accountable research michał kleiber minister member of the european science council accountability...

ACCOUNTABLE RESEARCH

Michał KLEIBER

MINISTER MEMBER OF THE EUROPEAN SCIENCE COUNCIL

ACCOUNTABILITY IN RESEARCH EIASM, BRUSSELS, 2005

or how to make the most of science for societal development and economy growth

ACCOUNTABILITY OF RESEARCH

In a narrower sense, as a problem of how to best allocate research funding, assess its results and harness its implementations

In a more general sense, as a prerequisite for a development of genuine science culture in the society, which should ultimately lead to wider, indisputable public support for and trust in science as a key contributor to individual and societal well being:

► integrity of research► communicating science► science - society ‘contract’ for sustainable development

ACCOUNTABLE RESEARCH Michał KLEIBER

THERE IS EVIDENCE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CREDIBILITY

PROBLEM SCIENCE FACES TODAY

IS BIGGER THAN EVER BEFORE.

THE PUBLIC APPEARS TO OFTEN QUESTION

WHETHER PROGRESS IN SCIENCE

BRINGS ABOUT ANY COHERENT INCREASE

IN WELL-BEING OF THE HUMAN RACE AT ALL.


The pursuit and diffusion of knowledge enjoy a place of distinction in European tradition, and the public expects to reap considerable benefit from creative contributions of researchers.

It is still generally accepted that supporting university education and different forms of research is a crucial element in advancing public good.

BUT:

Society will support research only as long as it feels it can trust the scientists and the institutions that employ them – accountability of research endeavor to the public is a crucial requirement in this regard.

Society at large must be convinced that scientific activity is at its service.


UNFORTUNATELY:Scientists are no longer perceived exclusively as guardians of objective truth but also as defenders of their own (individual or group) interests in a media driven scientific marketplace.

THEREFORE:It is more important than ever that individual researchers and their institutions constantly assess the values that guide their research

No established measures for assessing integrity in the research environment exist

Fostering responsible conduct in research must be done in a creative way, otherwise it may be ineffective

Institutional self-assessment appears to be a constructive and promising approach to improving integrity of research.


ACCOUNTABILITY means much more than ethical behaviour, of course.

Since a significant percentage of research is funded with tax money, everyone using those funds has an obligation to explain to the public in understandable language how that money has been used.

Scientists should by all means try to avoid the danger of being perceived as ones who advocate science for internal, sectoral benefits – this puts in danger public trust in science – which is easily lost but not easily gained.


Whether science is able to thrive in our fiercely contesting democracy depends on whether it builds an advocacy system to explain its goal, needs and methodological format. Will we be able to assure a much higher degree of connection, collaboration and accountability across science, industry and society at large to exploit the enormous potential which is here at stake?

The message may seem convincing but make no mistake:

A bottom line here may be that science should give up an additional part of its autonomy and transfer it to non-scientists!


HOWEVER, IS SOCIETY PREPARED

TO EXERCISE ITS INFLUENCE ON SCIENCE?

How we should talk the public into debating the ways to:

understand merits and scope of scientific inquiry

address in a non-biased way controversial issues

(GMO’s, stem cells, nuclear energy, religious

orthodoxy, ...)

deal with privacy of research data

. . . .


science dispenses both beneficial and adverse effects

science input is often limited to a short-term horizon

there are serious negative effects of compartmentalization of disciplines, hyperspecialization and brain drain

information overload becomes at places unmanageable, prompting ex cathedra pronouncements

large private companies may monopolize the information highways with the quality and objectivity of the data transmitted difficult to control

PROBLEMS TO BE OPENLY DEBATED


Public understanding of science is something different than appreciationof a research institution – a communication mistake made by manyresearchers wishing to enhance the reputation of their institution ratherthan to explain the phenomenon of public interest.

