http://ways.org/en/topics/science_policy The taxonomy view with a depth of 0. en http://ways.org/en/2008/jun/03/%5Bhour%5D%5Bmin%5D/%5Buser%5D/on_impact_research <p>Multiple approaches to measure the impact of research exist - the most common ones include <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citation impact">citation metrics</a> like the in-famous <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor">Journal Impact Factor</a> or the relatively new <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirsch index">Hirsch index</a>, and the volume of research grants earned.</p> <p>Several such measures have become important determinants of scientific careers, but a certain type of impact measures always tend to be forgotten: environmental measures. Now, in a recent <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2008.03.006">contribution to the journal "Trends in Genetics" (not Open Access)</a>, <a href="http://www.bcm.umontreal.ca/asp/Recherche/Profs.asp?ID=91">biochemist Hervé Philippe</a> takes a semi-quantitative approach to these matters. Then, he points out that scientists (even those that do not work with environmentally hazardous agents), by doing their job - research and disseminating its results to the scientific community and the public - use up natural resources (and produce waste) at a level well above the average citizen of our planet (this level has come to be known as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint">ecological footprint</a>, although Philippe does not explicitly mention the concept).</p> <p>This is an important article because it highlights that sustainability is not just a topic for politicians and perhaps some specialized group of scientists - no, it is a matter of concern for a biochemist, too, and indeed for anybody but in particular for scientists who are trained in the analysis of relatively complex structures. The paper is also unusual for a science article in that it contains public advice to policy makers - they should take the limitedness of natural resources into account and leave the eternal quest for economic growth, even replace it (at least temporarily) with a goal that he calls "degrowth" and which I would rephrase as "leading to a <a href="http://www.eoearth.org/article/Steady_state_economy">steady-state economy</a>".</p> <p>At a time when <a href="http://www.lesechos.fr/info/energie/300269359.htm">even a multinational oil company like Elf Total admits that fossil fuels are finite</a> <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-Oil/idUSL0243754620080602">(English version here)</a>, it would thus seem very appropriate if scientists, science organizations and science funders would start to devote some of their current resources to investigating in detail what impact they have on the environment, and how this could be balanced, in the long run, with the actual research impact. The Ecological Footprint mentioned above was originally designed to determine the resource use of the global human society but it has since been adapted to lower-level scales, e.g. <a href="http://www.gdrc.org/uem/footprints/index.html">cities</a> and <a href="http://www.codde.fr/eng/EIMEPrincipes.html">industrial products</a>, and so it should not be too difficult to get reasonably correct estimates for scientific research projects, too (especially considering that scientific research tends to be well-documented). If you know of any initiative in this direction, please post it here.</p> http://ways.org/en/2008/jun/03/%5Bhour%5D%5Bmin%5D/%5Buser%5D/on_impact_research#comments climate change ecological footprint economic degrowth economic growth impact factor research impact science careers science policy stead-state economy sustainable science young scientists http://ways.org/en/crss/node/1082 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:32:27 -0400 daniel 1082 at http://ways.org http://ways.org/en/2008/jan/16/0519/daniel/brain_drain_irreversible <p>A recent article on <a href="http://www.scidev.net/" title="http://www.scidev.net/">http://www.scidev.net/</a> discusses ways of reducing the brain drain from developing to developed countries, and the impact of such measures:<br /> <a href="http://www.scidev.net/content/opinions/eng/borrowing-the-brains-while-reversing-the-drain.cfm" title="http://www.scidev.net/content/opinions/eng/borrowing-the-brains-while-reversing-the-drain.cfm">http://www.scidev.net/content/opinions/eng/borrowing-the-brains-...</a></p> http://ways.org/en/2008/jan/16/0519/daniel/brain_drain_irreversible#comments brain drain migration OECD research science careers science policy sustainable development http://ways.org/en/crss/node/891 Wed, 16 Jan 2008 05:19:51 -0500 daniel 891 at http://ways.org http://ways.org/en/2006/oct/31/0435/maanan/consensus_in_science_how_do_we_know_we_re_not_wrong <p>1 March 2007 </p> <p>Location<br /> Washington, DC </p> <p>Web Site<br /> <a href="http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/capitalscience/" title="http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/capitalscience/">http://www.carnegieinstitution.org/capitalscience/</a> </p> <p>Sponsors<br /> Carnegie Institution </p> <p>Contact<br /> Carnegie Institution<br /> 1530 P Street NW<br /> Washington, DC 20005 (map)<br /> Main Phone: 202-387-6400<br /> Main Fax: 202-387-8092 </p> <p>Details<br /> The event is part of the Capital Science Evenings series.<br /> Speaker: Naomi Oreskes, University of California, San Diego, Department of History<br /> Topic: Consensus in Science: How Do We Know We’re Not Wrong?<br /> “Why do we study the historical development of scientific knowledge, methods, and practices? Find out why recent theories in the earth and environmental sciences present challenges to what constitutes scientific consensus and dissent, and how this conflict affects the public, particularly with respect to the issue of global warming.” </p> http://ways.org/en/2006/oct/31/0435/maanan/consensus_in_science_how_do_we_know_we_re_not_wrong#comments science policy http://ways.org/en/crss/node/229 Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:35:11 -0500 maanan 229 at http://ways.org