Search

The article discusses the controversies arising from the "strike" research campaign of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge, Massachusetts, launched on March 4, 1969 and subsequently discussed in a panel on March 8 of the same year. According to the organizers, the controversies did not affect the campaign since the primary objective of the organization is to inaugurate a movement. Questions raised by different social groups includes the type of movement to create and the source of fundings for the established movement. It has been an obvious knowledge in the American society that government-sponsored research in scientific fields accounts to 75% of the funds of university research projects, much of the money came directly from the country's Defense Department.

This article dispels some persistent ideas about the state of domestic and foreign science. We analyze the effectiveness of science management in Russia (using the Russian Academy of Sciences as an example) in the reflection of various aspects of foreign experience. We clarify the details of grant financing for scientific activity, and show the ambiguity in FASO activity and operations of similar “supra-scientific” institutions abroad. We suggest various measures for increasing the effectiveness of domestic science management. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

While most Americans support scientific research, few favor an increase in federal investment. This opposition is driven in large part by misinformation about the actual level of governmental support for science. Employing an experiment embedded on a nationally representative survey, we find that most Americans significantly overestimate the share of the federal budget allocated to scientific research. Correcting this misperception significantly increases support for additional science spending. We find little evidence that subjects engage in motivated reasoning when confronted with this correction. Information about the low level of existing funding increased support for investment in science across partisan and ideological divides. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper is based on a study that explored the responses of bioscientists to changes in national science policy and research funding in Canada. In the late 1990s, a range of new science policies and funding initiatives were implemented, linking research funding to Canada's competitiveness in the 'global knowledge economy'. Bourdieu's theory of practice is used to explore the multi-scalar, cross-field effects of global economic policy and national science policy on scientific practice. While most science and educational policy studies use Bourdieu's concepts ontologically, as 'thinking tools' to theorize power, this study adopted Bourdieu's relational epistemology, empirically linking objective positions of power (capital) with position-takings (rooted in habitus) towards market-oriented science. A relational epistemology made it possible to explore what forms and weight of capital scientists brought to bear on symbolic struggles over the legitimacy of a market and scientific logic. By empirically investigating how power shaped bioscientists' responses to market-oriented science policy, this study was able to identify key mechanisms of change within the scientific field and between science, politics and the market. First, it identified the rise of a new form of entrepreneurial capital and a market-oriented logic that coexists alongside a traditional scientific logic within the scientific field in a bipolar system of stratification. Second, it illustrated changes in scientific practice, which contribute to change in the structure of the distribution of capital within the scientific field. This study challenges Bourdieu's emphasis on a single dominant logic or symbolic order and challenges science and technology scholars to both use and extend his theoretical contributions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Federal provision of scientific information and support for science research have declined significantly in recent years, and a trend away from pure research toward applied and commercializable research has begun. This commentary asks whether those and other trends in this area can be justified in terms of economic efficiency. It is argued that the marginal benefits of scientific information and research have likely risen relative to production costs and the marginal cost of public funds has fallen, implying that reduced provision cannot be justified on efficiency grounds. An efficiency rationale for increased support for commercializable research is also lacking. Longer-term trends include the rise of open data, which does make sense, and a relative shift from intramural government research and development toward university-based R&D. The latter shift likely responds to underlying economic factors, but does not warrant a sudden sharp reduction in government research, such as seen recently in Canada. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is often argued that the unintended consequences of science policy transformation over the last 50 years--increased role of fixed-term project funding, evaluation and temporary contracts--are short-termism, fragmentation and limited freedom to choose research topics and collaborators. This paper focuses on a phenomenon that should be highly unlikely in this context: long-term international research collaborations lasting over 10 and 20 years which remain creative and productive. To shed light on the little studied topic of why and how long-term international research collaborations evolve, the paper develops a mid-range theory from multiple longitudinal case studies. It suggests that long-term collaborations combining formal and informal interactions operate as virtuous circles whereas earlier results ensure feedback loops and thematic and organisational continuity, but renewal is crucial. The emergent theory is built from multiple data sources and methods analysing international collaborations in the emerging field of nanosciences in Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There have been four major innovation organization policy moments for the US federal government driven by the demands of politics and technology since World War II: first, the immediate post-war period where the Cold War helped drive a basic research model for new and expanded science agencies; second, the Sputnik aftermath with the formation of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and scaled up funding for science; third, the competitiveness era ‘valley of death’ programs of the 1980s, and finally, a recent energy technology shift driven by energy and climate demands. Some are advocating a fifth: advanced manufacturing. In that lengthy evolution, what lessons have we learned about the design of federal innovation organizations? What are the institutional elements in the ‘new generation’ innovation policy programs now developing or under consideration? The focus is on the evolving federal agency role: what innovation stages is it organized around within the innovation pipeline and how does it link to other innovation actors?. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

