I’m for greater mixes throughout the research portfolio: more blue sky, more problem-oriented, more multi and interdisciplinary. My suspicion is that pushing more (but not exclusively) problem-oriented research would help with the inter- and multidisciplinary work.

Of course, we’re both spitballing from a presumption that changes in federal funding patterns would be sufficient to shift incentive and reward structures in universities. We both know better.

If it were we would assess the technologies we have, identify why they are not being used whether it’s a technological breakthrough that’s needed or some other intervention (say wind in Wyoming, transmission lines) and then put funds toward fixing the problem, whether research is needed or just plain old infrastructure investments.. or..

The first thing I would do if I were the Queen of Federal Science is to make each agency clarify what it is doing research on and make it stick to what it says. for example some years ago I had a tour of Lawrence Berkeley Labs DOE- who were working on the human genome. Innocently I said, why you and not NIH? They said that at one time folks were working on genetic changes due to radiation and it “just grew” from there. The whole enterprise of science in the federal government is overlapping and duplicative.. so I would start there.

First step, each agency gets a clear and distinct research turf.
Second, each agency has board of stakeholders to determine research priorities within that turf
Third, the agency thinks about whether investigator initiated random is the best way to solve real world problems or whether a strategic thoughtful portfolio would be better.
Fourth, if the agency uses investiagor initiated research proposals, it has a separate reality check (practitioners tend to get drowned out in my experience on panels with mixed practitioners and researchers) function where real world people on the ground dealing with the problem are asked if the research would be helpful (not their lobbyists or representatives).

I consider scientific priorities and scientific issues different things (especially when you throw in ‘correct’ as you did). If the public is funding research, then I think it appropriate that they have a say in what the research priorities are. I do not think the public should dictate what science is in the sense of what scientific facts are. If a country wishes to not fund research in a particular area, I think that’s an acceptable choice from a democratic (small d) perspective.

docpine,

To your first point, I think Harold Varmus’ new memoir speaks to those challenges in the National Institutes of Health, and might be worth a read. I, too, think the ag extension model is admirable, and would like to see it used elsewhere (the Manufacturing Extension Partnership has had too many obstacles to be that successful, as it’s faced pretty consistent Republican opposition).

In terms of stakeholder representation, would some form of expert review (as opposed to peer review) stand a chance of establishing a beachhead against the mission creep of researchers?

I am a big fan of the agricultural model with the land-grant colleges working on practical things of value to people of this country. Research, extension and education are part of the mission. Ideally, stakeholders help determine use of research funding at these schools. However some in the science community have an ideological attachment to the concept of investigator initiated research and basic science, and have attempted to reduce the so-called formula funds to have more investigator initiated competitive grants. Having served and organized these panels of scientists, I can only tell you that the claims of utility for the research are often not challenged by anyone- and there is nary a stakeholder in the process.

This is not to question the motives of anyone, the investigators have to do what they have to do to get grants. It is the unquestioned assumption that the only way to solve real world problems is to have scientists alone decide on what are the best approaches that I question. For one thing they tend to drift off into what is “cool to do” in their field at a given time (for perfectly legitimate reasons, the publish in disciplinary journals and thereby feed their families ) and not what is the best investment for government funds nor what is the most useful to stakeholders.

And to your point, some congressional efforts have attempted to wrest control and make research more useful to real people. For example, there was a grant program called Fund for Rural America that was specifically designed to be useful to rural Americans. This program had a short but useful life and in my view was beaten back by forces of “scientists know best what you publics really need.”

I take it you consider the Congress to be insufficiently staffed with representatives of those whose work relies on the products of scientific and technological activity?

In short, we need a new body? We can’t do anything with the ones we have?