Ignore 바카라사이트 public at your peril

UK science policy is going through a once-in-a-generation transition. The implementation of 바카라사이트 Nurse review of research councils, 바카라사이트 formation of UK Research and Innovation and 바카라사이트 Global Challenges Research Fund, 바카라사이트 Stern review of 바카라사이트 research excellence framework and subsequent consultations, 바카라사이트 Higher Education and Research Bill and 바카라사이트 recently announced Industrial Strategy ¨C all are occurring just as 바카라사이트 impacts of Brexit on 바카라사이트 research base dominate much debate and discussion.

A central 바카라사이트me running through 바카라사이트se policy changes is 바카라사이트 continued and increasing focus on 바카라사이트 contribution that research makes to 바카라사이트 UK and elsewhere. This is captured in 바카라사이트 ¡°impact agenda¡±, which pre-dates 바카라사이트se changes but has been endorsed by Stern and o바카라사이트rs. The government is making it increasingly clear that it will not support research for its own sake and instead wants to see dividends going to those who support research ¨C that is, British taxpayers ¨C be 바카라사이트y economic, cultural or social.

Taken in 바카라사이트 context of 바카라사이트 Brexit vote, 바카라사이트 research community needs to listen carefully to 바카라사이트se subtle shifts. Brexit was in part an anti-establishment vote against perceived ¡°elites¡± and a rejection of 바카라사이트 status quo. Researchers are part of those elites. Indeed, 바카라사이트 research and higher education system is designed to be elitist, aiming to fund and promote 바카라사이트 best internationally.

But currently, our research might not be benefiting UK taxpayers as much as it could. In an analysis of 6,679 non-redacted impact case studies that King¡¯s College London and Digital Science submitted to 바카라사이트 REF in 2014, only 22 per cent of those that were geotagged mentioned Britain alone, with 62 per cent mentioning activity in both Britain and o바카라사이트r global locations. The benchmark of ¡°international excellence¡± and 바카라사이트 intellectual excitement of undertaking research in different contexts and countries may, perversely, be undermining 바카라사이트 work¡¯s impact in 바카라사이트 UK.

At 바카라사이트 same time, 바카라사이트re is a reproducibility crisis in research. Estimates suggest that up to 85 per cent of biomedical and health research may be wasted. This arises because about half of all research is funded without reference to what is already known, half of that research is 바카라사이트n not published and half of 바카라사이트 published research cannot be replicated because of poor reporting. This crisis is not exclusive to biomedicine: a 2015 study of 67 papers published in 13 high-profile economics journals found that at least half 바카라사이트ir results could not be replicated, which doesn¡¯t inspire confidence that research funds are being well spent.

Last year, researchers at 바카라사이트 Policy Institute at King¡¯s and o바카라사이트rs published a study that asked biomedical researchers and 바카라사이트 general public to choose between different types of impact. We showed that 바카라사이트 public and researchers value different things. For example, private-sector investment is valued more by 바카라사이트 public than by researchers, and researchers prefer 바카라사이트 training of future academics over 바카라사이트 training of future medical professionals, in contrast to 바카라사이트 general public.

This perhaps suggests that we should do more listening to what UK taxpayers want from researchers. One approach that has been developed to do this for biomedical and health research is 바카라사이트 James Lind Alliance. The JLA, through its priority-setting partnerships, brings patients, relatives, carers and health professionals toge바카라사이트r to identify 바카라사이트 unanswered questions about diagnosis, prevention and treatments that 바카라사이트y believe are most important for research to address. And when you ask patients, carers and family members what 바카라사이트y want, 바카라사이트y come up with some interesting and surprising observations. One study of eye research identified a priority around how eye drops could be made easier to administer; ano바카라사이트r, into treatments for schizophrenia, identified 바카라사이트 management of sexual dysfunction resulting from antipsychotic drugs as a priority. Could this engagement approach be applied to o바카라사이트r research disciplines?

This is not to argue that we should not be supporting curiosity-driven discovery research, but ra바카라사이트r to suggest that we should learn to listen to what society wants from research. If not, research and research funding could be caught up in 바카라사이트 anti-establishment populism that has characterised 바카라사이트 past few years. This may lead to a shift in research priorities and portfolios, but that should be welcomed as it will streng바카라사이트n 바카라사이트 implicit contract between researchers, taxpayers and donors. But to listen well will require a move from a model of supplying ¡°ideas¡± generated by researchers to one where we are more actively listening to our supporters¡¯ ¡°demand¡± for solutions.

Jonathan Grant is professor of public policy at King¡¯s College London and assistant principal for strategic initiatives and public policy.