The article discusses the scientific growth in Wales. The author notes an announcement by the government of Wales in 2012 regarding its plans for scientific growth. He notes that the recruitment of high-profile scientists who will move their laboratories to Wales and become part of national research networks is central to the program, which is funded with nearly $80 million from the Welsh government. Topics include the Welsh government's support for science education, collaboration, technology transfer, and the promotion of Welsh science, efforts by researchers to spread the word about Wales as it launches it scientific plan, and a program designed for networking and collaboration called the Welsh Crucible.

The article discusses the growth of Germany as a major contender in the global competition to attract top talent to the country's research institutions. The author argues that a decision by the European Council in 2000 to transform the European Union (EU) into a competitive, dynamic knowledge-based economy has resulted in funding for research and development through various mechanisms by Germany's federal government. Topics include the changes that such funding has had on the way German researchers teach, collaborate, and advance in their careers, such as the creation of more jobs, the impact of long-term funding prospects and attractive salaries on Germany's ability to compete for talent in the global research market, and an overview of Germany's Excellence Initiative.

The article presents an overview of an Indian government initiative to increase investment in scientific research infrastructure and innovation funding. Particular focus is given to efforts to attract and develop skilled scientists for India's universities and research institutions. Topics include the expansion of the Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) system, postdoctoral research fellowship programs, and the commitment to emerging and translational research. Several Indian research institutions are profiled, including Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore, Jawaharlal Nehru Centre for Advanced Scientific Research (JNCASR), and Tata Institute of Fundamental Research in Mumbai.

Space to Grow is an Australian Research Council Grant that engages high school students in real science and supports their teachers in implementing inquiry-based approaches using astronomy as the focus. Currently, Grade 9-12 students and their science teachers from three educational jurisdictions in one Australian state are acquiring, and making scientific use of, observational data from the 2-m Faulkes Telescopes owned by Las Cumbres Observatory Global Telescope Network. Data are being collected to investigate the impact of the project on students and teachers. Some investigations have led students to work with astronomers to publish their results in the astronomical literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper seeks to examine how federal financial support of academic scientists shapes their collaborative behavior. More specifically, it investigates two questions: (i) are there threshold sizes of federal grants that have effects on collaboration? and (ii) do the threshold sizes differ by discipline? To test and model these questions, this paper uses data collected in a 2004-2005 survey by the Research Valuing Mapping Project (a project based at Georgia Tech and led by Barry Bozeman) of 2,086 academically based research scientists and engineers. The analysis in this paper reaffirms the positive relationship between federal funding and collaboration seen in previous works, but the findings suggest that there is in fact a threshold effect-as the positive relationship has a diminishing influence. The findings of this paper are more limited with respect to how academic disciplines' threshold levels differ. The results indicate a difference in the threshold levels between disciplines for three of the eight models. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An introduction is presented in which the editors discuss various reports within a special section of the issue examining science-related issues facing the winner of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, including the federal science policy in the House of Representatives, the influence of negative advertising on voting behavior, and a proposal in California to label genetically-modified food. Also presented are articles on funding, defense research, and energy research, including one on federal aid to basic research, one on the U.S. Department of Defense's (DOD) basic research budget, and one on cuts to the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) research budget.

The article focuses on science in India. The author notes that India has excelled in rocketry and nuclear science, but argues that few breakthroughs have been produced in other fields. He discusses how freedom from international economic sanctions and the availability of federal funding for research and development (R&D) is spurning India's efforts to become a world leader in science. Topics include a diagram showing India's research article output in several scientific disciplines, such as energy, chemistry, and mathematics, India's efforts to recruit expatriate Indian scientists, and the construction of state-of-the-art laboratories and other types of research facilities.

