"Gotta love this letter published in the guardian.com this week. It comes from a number of scientists throughout the world who are obviously frustrated with the barriers being thrown up around them — financial, antiquated procedures and techniques to name a few — and would like to see changes.
When you speak of scientific mavericks, you might look directly at Improbable Research's annual Ig Nobel awards which recognize the arguably leading edge of maverick scientific work." (Slashdot)
The Guardian Letter:
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts," said Richard Feynman
in the 1960s. But times change. Before about 1970, academics had access
to modest funding they could use freely. Industry was similarly
enlightened. Their results included the transistor, the maser-laser, the
electronics and telecommunications revolutions, nuclear power,
biotechnology and medical diagnostics galore that enriched the lives of
virtually everyone; they also boosted 20th-century economic growth.
After
1970, politicians substantially expanded academic sectors. Peer
review's uses allowed the rise of priorities, impact etc, and is now
virtually unavoidable. Applicants' proposals must convince their peers
that they serve national policies and are the best possible uses of
resources. Success rates are about 25%, and strict rules govern
resubmissions. Rejected proposals are usually lost. Industry too has
lost its taste for the unpredictable. The 500 major discoveries, almost
all initiated before about 1970, challenged mainstream science and would
probably be vetoed today. Nowadays, fields where understanding is poor
are usually neglected because researchers must convince experts that
working in them will be beneficial.
However, small changes would keep science healthy. Some are outlined in Donald Braben's book, Promoting the Planck Club:
How Defiant Youth, Irreverent Researchers and Liberated Universities
Can Foster Prosperity Indefinitely. But policies are deeply ingrained.
Agencies claiming to support blue-skies research
use peer review, of course, discouraging open-ended inquiries and
serious challenges to prevailing orthodoxies. Mavericks once played an
essential role in research. Indeed, their work defined the 20th century.
We must relearn how to support them, and provide new options for an
unforeseeable future, both social and economic. We need influential
allies. Perhaps Guardian readers could help?
Donald W Braben University College London
John F Allen Queen Mary, University of London
William Amos University of Cambridge
Richard Ball University of Edinburgh
Tim Birkhead FRS University of Sheffield
Peter Cameron Queen Mary, University of London
Richard Cogdell FRS University of Glasgow
David Colquhoun FRS University College London
Rod Dowler Industry Forum, London
Irene Engle United States Naval Academy, Annapolis
Felipe Fernández-Armesto University of Notre Dame
Desmond Fitzgerald Materia Medica
Pat Heslop-Harrison University of Leicester
Dudley Herschbach Harvard University, Nobel Laureate
H Jeff Kimble Caltech, US National Academy of Sciences
Sir Harry Kroto FRS Florida State University, Tallahassee, Nobel Laureate
James Ladyman University of Bristol
Nick Lane University College London
Peter Lawrence FRS University of Cambridge
Angus MacIntyre FRS Queen Mary, University of London
John Mattick Garvan Institute of Medical Research, Sydney
Beatrice Pelloni University of Reading
Martyn Poliakoff FRS University of Nottingham
Douglas Randall University of Missouri
David Ray Bio Astral Limited
Sir Richard J Roberts FRS New England Biolabs, Nobel Laureate
Ken Seddon Queen's University of Belfast
Colin Self University of Newcastle
Harry Swinney University of Texas, US National Academy of Sciences
Claudio Vita-Finzi FBA Natural History Museum
Via: KeelyNet.com
