talent pool by vastly improving K-12 mathematics and science education;
2) Sustain and strengthen the nation's commitment to long-term basic research;
3) Develop, recruit, and retain top students, scientists, and engineers from both the U.S. and abroad; and
4) Ensure that the United States is the premier place in the world for innovation.

Some actions will involve changing existing laws, while others will require financial support that would come from reallocating existing budgets or increasing them. Rising Above the Gathering Storm will be of great interest to federal and state government agencies, educators and schools, public decision makers, research sponsors, regulatory analysts, and scholars.

Science in the United States

Source

"
Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future." Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) and Policy and Global Affairs (PGA). National Academies Press, 2007,

"Made in USA" scientific innovation on the decline

Jerry Sheehan — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 14:55:14 -0800

Description

The last three years have seen increasing concern over the scientific and technological competitiveness of the United States vis a vis other industrialized and developing nations. These concern reached a zenith in 2006 with the publication of “Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future” by the National Academies of Science.[1]

Examining any number of objective metrics shows that the “times are a changing” when it comes to scientific discovery: A) PhDs in Science and Engineering: By 2010 the European Union will grant roughly 2 PhDs in Science and Engineering for every one American PhD [2]. B) Scientific Publications: Since 1998 there has been an increase in scientific publications with international co-authorship with the EU, Japan, China, and Asia becoming increasingly prolific. C) Patents: American inventors in 2002 accounted for 52% of all patents granted in the United States. However, foreign patent applicants grew from 44% (1996) to 48% (2003) [3].

While there are numerous reasons for these changes (increasing population size and focus on science and engineering in China and India, more supportive basic research agenda, tax credits, etc) the conclusion that scientific and technological innovation will become more globally distributed seems certain.

The decentralization of technological and scientific innovation poses clear economic challenges for the United States. As Adam Segal noted in his 2004 article “Is America Losing its Edge” in Foreign Affairs: “For 50 years, the United States has maintained its economic edge by being better and faster than any other country at inventing and exploiting new technologies.”

One of the primary reasons this competitive edge existed was because basic research conducted in American Universities was transferred quickly to from the lab bench to the marketplace by industry. There exists a unique synergy between public research and private sector markets in the United States that can perhaps best be demonstrated by looking at the interaction and leveraged public and private sector investment that occurred from 1965 to 2000 in the area of information technology (see attached graph from National Academy of Sciences, 2003).

So, what are the likely impacts of growing decentralization of scientific and technological innovation?

First, in the short term that there will be an almost xenophobic reaction to the loss of primary production of scientific discovery in the United States that will manifest itself in concern for national security. As the Task Force on American Innovation led by former House Speaker Newt Gingrich noted “A robust research portfolio is a necessary part of a national security strategy that relies on knowledge and technology to keep the United States safe in a dangerous world.” These concerns will lead to short-term increases in research funding domestically but these will be tempered by the Iraq war, record budget deficits, and the entitlement crisis.

Second, American Universities will become increasingly involved in international scientific projects and global research partnerships. This trend will become increasingly dynamic as global problems such as climate change become crisis on the research agenda at the same time that new research talent is being produced in Asia and India.

Third, and most importantly, the American marketplace will need to develop new mechanisms for benefiting from technological innovations that are not produced in the American marketplace [5]. In these regards, the United States still appears to have a competitive edge in understanding how basic academic research can lead to applied research with industry. Increasingly, as seen in the recent King Abdullah University for Science and Technology (KAUST) recruitment efforts, American universities will be targeted not just for their academic skills but also for insight into how to build sustainable models for technology transfer.

[1]NAS Gathering Storm Report, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463
[2] Richard Freeman, National Bureau of Economic Research, July 2005.
[3]+ [4] National Science Board, National Science Indicators, 2006
[5] Richard Freeman, Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership, July 2005, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=755693

Signals

Move over US -- China to be new driver of world's economy and innovation?

Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future

Does Globalization of the Scientific/Engineering Workforce Threaten U.S. Economic Leadership?