"A government-commissioned review says UK science funding should be determined by a single independent agency. It argues this body should liaise with a committee of ministers, chaired by a senior cabinet figure."
"The review has been produced by one of the country's most respected scientists, Royal Society president Sir Paul Nurse. He says the aim of his proposals is to put science "at the heart of government"."
Yes, but government is not supposed to be at the heart of science ! Otherwise you really will get a false, politically-motivated consensus developing.
"in return for science having a more prominent role in government and society..."
Yes, good....
" offer ministers an opportunity to discuss funding directly with scientists".
Lord no. That's what research councils are supposed to do, at least as far as is humanly possible : prevent politicians having direct control over research. You'll never have a publically-funded system entirely free of political influence, but you can certainly restrict it.
[I'm not so sure about this one any more. Yes, politicians shouldn't influence scientists, but as long as the flow of information is the other way, this can be very valuable.]
"He himself admitted that this could be perceived as "doing a deal with the devil George Osborne", but said that his proposed reorganisation would be good for research and good for society."
Making science a bigger part of politics and society in general is great. But if the price is making politics a bigger part of science, then the price is too high.
Also :
http://astrorhysy.blogspot.cz/2015/11/when-worlds-collide-science-in-society.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34860952
I have very mixed feelings about the Nurse review. He is fighting an uphill battle against proposed cuts, so the strategy of moving closer to the government to avoid further losses makes sense. But this is going to be a tricky business.
ReplyDelete