|
 |
The organization and management of an environment in which science can flourish is crucial to ensuring progress, and is in the interest of every modern civilization. In a world were time runs as fast as it does in ours, neglecting even small imperfections can rapidly make a large negative impact. The increasingly important role of science and scientists in our society is evident in all aspects of our lives. This increasing importance is reflected in the accompanying rise of interest in the sociology of science.
Most of these efforts are devoted to analysis of available information -
in particular, the field of Scientometrics
is especially dedicated to this investigation.
In recent years, concerns about the present system have been raised repeatedly, both inside and outside the scientific community. These problems can be traced back to the increasing size and complexity of the community, which has self-organized in a way that is not optimal for progress in the current social and scientific environment.
“If a committee of scientific experts selects research projects by majority vote, projects in fashionable fields are supported while those in unfashionable fields are not. In recent decades, the fashionable fields have been moving further and further into specialized areas [...]. Both in pure science and in applied science, rule by committee discourages unfashionable and bold ventures.”
~ Freeman Dyson, in “The Scientist as Rebel”
This situation is significantly worsened by the shortness of funding in fundamental research:
“Hiring committees, chairs, and deans often have another goal in mind, which is to raise (or in fortunate cases, preserve) the status of the department. By this I mean something more measurable than a young scientist's promise, for measures of status are given by numerical rankings. These are made by external evaluators, who combine their impressions with numbers like total grant funding and numbers of citations. Department chairs and deans have to be concerned with this, because such matters have brute financial repercussions relevant for their own careers as administrators. It is, first of all, important to hire people who are likely to win generous grant support. This immediately favors members of large established research programs over initiators of new programs [...] The goal, then, is not to hire the scientist most likely to do good science, but the scientist whose acquisition will optimize the status of the department in the short term.”
~ Lee Smolin, in “The Trouble with Physics”
In Europe, these trends are in many cases accompanied by an academic system whose traditions have grown over centuries. This system, though it has been successful over a long time, might not be able to cope with recent changes without a significant organizational improvement. In North America, these trends are accompanied in strongly pronounced fads and influenced by media coverage. This system too, though successful over a long time might not be able to cope with recent changes - in this case technological developments that significantly enhance connectivity within the community as well as feedback by the public.
The academic systems, both in the European Union as well as in North America, presently suffer from an inefficient use of financial and personal resources. Given that the enduring wealth of our society builds upon structural growth based, ultimately, on scientific research, these developments are seriously worrisome.
Even though these problems are known,
little has yet been done to address them. The exceptions
are a small number of private institutions, and specially
designed programs by research funding agencies and government
institutions. Since the appropriate way to persuade scientists is
through scientific research results, the Institute aims to examine
under what conditions science works best - with the goal of making
recommendations for research and development funding, and to
investigate an optimal management of the vastly increasing
scientific community that ensures functionality and communication
between subfields.
Some brief introductions into topics that are within the scope
of the Lightcone Institute:
- Research Strategies
- Web 2.0
- The Review Problem
- Globalization
- Scientific Publishing
|
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 21 September 2008 )
|
|
|
 |
|
| |
|
See also |
Bloggingheads.tv
P. Woit and S. Hossenfelder
A diavlog on the problems of the academic system, and the influence of media and the blogosphere. |
|
| |
|
|