Scientists themselves must be involved in communication programs– in an era of sophisticated and complex science it is only them who

can make room for a much higher degree of connection acrossscience and society

Individual scientists and research institutions should be strongly encouraged to find ways to communicate all their findings – particularly important in health and environment sector


Communication programs should illustrate both processes and products of science, and relate it to the everyday environment

Communication programs should involve multimedia and interactivity

Evidence exists that in order to gain public support trust in research institutions is more important than knowledge about research results, risk factors involved in specific applications and even awareness of new developments

TRUST CAN ONLY BE WON IN THE COURSE

OF CONSTANT DIALOGUE WITH THE PUBLIC


SUGGESTIONS

OF A SCIENCE COMMUNICATION PRACTITIONER

There is no such thing as a ‘general audience’ and, consequently, no ‘one-size-fits-all’ method of science communication – different communication programs

should address the needs of different groups (education, age, economic status, familiarity with specific

technologies, local community needs

and interests,…)


SCIENCE ATTENTIVE AUDIENCEthose who express a high level of interest in particular science issues and regularly seek relevant information, less than 10 % of the population in the developed countries

SCIENCE INTERESTED AUDIENCE

those who claim to have some interest about science issues but have casual access to relevant information, perhaps some 40 % of the population

RESIDUAL AUDIENCE

those who are neither interested nor informed about science issues


A NEW CONTRACTREDEFINING THE RELATIONS BETWEEN

SCIENCE AND SOCIETY

Society has to be encouraged to make an effort to better understand science

Society has to work out better ways to foster and control public expenditures on research

Science has to be constantly trying to evoke societal interest in it

Science has to accept accountability as a key ingredient of its mission

A key ingredient in trying to overcome the current crisis is


SCIENCE IN THE DIGITAL AGE – or how not to overlook opportunities and threats?

Is IST a slogan, an uncontrolled revolution or a controllable development?

IST: the means rather than the goal!

IST crucial for handling existing and creating new knowledge.

As in other sectors of public life, the use of IST has become a crucial factor in maximizing research benefits.


PREDICTIONS Evolution of IT will continue to be characterized by rapid exponential

growth with the Net becoming truly ubiquitous and pervasive

IT will challenge traditional academic institutions by relaxing constraints of space, and time, and benefits of ‘monopoly’

IT will change dramatically the ways we handle storage of and access to data, information and knowledge thus elevating the importance of intellectual capital relative to physical and financial capital

IT will greatly influence the methodology of scientific endeavor

HOW WILL IT DEVELOPMENTS INFLUENCE THE METHODOLOGY OF SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOR AND HOW WILL THEY REDEFINE THE MISSION AND STRUCTURE OF THE RESEARCH INSTITUTION?


FOR AT LEAST A DECADE (OR SLIGHTLY LESS) THE PACE OF

CHANGE WILL BE RATHER SLOW

– INACTION AND PROCRASTINATION NOW

WOULD BE HIGHLY DENGEROUS

IN VIEW OF CERTAINTY OF RAPID ADVANCES IN IT

AND THE ‘NATURAL’ INABILITY OF THE RESEARCH INSTITUTION

TO CHANGE ITSELF FAST.


ACCOUNTABILITY OF RESEARCH IN A NARROWER SENSE

remarks on possible ways

to improve effectiveness of research

HOW TO BEST ALLOCATE FUNDING

AND USE ITS FRUITS?


A. Priorities: freedom of research vs projects targeted at high impact goals

Curiosity - driven research

Quality of university education - oriented research

Strategic (= frontier) research

Application - driven research

No research policy recommended

Well thought-out research policy recommended(Foresight as the key instrument of R&D policy shaping)


B. Allocation procedures: simplifications vs decision rationale

flexibility- procedures adjustable to situation better balance between risks and controls removal of procedures that have no added value reduction of bureaucratic burden (e.q. two-step

proposal submissions when possible) reduction of delays in funding decisions coherent and explicitly stated rights and obligations more operational autonomy to consortia more use of flat - rate financing default regimes for IPR


adequate selection (and remuneration) of competent reviewers

sound financial management assessment

thorough research implementation reports for (?) years after completion of the project

results dissemination and sharing best practices vs confidentiality

negative results may be as useful as positive ones

proven failure to comply with community rules excludes from funding for (?) years

Control procedures for reports’ evaluation


We have entered a new era of very complex science

Accountability is a notion crucial for designing appropriate ways for knowledge generation, diffusion

and application that will create so much needed collaborative pan-European science sector, hopefully capable of addressing opportunities that research is

nowadays unfolding.


accountable research michał kleiber minister member of the european science council accountability...

Documents