Source: ATYUN AI platform
On the surface, science policy may seem fairly dry, but it is the basis of academic research, it has a positive knock-on effects on industrial innovation.
Science policy focus on scientific allocation of critical resources, the overall objective of most research in the public interest. Most people think that science and government policy related to science - this is partly true, but also includes:
How to finance scientific and generate knowledge
career paths scientists
scientific discoveries into technological innovation, creating new products, enhance competitiveness and promote economic growth and economic development of
understanding to produce new and innovative scientific and engineering thought process and organizational background the core focus of science policy.
Whether you're a scientist, engineer or medical researcher, science policy is very important. Evidence and expertise are the basic scientific output policy.
In an age of evidence and expert constantly challenged - scientific experts is at least one British politician as a "soothsayers and astrologers," and condemned a US president - we must ensure that science policy continues to set high standards.
Blue sky importance of funding
one of the most important issue the government and donors to consider is the balance between basic science and applied science. Blue Sky Research how much money should be invested, and the recent impact study how much? The problem is that we are not smart enough, I do not know what research will lead to the blue sky.
Who knows Rose leaves the bacteria causing cancer research will lead to the development of transgenic technology. During the original research, it does not envisage widespread application of antibody technology. LCD flat-panel TVs to support the development of research actually rejected the then Science and Engineering Committee, and ultimately by the Department of Defense funding. From polyethylene to the discovery of magnetic resonance imaging, I can quote many more examples,
Require long-term thinking and curiosity
therefore, decided in advance which studies will have the greatest impact downstream at risk. We need to make sure to provide space and funding for curiosity-driven research. UK Research Council was restructured - they now sit in a new organization called UKRI in, as well as HEFEC and Innovate UK university research funding. One of my things in this new organization are most concerned about is that it may increase the ability of the government to tell Research Council, which funded the study. It would be disastrous - in part because of the history of government departments do not always provide funding for the best research, but mainly because of the time-scale of up to three years of politicians, of course, does not exceed the time of the next general election . They want a quick fix - short-term results and the title crawl results. These are not conducive to great science.
Therefore, I am pleased to respond to the concerns raised by the House of Lords, Haer Dan principle loaded bill. It means that research funding is essentially Haldane principle should be independent of government, and therefore should be decided by the researchers rather than politicians what research should be funded.
But even with this in mind, is responsible for funding research and science policy people, to ensure that research institutions, the memory remains a challenge in a way curiosity booming atmosphere.
Training is essential, not just the scientific method
which significantly affect the training of scientists. The debate on how best to finance the training of scientists has disappeared, as long as there is research funders - I personally was not only a fan of all doctoral students in large centers, and that a combination of doctoral training centers and more individual students is desirable. I do recognize the importance of training, and I know that the early benefit from more help and guidance. Obviously, doctorate, you have to concentrate and make sure that the target to complete the project, but may be due to be alert to new ways of research and open up.
Dr. Xu Duo researchers do not pursue an academic career - history tells us, and we know there will always be limited in the academic work. Whether it is to continue to do science or science are put together, training can make Dr. in a good position, but the scientific method should be how to gather and use evidence rigorous training.
Training is especially important for solving an important scientific question - repeatability. The poor can not repeat experiments and do no good, and threaten the credibility of science. In the case of power experiments designed sloppy record keeping and poor, there is no excuse. I remember when I left academia and into industry, I reproducibility I saw in academia, control and rigorous experimental design to the sexy surprise.
It is essential that, from the point of view of donors, funding research to give a final copy is not a waste of money.
Funds focused on the challenges of
a science policy more problematic is deciding which broad areas of research funding as well as how to encourage interdisciplinary research. When I talk with researchers and BBSRC, the question a lot of problems. Paul Nurse studies support the restructuring of the Research Committee, which makes the lack of interdisciplinary research funding, I agree with that.
Decide which areas funding is difficult, we will never be perfect, but as long as we leave a lot of money for research sky bottom-up, then we should have the ability to respond to new and exciting science. In interdisciplinary studies, research councils really need to do better, because their existing plan is ideal for researchers funded specific disciplines. But part of the problem lies in scientists themselves - many scientists are very narrow and the protection of their discipline. When they sat Grants Committee and have an application appears, it says biological and engineering part, BBSRC engineer would say it should be financed and biologists, EPSRC should fund it - the opportunity to return to the open rather than blindly.
Research must be transformed into real-world applications
of science policy in determining how to transform research - how to apply research also plays an important role. For the government, it is important to realize that the industry does not operate in a vacuum - even more so now the British retreat Europe, the United Kingdom need to have global competitiveness. The first thing is to focus on research excellence in the industry - so this is a crucial matter to sustain life. The second is easy to work with academics and their institutions. We have something called FEC in the UK - basically this means that agencies may charge the actual administrative costs of any industrial cooperation - institutions may choose not they particularly want to charge the full fee and in the case of industrial partners, but this rarely happens. In our example,
Science policy can and does establish programs to promote research and interaction between academia and industry play a role in the translation. For example, BBSRC a variety of ways to promote such activities, such as Knowledge Transfer Partnership (KTP), research and innovation industrial park and independent LINK Partner Award program and facilitate innovation and influence within the university, such as annual Innovator of the Year Competition.
This highlights another important fact about science policy - it's not work in a vacuum. If we want to increase the economic impact and create new growth companies, we need to have the right financial environment. So the government needs to strategically join.
Policy information provided by the science
comes to the government, within the government science policy is actually scientific! A few years ago, when I worked at GSK, I participated in a review of how to use scientific evidence in its policy-making in a particular sector. The results show that economics rather than science provides information for most policies, the findings in this report does lead to some changes in order to re-balance the effects of the two disciplines.
However, I do think that with all the internal departments of government cuts, internal science budget will be cut in many cases, so the emphasis on science will be reduced, but the scientific evidence will become inevitable result. Of particular concern is that about 25% of the department CSA work - that 24 posts have six - currently vacant. Academia need to be vigilant and asked for scientific evidence, and regard it as an important internal government information policy.
We have seen recently in a number of obvious examples, evidence-based policy formulation examples of strong demand at present, such as badger slaughter, genetically modified crops.
Finally, I would say that science communication is an important aspect of science policy. Porter said Mark Wall, science has not completed prior to convey, I think this is true. Organizations such as the Center for Science in the media play an important role here - but scientists as well. If we want science to play an important role in determining how the government spending money, so scientists must raise their voice!
This switched ATYUN artificial intelligence media platforms, the original link: BenevolentAI: Reflections on science policy
more recommendations
AWS AMI depth study is now available in Beijing, Frankfurt, Singapore and Mumbai and other regions
When the AI has a quantum computer "brain", are you afraid of?
Easy to find work? AI will create 2.3 million jobs in 2020
Vice president of C-SATS project to teach you how to use TensorFlow classification image part1
