Comments on: Goldston gets Wired http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4838 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4838&cpage=1#comment-11510 David Bruggeman Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:59:29 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4838#comment-11510 An important point Goldston makes is that it's not just about the research portfolio. What matters at least as well is how that research is translated to the field, whether it's new practices, successful commercialization, or some other application of the knowledge that scientists and technologists have and generate. For me, some of this involves different uses of current knowledge as well as developing new knowledge and new applications. By current knowledge I don't want to limit things to natural and social sciences. For instance, the past use of science and technology - and its impact - could be useful here. The shift from streetcars to automobiles may have lessons for shifting to another kind of transportation system. An important point Goldston makes is that it’s not just about the research portfolio. What matters at least as well is how that research is translated to the field, whether it’s new practices, successful commercialization, or some other application of the knowledge that scientists and technologists have and generate.

For me, some of this involves different uses of current knowledge as well as developing new knowledge and new applications. By current knowledge I don’t want to limit things to natural and social sciences. For instance, the past use of science and technology – and its impact – could be useful here. The shift from streetcars to automobiles may have lessons for shifting to another kind of transportation system.

]]> By: docpine http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4838&cpage=1#comment-11509 docpine Mon, 05 Jan 2009 01:26:54 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4838#comment-11509 Interesting. It sounds challenging to develop an approach that would not just put more money in the pockets of the usual suspects, to do more of the same things they are already doing. Who would develop this new federal research portfolio? Through what kind of mechanism? And what chance would they have in budget battles against entrenched research interests? Goldston raises some intriguing questions. Interesting. It sounds challenging to develop an approach that would not just put more money in the pockets of the usual suspects, to do more of the same things they are already doing.

Who would develop this new federal research portfolio? Through what kind of mechanism? And what chance would they have in budget battles against entrenched research interests?

Goldston raises some intriguing questions.

]]>