Basic Blue Skies Research in the UK: Are we losing out?

Belinda Linden
{"title":"Basic Blue Skies Research in the UK: Are we losing out?","authors":"Belinda Linden","doi":"10.1186/1747-5333-3-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The term blue skies research implies a freedom to carry out flexible, curiosity-driven research that leads to outcomes not envisaged at the outset. This research often challenges accepted thinking and introduces new fields of study. Science policy in the UK has given growing support for short-term goal-oriented scientific research projects, with pressure being applied on researchers to demonstrate the future application of their work. These policies carry the risk of restricting freedom, curbing research direction, and stifling rather than stimulating the creativity needed for scientific discovery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study tracks the tortuous routes that led to three major discoveries in cardiology. It then investigates the constraints in current research, and opportunities that may be lost with existing funding processes, by interviewing selected scientists and fund providers for their views on curiosity-driven research and the freedom needed to allow science to flourish. The transcripts were analysed using a grounded theory approach to gather recurrent themes from the interviews.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results from these interviews suggest that scientists often cannot predict the future applications of research. Constraints such as lack of scientific freedom, and a narrow focus on relevance and accountability were believed to stifle the discovery process. Although it was acknowledged that some research projects do need a clear and measurable framework, the interviewees saw a need for inquisitive, blue skies research to be managed in a different way. They provided examples of situations where money allocated to 'safe' funding was used for more innovative research.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This sample of key UK scientists and grant providers acknowledge the importance of basic blue skies research. Yet the current evaluation process often requires that scientists predict their likely findings and estimate short-term impact, which does not permit freedom of research direction. There is a vital need for prominent scientists and for universities to help the media, the public, and policy makers to understand the importance of innovative thought along with the need for scientists to have the freedom to challenge accepted thinking. Encouraging an avenue for blue skies research could have immense influence over future scientific discoveries.</p>","PeriodicalId":87404,"journal":{"name":"Journal of biomedical discovery and collaboration","volume":"3 ","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2008-02-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1747-5333-3-3","citationCount":"27","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of biomedical discovery and collaboration","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1747-5333-3-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27

Abstract

Background: The term blue skies research implies a freedom to carry out flexible, curiosity-driven research that leads to outcomes not envisaged at the outset. This research often challenges accepted thinking and introduces new fields of study. Science policy in the UK has given growing support for short-term goal-oriented scientific research projects, with pressure being applied on researchers to demonstrate the future application of their work. These policies carry the risk of restricting freedom, curbing research direction, and stifling rather than stimulating the creativity needed for scientific discovery.

Methods: This study tracks the tortuous routes that led to three major discoveries in cardiology. It then investigates the constraints in current research, and opportunities that may be lost with existing funding processes, by interviewing selected scientists and fund providers for their views on curiosity-driven research and the freedom needed to allow science to flourish. The transcripts were analysed using a grounded theory approach to gather recurrent themes from the interviews.

Results: The results from these interviews suggest that scientists often cannot predict the future applications of research. Constraints such as lack of scientific freedom, and a narrow focus on relevance and accountability were believed to stifle the discovery process. Although it was acknowledged that some research projects do need a clear and measurable framework, the interviewees saw a need for inquisitive, blue skies research to be managed in a different way. They provided examples of situations where money allocated to 'safe' funding was used for more innovative research.

Conclusion: This sample of key UK scientists and grant providers acknowledge the importance of basic blue skies research. Yet the current evaluation process often requires that scientists predict their likely findings and estimate short-term impact, which does not permit freedom of research direction. There is a vital need for prominent scientists and for universities to help the media, the public, and policy makers to understand the importance of innovative thought along with the need for scientists to have the freedom to challenge accepted thinking. Encouraging an avenue for blue skies research could have immense influence over future scientific discoveries.

英国的基础蓝天研究:我们会输吗?
背景:“蓝天研究”一词意味着可以自由地进行灵活、好奇心驱动的研究,从而产生一开始就没有想到的结果。这项研究经常挑战公认的思维,并引入新的研究领域。英国的科学政策越来越多地支持短期目标导向的科学研究项目,研究人员面临着展示其工作未来应用的压力。这些政策有限制自由、限制研究方向、扼杀而不是激发科学发现所需创造力的风险。方法:本研究追踪了导致心脏病学三大发现的曲折路线。然后,它通过采访选定的科学家和基金提供者,了解他们对好奇心驱动的研究的看法,以及让科学蓬勃发展所需的自由,来调查当前研究中的制约因素,以及现有资助过程可能失去的机会。使用扎根理论方法对成绩单进行分析,以收集采访中反复出现的主题。结果:这些访谈的结果表明,科学家往往无法预测研究的未来应用。缺乏科学自由、狭隘地关注相关性和问责制等限制因素被认为扼杀了发现过程。尽管人们承认一些研究项目确实需要一个明确和可衡量的框架,但受访者认为需要以不同的方式管理好奇的蓝天研究。他们提供了一些例子,说明分配给“安全”资金的资金被用于更具创新性的研究。结论:英国主要科学家和资助者的样本承认基础蓝天研究的重要性。然而,目前的评估过程通常要求科学家预测他们可能的发现并估计短期影响,这不允许研究方向的自由。杰出科学家和大学迫切需要帮助媒体、公众和政策制定者理解创新思维的重要性,同时也需要科学家有挑战公认思维的自由。鼓励开辟一条研究蓝天的途径可能会对未来的科学发现产生巨大影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信