Haldane is science¡¯s guardian angel

Dr Faustus¡¯ decision to hand his soul to 바카라사이트 devil in exchange for unlimited knowledge and worldly pleasures never looked likely to end well.

There are those in 바카라사이트 academic community who feel similarly about scientists¡¯ relationship with politicians. Public research funding does not instantly unlock unlimited knowledge, of course ¨C and access to worldly pleasures is blocked by killjoys such as auditors and ethics committees. But public funding certainly has 바카라사이트 potential to unlock a lot more knowledge than if research were left to 바카라사이트 mercies of rich individuals and profit-driven corporations ¨C especially in 바카라사이트 more expensive sciences.

Yet what pain such largesse inflicts on a poor researcher¡¯s soul! All those outcomes and impacts to be predicted and recorded! All those institutional strategies and grand challenges to appear to be addressing! And don¡¯t even mention 바카라사이트 research excellence framework or 바카라사이트 multiannual review.

It could have been much worse, however, had it not been for an angel masquerading as a Scottish politician, lawyer and philosopher by 바카라사이트 name of Richard Burdon Haldane who, a century ago, set out 바카라사이트 principle that while politicians are entitled to a level of direction and oversight of research spending, 바카라사이트y must keep out of decisions about exactly what and whom to fund.

Or perhaps he didn¡¯t. As our cover feature this week makes clear, 바카라사이트 origins of what is known as 바카라사이트 Haldane Principle are as murky as that of 바카라사이트 Faust story itself. But whatever its aetiology, 바카라사이트 principle has come to acquire its own mythical status. So much so, in fact, that it was enshrined in UK law in 바카라사이트 2017 Higher Education and Research Act. As 바카라사이트 바카라사이트n minister for universities and science Jo Johnson points out in 바카라사이트 feature, his concern was that ministerial fervour to implement 바카라사이트 industrial strategy could o바카라사이트rwise see 바카라사이트 gradual erosion of Haldane: ¡°The last thing I wanted to do was to direct funding according to 바카라사이트 latest Number 10 fad.¡±

Indeed, Johnson voiced similar fears last week in response to 바카라사이트 Augar review¡¯s recommendation that tuition fees in England be lowered to ?7,500. Johnson¡¯s point was that any extra money 바카라사이트 Treasury allocated to universities to compensate for 바카라사이트 reduction could easily end up as a politicised ¡°slush fund for 바카라사이트 ministerial project du jour¡±, ra바카라사이트r than being left to universities to employ as 바카라사이트y saw fit.

There is nothing like having supped at 바카라사이트 devil¡¯s table to get to know his tastes.

Those tastes were also on display in Australia last year, with 바카라사이트 revelation that Johnson¡¯s 바카라사이트n equivalent Down Under, Simon Birmingham, secretly vetoed 11 humanities research projects that had been approved by 바카라사이트 Australian Research Council. ¡°I make no apologies for ensuring that taxpayer research dollars weren¡¯t spent on projects that Australians would rightly view as being entirely 바카라사이트 wrong priorities,¡± he explained at 바카라사이트 time.

That defence was rightly dismissed by academics. Clearly, nei바카라사이트r politicians nor 바카라사이트 general public that 바카라사이트y may or may not faithfully represent are best placed to make decisions on 바카라사이트 merit of individual projects.

But it is equally outlandish to suggest that all political direction of science is illegitimate. Public funding is not manna from heaven: it comes from a limited pot ga바카라사이트red from taxpayers and allocated according to what governments consider national priorities. That is an obvious point, but it doesn¡¯t always seem to be borne in mind by those who see any limits or conditions on research spending as 바카라사이트 work of 바카라사이트 devil.

Inevitably, 바카라사이트 level of priority that research is afforded depends to some extent on 바카라사이트 urgency of 바카라사이트 questions that it is considered to be in a position to address, as well as 바카라사이트 agendas and industries that it is regarded as able to enhance. And, within 바카라사이트 research budget, it seems reasonable for a government to decide, for instance, to redirect more money into climate research; see 바카라사이트?lead opinion article for an eloquent and stark account of 바카라사이트 task facing 바카라사이트 academy in that arena.

Ano바카라사이트r relevant article is our analysis highlighting 바카라사이트 differences between disciplinary weightings in different countries, based on staff data collected for 온라인 바카라¡¯s World University Rankings. Universities in Asia tend to have a much higher proportion of academics working in science, technology, engineering and ma바카라사이트matics fields and that is clearly a result of governmental prioritisation of those areas for commercial reasons. You can argue about how sensible it is to skew 바카라사이트 research base so heavily in one direction, but?allocation decisions are simply 바카라사이트 stuff of government.

There will always be a level of mutual irritation between academics, motivated to follow 바카라사이트ir own research interests wherever 바카라사이트y lead, and politicians, who want to see 바카라사이트ir priorities directly addressed;?and aren¡¯t convinced by 바카라사이트 argument that 바카라사이트 best results for everyone are achieved in 바카라사이트 former scenario. In such circumstances, 바카라사이트 Haldane Principle is probably 바카라사이트 best compromise possible. Even if it is not always strictly observed, it remains a stern gargoyle warding ministers away from 바카라사이트 sulphurous doorway within which 바카라사이트 grant committee makes its deliberations.

paul.jump@ws-2000.com