Government research agencies are a form of extra-university research institutions. In contrast to other extra-university research facilities they are subordinate to and financed by respective German governmental departments. As their mission they provide science-generated information, services, and monitoring to support the governmental departments. In science studies researchers proclaim a rigid association between the installation, attribution, and development of government research agencies and the increasing need for science-generated policy knowledge. The article examines this assumed association based on the personal, institutional, financial, and mission specific development of government research agencies between the years 1965 and 2005. According to the results the expansion of government research agencies stagnates - like science in general. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In many cases, the long-term development patterns of research policy still remain blurred. However, historical insights may lead to a better understanding of what makes research funding work. A perspective of 60 years on the situation in Austria exemplifies a system run by a broad set of stakeholders. Consensus among those stakeholders is necessary for the implementation of new elements. Once agreed upon, such elements remain stable for a long time as any change requires a new consensus. Thus individual stakeholders tend to add bypass solutions, while existing principal-agent relationships develop lock-ins. The system needs sufficient pressure to be built up by those factors in order to trigger substantial change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a discussion of the history of the British Royal Society between 1945 and 1965, examining its institutional role as a leader of publicly funded scientific research and its administration under the presidencies of Cyril Hinshelwood and Howard Florey. A petition signed by 84 Fellows of the Society in 1945 calling for increased involvement in public scientific ventures is profiled. The rise and decline of the Royal Society's open cooperation with the British government is then mapped from the petition to the 1965 Trend report.

To gauge the current commitment to scientific research in the United States of America (US), we compared federal research funding (FRF) with the US gross domestic product (GDP) and industry research spending during the past six decades. In order to address the recent globalization of scientific research, we also focused on four key indicators of research activities: research and development (R&D) funding, total science and engineering doctoral degrees, patents, and scientific publications. We compared these indicators across three major population and economic regions: the US, the European Union (EU) and the People's Republic of China (China) over the past decade. We discovered a number of interesting trends with direct relevance for science policy. The level of US FRF has varied between 0.2% and 0.6% of the GDP during the last six decades. Since the 1960s, the US FRF contribution has fallen from twice that of industrial research funding to roughly equal. Also, in the last two decades, the portion of the US government R&D spending devoted to research has increased. Although well below the US and the EU in overall funding, the current growth rate for R&D funding in China greatly exceeds that of both. Finally, the EU currently produces more science and engineering doctoral graduates and scientific publications than the US in absolute terms, but not per capita. This study's aim is to facilitate a serious discussion of key questions by the research community and federal policy makers. In particular, our results raise two questions with respect to: a) the increasing globalization of science: ''What role is the US playing now, and what role will it play in the future of international science?''; and b) the ability to produce beneficial innovations for society: ''How will the US continue to foster its strengths?'' [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The author regards development of Australia's ill-fated Research Quality Framework (RQF) as a “live experiment” in determining the most appropriate approach to evaluating the extra-academic returns, or “impact,” of a nation's publicly funded research. The RQF was at the forefront of an international movement toward richer qualitative, contextual approaches that aimed to gauge the wider economic, social, environmental, and cultural benefits of research. Its construction and implementation sent mixed messages and created confusion about what impact is, and how it is best measured, to the extent that this bold live experiment did not come to fruition. © Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article asserts the relationship between science and politics in the U.S. system. A brief description of the history of federal research funding is given. The author says that the science community is very fortunate to have champions of science in both political parties, who will fight back when necessary. The author, who was appointed science adviser to President Clinton in 1998, shares that in order to get the attention of the president--and his circle of political advisers--on any matter, he had to find a way to connect science to the larger policy and political agenda.

"Basic research" is often used in science policy. It is commonly thought to refer to research that is directed solely toward acquiring new knowledge rather than any more practical objective. Recently, there has been considerable concern about the future of basic research because of purported changes in the nature of knowledge production and increasing pressures on scientists to demonstrate the social and economic benefits of their work. But is there really something special about basic research? The author argues here that "basic research" is a flexible and ambiguous concept that is drawn on by scientists to acquire prestige and resources. She shows that it is used for boundary work and gives examples of the work it does in different situations by drawing on interviews with scientists and policy makers on the category of basic research and the changes they have seen in it over time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista Crítica de Ciências Sociais is the property of Centro de Estudos Sociais and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Explores the records of Democratic and Republican administrations in the field of physical science. Federal research funds for physical science since the end of Cold War; Comparison of trends in research and development during President Bill Clinton and President George W. Bush's administrations; Shifts in emphasis in physics funding.

