Petition decries 'impact' agenda in research

June 11, 2009

More than 1,000 campaigners have signed a petition demanding the UK research councils reverse their policy to direct funds to "projects whose outcomes are specified in advance".

The petition is evidence of increasingly vocal discontent over the implementation of the research councils' "excellence with impact" agenda, under which academics are required to complete an "impact summary" for grant applications, setting out how they expect the work to be of benefit.

Arguing that blue-skies rather than directed research ultimately creates prosperity and wellbeing, it calls on the councils to "return to the mission of advancing the frontiers of human understanding".

"The ... taxpayer should not support investigations with foregone conclusions, however beguiling," it says. "We request the reversal of a policy now being applied by the UK research councils that directs funds to projects whose outcomes are specified in advance."

The petition was submitted to the Number 10 website by John Allen, professor of biochemistry at Queen Mary, University of London.

He said the fact it had "gone off like a rocket" was testament to the "frustration, annoyance and disappointment" researchers in the UK felt about the demands to describe in advance "exactly what they are going to discover and what use it will be".

"There is a corrupting influence of having to write bullshit about what you honestly believe is important, urgent and should be funded," he said. He added that most scientists and many members of the public understood that "if you know what the answer is going to be, it isn't research".

A spokeswoman for the councils declined to comment on the petition, but said they remained committed to supporting "excellent research" and ensuring it benefited "as many individuals, organisations and nations as possible".

"Where an applicant feels that their research is not likely to have an immediate ... impact, they should state that in their application," she said. "Excellent research without obvious or immediate impact will not be disadvantaged."

zoe.corbyn@tsleducation.com.

You've reached your article limit.

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

James Fryer illustration (27 July 2017)

It is not Luddism to be cautious about destroying an academic publishing industry that has served us well, says Marilyn Deegan

Jeffrey Beall, associate professor and librarian at the University of Colorado Denver

Creator of controversial predatory journals blacklist says some peers are failing to warn of dangers of disreputable publishers

Hand squeezing stress ball
Working 55 hours per week, the loss of research periods, slashed pensions, increased bureaucracy, tiny budgets and declining standards have finally forced Michael Edwards out
Kayaker and jet skiiers

Nazima Kadir’s social circle reveals a range of alternative careers for would-be scholars, and often with better rewards than academia

hole in ground

‘Drastic action’ required to fix multibillion-pound shortfall in Universities Superannuation Scheme, expert warns