NIH Under Fire
The National institutes of Health are under pressure to answer more questions about its various research programs.
I think that there is but one engineer formerly involved in research, in the U.S Congress, and but two physicians. The rest - a huge majority - do not have largely scientific training. It bothers me greatly to hear(read really) statements like the following:
Having performed in research in the private sector, I can state that there are times that management - which is a good proxy for Congress - didn't always appreciate that much of research gives rise to serendipity. Discovering something entirely by accident and unrelated to the primary research is much more common than is generally realized.
(of course private sector research is hampered by the need to produce something of immediately recognized commercial value *sigh*)
I would distill this down to something like: the future is invented, not predicted.
It is difficult to imagine research grants being awarded for development of the automobile when the horse and carriage, rail and waterways were already proven modes of transportation. So it goes for the airplane, quantum theory(which gave rise to the transistor), and FM radio to name but a few.
These were all serendipitous inventions, at least in part, which no one in the West could easily function effectively within the industrial construct in which we now live. They are now a part of the fabric of our everyday lives.
You can't always give a "common sense" answer to the whys of research. There is ofttimes nothing common about research whatever.
In order for science to remain vibrant, governments should maintain as little oversight over research as is practical.
Sure, there needs to be discernible explanations as to why a given research body is important, but I think Jefferson's aphorism: "The government which governs least, governs best," is especially relevant here.
I think that there is but one engineer formerly involved in research, in the U.S Congress, and but two physicians. The rest - a huge majority - do not have largely scientific training. It bothers me greatly to hear(read really) statements like the following:
Referring to last year's highly publicized controversy over NIH funding of research grants to study human sexual behavior, two Democrats on the subcommittee — Henry Waxman and Lois Capps, both of California—complained that Republican lawmakers had "interfered" with the NIH peer-review process for ideological reasons. But Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) said: "It helps us in rural America if the grants pass the 'common sense' test. Can you bring some sense or explanation for those that don't?"The first link in this entry will bring you to the full article, as well as many relevant links.Zerhouni(NIH Director Elias A. Zerhouni) agreed, noting that since the controversy, he has required every extramural grant to include an explanation of its benefit and relevance to society "in plain language."
"We depend on the support of all the taxpayers," Zerhouni said.
Having performed in research in the private sector, I can state that there are times that management - which is a good proxy for Congress - didn't always appreciate that much of research gives rise to serendipity. Discovering something entirely by accident and unrelated to the primary research is much more common than is generally realized.
(of course private sector research is hampered by the need to produce something of immediately recognized commercial value *sigh*)
I would distill this down to something like: the future is invented, not predicted.
It is difficult to imagine research grants being awarded for development of the automobile when the horse and carriage, rail and waterways were already proven modes of transportation. So it goes for the airplane, quantum theory(which gave rise to the transistor), and FM radio to name but a few.
These were all serendipitous inventions, at least in part, which no one in the West could easily function effectively within the industrial construct in which we now live. They are now a part of the fabric of our everyday lives.
You can't always give a "common sense" answer to the whys of research. There is ofttimes nothing common about research whatever.
In order for science to remain vibrant, governments should maintain as little oversight over research as is practical.
Sure, there needs to be discernible explanations as to why a given research body is important, but I think Jefferson's aphorism: "The government which governs least, governs best," is especially relevant here.
No comments :
Post a Comment