I subscribe to the THES and in this morning's issue (On sale tomorrow) the main headline is about 'Plans to award research grants on the basis of 'economic impact''. It states that Ian Pearson, the science minister expects research councils to award funding to projects that improve economic impact. It continues with another chairman, Ian Diamond (RCUK) stating that researchers must now show 'high quality' proposals to both impress and show eco. impact and without this, research will not be funded. I thought this may interest those of you and myself who did not get funding for our proposals. I can try and copy and paste it, if I am allowed?

Sounds interesting, I would like to see the article!

interesting - and unfortunate. what about basic research? how should that ever get funding if it is evaluated on economic impact??

could you post the link to the article? thanks!

Aha, so for anthropological topics such as music performance, ritual and death topics have bleak prospects for funding?

Basicaly it means- no social sciences&humanities, no fundamental research, just research for pharmaceuticals and engineering. Well, our society, more precisely, goverment is heading towars the hell...

It is not online yet. When it is, I will paste the link and if you have to be a subscriber, I will copy and paste the article here. Further in the paper, people are criticizing this attitude exactly for the issues mentioned by you all. It is quite unbelievable that suddenly, I have to make my proposal and research 'economically viable' just to get funding? I am doing neural ageing, now I am going to have to swing the thing to show how this will benefit the economy? Sure, maybe it can but to have to drive your research based on these requirements loses both individuality and passion. Anyway, I will see what I can do to get both articles posted, or just buy this weeks THES, it is out tomorrow or even today, I think.

http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2037803

Here is the link to the article.
I will copy and paste the other one if I can find it as you have to subscribe to see the other one

Other one, taken from THES 10/8/07 split up to post here.

Scholar slates 'dodgy' criteria

Louise Radnofsky
Published: 10 August 2007



A leading Cambridge scholar has published a stinging attack on the "audit society", which he says is destroying originality and honesty in research.
Writing in the latest edition of Current Biology, published this week, Peter Lawrence, a developmental biologist at Cambridge, says that "dodgy" criteria for evaluating the value of research, such as the "impact factor" of the journals where academics publish, and article citations, are "dominating minds, distorting behaviour and determining careers".

In the article, "The mismeasurement of science", he adds that to secure funding and promotion, "scientists aim, and indeed are forced, to put meeting the measures above trying to understand nature and disease".

Dr Lawrence, an MRC emeritus scientist in the department of zoology, complained that evaluating research by quantity rather than quality will create a culture of "citation-fishing and citation-bartering".

Bad papers, which may have wasted the time of hundreds of scientists, still end up helping their authors secure a job, promotion or tenure, he said, while original work that is not immediately appreciated counts for little.

Studies show that articles are often cited even if they have not been read, he said, and group leaders claim credit for authorship from junior researchers. As scientists spend "bizarre amounts of their time touring" to network, he said, less pushy but talented researchers were left behind.

Dr Lawrence said that a fightback could start with a "public discussion on what justifies authorship", and urged appointment committees to read or listen to their candidates' work.

David Colquhoun, a professor of pharmacology at University College London, who has made similar complaints, said of the article: "I think most research active people will agree with it already, and most vice-chancellors will take no notice."

But Steve Bloom, head of the division of investigative science at Imperial College London, said that as long as output measurements were considered along with other factors, such as reputation, they could be a good way of making decisions.

"You can choose people who take you out to lunch and lend you their holiday home, or you can choose the people whose research you favour, which could lead to considerable bias."

Taking the opinion of a number of specialist colleagues in the field was the "least bad" alternative, he said.

"If people are distorting the system, that distortion must be eliminated or compensated for," Professor Bloom said.

thanks PinkNeuron!

In light of this I am even more grateful and suprised that the AHRC funded my research topic!