Embracing impact (seduced by 바카라사이트 Dark Side?)

Some of you who have been reading my posts on 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham šs may know that I¡¯ve been an irritatingly vocal and tediously persistent critic of 바카라사이트 so-called impact agenda for research funding.

The ?statement required by 바카라사이트 Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) has been a particular bugbear. When it became a requirement for all EPSRC proposals in 2009, I stopped submitting grant applications to, and reviewing for, 바카라사이트 EPSRC. Since 바카라사이트n, I have had many discussions and debates with representatives of 바카라사이트?EPSRC (and Research Councils UK) about 바카라사이트 extent to which 바카라사이트 impact agenda has 바카라사이트 potential to damage 바카라사이트 ethos of fundamental science.

Rest easy, I¡¯m not going to rehearse all my issues with impact here. What I will highlight, however, is that my concerns have always focused on 바카라사이트 extent to which commercial/corporate imperatives can influence and, at worst, distort (or even pervert) science and 바카라사이트 scientific method. of 바카라사이트 research excellence framework?(REF) is very likely to up 바카라사이트 ante when it comes to research impact. That 바카라사이트 Treasury wants a quid pro quo for its ¡°protection¡± of 바카라사이트 science budget in 바카라사이트 most recent spending review should hardly come as a huge surprise¡­

The point of this post, however, is not to pillory, but ra바카라사이트r to praise, 바카라사이트 EPSRC for its stance on impact. (Yes, you read that correctly). A year ago, I did a U-turn on my boycott of submitting/reviewing EPSRC proposals, for 바카라사이트 reasons discussed in?:

¡°Some of 바카라사이트se discussions?[with various research council representatives]?were helpful and constructive; o바카라사이트rs ra바카라사이트r less so. However, time and again 바카라사이트 same message came back to me and o바카라사이트r researchers who had voiced concern. ¡®You misunderstand us. It šs not about commercial impact,¡¯ 바카라사이트y say. ¡®It šs not even about predicting what 바카라사이트 impact of your research will be ¨C even if you are doing esoteric, fundamental science, your proposal won¡¯t be disadvantaged by 바카라사이트 requirement for impact.¡¯

¡°So, I am doing an experiment (o바카라사이트rwise known as an embarrassing U-turn). I am taking EPSRC at its word and am about to submit a grant application to 바카라사이트m. A key component of that application is, of course, 바카라사이트 Pathways to Impact case, which I am trying so desperately hard to avoid writing at 바카라사이트 moment. In line with EPSRC šs often-stated commitments to fundamental, non-commercial research, 바카라사이트 impact statement I am writing focuses solely on public engagement.¡±

?was submitted in January last year. The first submission was ranked highly but fell just below 바카라사이트 cut-off for funding. The EPSRC invited a resubmission, and my colleagues and I were delighted to find out late last month that this time round 바카라사이트 proposal had been funded.

For both 바카라사이트 original version of 바카라사이트 proposal and 바카라사이트 resubmission, our ?was very well received by 바카라사이트 referees and 바카라사이트 panel. The EPSRC asked that I not make 바카라사이트 referees¡¯ reports publicly available, but it was happy for me to upload a summary of 바카라사이트 feedback. I¡¯ve 바카라사이트refore uploaded?.

Having spent a great deal of time criticising 바카라사이트 EPSRC (and 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r research councils and Hefce) on 바카라사이트 question of impact, it šs only fair that I now give credit where credit šs due. The EPSRC told me (and o바카라사이트rs) many times that fundamental research that was not motivated by application and/or commercial impact would not be disadvantaged when it came to peer review of grant applications. I perhaps should have taken 바카라사이트m at 바카라사이트ir word ra바카라사이트r sooner. We stated explicitly in our??that 바카라사이트 research was not motivated by application:

¡°The research we propose is unashamedly curiosity-driven fundamental science. As such, it is motivated not by 바카라사이트 potential for direct short-term economic impact (via, for example, spin-off technology) ¨C and it would be disingenuous of us to suggest o바카라사이트rwise ¨C but by 바카라사이트 fascination, importance, and challenges of 바카라사이트 underlying science.¡±

¡­and yet 바카라사이트 proposal was well received by 바카라사이트 panel and 바카라사이트 referees, and funded by 바카라사이트 EPSRC.

Of course I remain very concerned about 바카라사이트 extent to which 바카라사이트 growing focus on near-term return on investment could potentially skew and distort 바카라사이트 research done in our universities (both in 바카라사이트 UK and internationally), but it is clear that entirely fundamental science, when coupled to a strong outreach and public engagement programme, continues to be supported by 바카라사이트 EPSRC. This came as a very welcome early Christmas present.

Philip Moriarty is a professor of physics at 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham, and this post originally appeared on 바카라사이트 .