‘Pure hype of pure research helps no one’ says Sarewitz; what this says about freedom

Posted on May 23, 2013 by jbrittholbrook

I tend to agree with a lot of what Dan Sarewitz argues here:

Pure hype of pure research helps no one : Nature News & Comment.

But I also want to suggest that there’s an argument to be made against the High Quality Research Act that goes beyond Sarewitz’s claim that it helps no one.

To be fair, that’s just the headline. Sarewitz also claims something I think is a bit more controversial — that the HQRA is really nothing to get too worried about. Not only does it help no one, but also it doesn’t hurt anyone.

This strikes me as mistaken. I’ll try to articulate why in terms of the distinction between negative and positive freedom I’ve been exploring. Here goes.

First, I agree that the HQRA helps no one. But it’s not just that the HQRA is redundant — though this is certainly true. It’s also that it doesn’t allow us to do anything more to demonstrate our accountability, as I think the Broader Impacts Criterion does. In other words, it doesn’t increase anyone’s positive freedom.

Second, it actually decreases our negative freedom. By requiring NSF to re-certify what the merit review process already certifies (at least when it’s working as designed), this ‘added layer of accountability’ actually just increases the kind of bureaucratic red tape we should be trying to decrease if we’re interested in an efficient government. This makes about as much sense as the Florida Blue Ribbon Task Force’s suggestion to charge more for classes in majors that supposedly won’t result in better jobs for graduates. Majors that result in higher paying jobs actually should be in greater demand, and so should cost more, not less. But not according to the Blue Ribbon Task Force (see pp 22-3).

Finally, I think the HQRA might be a case study in how to reconcile notions of positive and negative freedom — or at least how to think of both ideas of liberty as possibly working together. It’s sort of a test. Sometimes, a policy that might increase our positive freedom can be seen as decreasing our negative freedom. I think the NSF’s Broader Impacts Criterion is a case in point. Yes, it places an additional burden on researchers, and so in this sense it is a limitation on their negative freedom. But it also increases their positive freedom, so that a trade-off is possible. The HQRA, on the other hand, decreases our negative freedom without also increasing our positive freedom. Any policy that doesn’t increase either our positive or our negative freedom is highly questionable — or so I am suggesting.

Altmetrics for the Nature correspondence on negative metrics of impact

Posted on May 22, 2013 by jbrittholbrook

Fascinating.

Article details.

We need negative metrics, too / Nature

Posted on May 22, 2013 by jbrittholbrook

Keith Brown, Kelli Barr, and I have a short piece published in the new issue of Nature.

The correspondence also contains a link to a slightly revised version of our original submission. Since Nature keeps everything behind a pay wall, here is that link.

Very interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts on the idea that seemingly negative events could be turned to indicate positive impact.

Impact from beyond the grave: how to ensure impact grows greater with the demise of the author | Impact of Social Sciences

Posted on May 17, 2013 by jbrittholbrook

We all know — don’t we? — that our H-index can only grow with the passage of time. But Geoffrey Alderman has a plan, an impact plan, to ensure that our impact keeps growing in other ways, as well.

This is funny, and I’m sure Professor Alderman is poking fun at the very idea of impact. Nevertheless, there’s a serious angle to this. Many of us, whether we want to admit it or not, are involved in academia in an effort to change the world. And many of us are well aware that we may have to wait to be born posthumously, as Nietzsche said.

In any case, while we play the long game, it’s nice to have diversions such as this, occasionally:

Impact from beyond the grave: how to ensure impact grows greater with the demise of the author | Impact of Social Sciences.

NSF Says No to Congressman’s Request for Reviewer Comments – ScienceInsider

Posted on May 16, 2013 by jbrittholbrook

The latest in the showdown between Rep. Lamar Smith and NSF.

NSF Says No to Congressman’s Request for Reviewer Comments – ScienceInsider.

Interesting to think about the limits of confidentiality here.

What does it take to be ‘liked’ by scientists?

Posted on May 13, 2013 by jbrittholbrook

Scientists don’t like me. Or, at least, they don’t show any evidence of liking what I have to say about NSF’s Broader Impacts Merit Review Criterion. Last week, I blogged this ScienceInsider interview (here and on the CSID blog) with an unnamed congressional aide connected with Rep. Lamar Smith and his efforts to add “an extra layer of accountability” to NSF’s Merit Review Process.

I also left a couple of comments in the comments section under the article itself. It’s possible for readers of ScienceInsider to press buttons to indicate their agreement — or not — with comments. The site then tracks the number of likes or dislikes (expressed by pressing up or down carrots), displays them with each comment, and moves those comments with the most likes up to the top.

Guess whose comments are dead last in line?

Here are the two most-liked comments:

lollardy • 3 days ago

Studying dairy production in China is a very poor choice for an example of what constitutes a bad grant. It has direct relevance to something most people in America consume every day. It could reduce cost for millions, increase food safety, improve the quality or nutrient density of a commonly consumed item, etc. Every time I hear a story on Fox about a “wasteful” study, I can usually think of ten ways it could benefit people and industry here. Somehow I think the time would be better spent putting in an “additional layer” to cover pentagon spending.

Kenneth DeBacker • 4 days ago

A lot of smoke is being blown by Rep. Lamar Smith’s aide. The aide’s answers are slick and cover’s the real intent of the bill- to politicize the sciences through selective funding or defunding of areas of study Republicans do not like. The most egregious example would be the ban on studying gun violence in America.

Each of them has received twelve likes.

I suppose if I were simply to say that Congress is out to politicize science or that Smith is out of his depth or that scientists should be left alone to pursue research however they wish, scientists might like that. But I’m willing to give Smith the benefit of the doubt, at this point. My contention is that he (or his aide) doesn’t yet understand the revisions to NSF’s Merit Review Process. If he did, then I think he’d see that accountability is already built into the process. I think Smith should not introduce the High Quality Research Act, but instead should seek to monitor how scientists respond to the new Broader Impacts Criterion.

But there’s a real problem with what I’m suggesting. And it’s not that Smith is a Republican out to get science. The problem is that scientists themselves don’t understand the Broader Impacts Criterion. They don’t understand that this is their last, best hope to preserve their academic autonomy while meeting accountability demands. And they don’t want to hear it, either.

To see my comments on the ScienceInsider interview, simply follow this link and scroll to the bottom of the page.

Pressure Builds on Congress to Kill NSF Bill – ScienceInsider

Posted on May 11, 2013 by jbrittholbrook

The letter from former NSF Directors and Chairs of NSB is on point:

The NSF, the National Science Board, and the Congress have regularly examined the merit review process and adjusted it, periodically, after widespread consultation with all parties concerned. One of the more recent changes was to elevate the importance of assessing the broader impacts of the proposed project on a par with assessing the scientific and technical merit. We believe this approach serves to strengthen the merit-based decision making process the Foundation uses for individual research projects.

Pressure Builds on Congress to Kill NSF Bill – ScienceInsider.