Reports on the federal budget for research and development for fiscal 1995. Cuts on long-term research; Distinction between basic research and technology development; Appropriations for the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Commerce and the Department of Defense.

Interviews D. Allan Bromley, President Bush's science adviser and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. He discusses problems for `small' scientists, effects of federal budget cuts, money for grant applications, Congressional support for science megaprojects, commitments to current projects, and the Global Climate Change program.

The article provides an overview on the hearings held by the House of Subcommittee on Science, Research and Development in the U.S. from July 7 to September 17, 1970. The hearings focused on a plea for stability in research funding and whether a future structured national science policy is desirable and what the constituent elements of that policy should be. The basic premises of this policy were the mutual dependency of government on science and science on government, the close ties between the government and universities and federal funding for research and development. It mentions that no one quarreled with this philosophy and questioned its place in the nation's future science policy.

In this article the authors discuss aspects of China's domestic innovation system, the problems related to its underperformance, and how they can be overcome. Topics include the governance structure of China's science and technology (S&T) system, federal and local agency coordination efforts by China's Leading Group on Science, Technology, and Education (LGSTE), and issues related to funding of China's national research and development (R&D) program.

The article discusses criticism of Canada's prime minister Stephen Harper for his autocratic leadership style and cuts to environmental research. Topics include accusations by Harper's detractors that he is anti-science and anti-evidence, a report by Canada's Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) that found, since Harper's election in 2006, Canada's research expenditures relative to gross domestic product (GDP) have dropped from 16th to 23rd among all industrialized nations, and Harper's promotion of science as a tool to restructure Canada's economy, which resulted in the establishment of the Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECRs).

The article discusses the impact of sequestration on federal funding of U.S. science institutions and research. Topics include the need for the scientific community to address an argument by fiscally conservative politicians who believe that the U.S. economy will not recover until federal spending is reduced and that research needs to be downsized, factors contributing to the U.S. budget crisis, including the failure of Congress to adopt recommendations from a commission created under the 2011 Budget Control Act, and the congressional debate over whether to give the president Barack Obama the authority to borrow more money to avoid default.

The article discusses the economic impact on the U.S. scientific community and research agencies as the U.S. Congress moves to enact its federal deficit reduction plan. The author argues that research agencies will have to find ways to conduct research with less money without sacrificing excellence. Topics include the Budget Control Act of 2011, which limits discretionary spending by the federal government, the impact of the bill on research activities, and the historical attitude of the federal government towards science.

The article discusses is the process of measuring the results of U.S. science investments. Topics include the development of infrastructure that can evaluate results of federal funding of scientific research by science agencies and research institutions, the existing scientific data infrastructure, and the challenges to developing a high-quality system for evaluating the link between federally-funded research and technological innovations.

Highlights the United States National Institutes of Health's (NIH) National Research Service Awards (NRSA) Program. History of the NRSA program; Criteria sought by NIH from institutions receiving grants from the program; Impact of the awards program on scientific research in the country; Research focus of NRSA grantees. INSET: NIEHS Tops for Postdocs.

Deals with the report released by the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology on federal funding disparity between physical and life sciences in the U.S. Comments from John Marburger, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy; Description on the funding imbalance problem in the report; Recommendations of the report on federal science funding.

The article profiles Kelvin Droegemeier, the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) for U.S. President Donald Trump. It looks at his views on topics such as federal aid to research, partnerships among science institutions and private companies, and the role of government in scientific innovation.

The article reports on government support of quantum physics research in the United States in 2018. It mentions expectations the science committee of the House of Representatives will introduce legislation that would establish a 10-year-long National Quantum Initiative and states the White House is scheduled to launch a panel which will guide the government's role in quantum science. It talks about financing of quantum science research and possible differences between House and Senate bills.