The “industry” of scientific research (if we can call it that) is a funny thing. Unlike many of the other main industries in society, it goes under-ansalysed and is less in the public view. I would only have the vaguest idea of how a scientist makes money, shares his or her discoveries, achieves respect and gains grant for future research. I guess we can put down this lack of awareness to one particular reason. First off, for the majority of us, we have no idea exactly what and how most scientists do what they do. But we do understand that it is our priority that we don’t get in the way. Scientific research has achieved unfathomable successes in that past 100 years or so.
But one could argue there is a little contradiction in this stance of ‘don’t change what isn’t broken’. Shouldn’t it be our prerogative as a society (and taxpayers) to see that the industry of scientific research is operating at maximum optimum? That they are achieving all they can and that these ideas are being shared across the world?
At present there is a shift occurring in the scientific industry, one that has been happening for a which now and one which many oppose. The power-brokers who are greatly responsible for funding scientific research the globe over have demanded greater data-sharing from scientists. Elizabeth Pisani writes that while sharing of research “might not sound scary, but it could change the face of health research” (Pisani 2011). While many issues were raised, one of the central concerns of researchers with complete data-sharing is the impact on how they achieve recognition and as a result achieve greater stature and funding. Researchers must publish discoveries to gain acknowledgment and then the recognition or impact is measured by what is known as the “Impact Factor” – how often your work is cited by others. Thus the issue for researchers with full transparency and sharing is that the impact of their final published work will be lessened if they have had to share everything else along the way. Also, as identified by Pisani, is the understandable issue of losing the sense of ownership of one’s work.
Of course full global transparency of research is now a real possibility in the digital age. The solutions, to the problem posed must also lie within the changes this new age has brought about. Felix Guttari pioneered the concept of transversal thinking as a response to the emerging network society. The same can be applied to the research industry to harness an acceptance of the movement to greater transparency and availability of findings but maintain the system of recognition vital to the researcher themselves.
Transversal thinking asks us not to approach society with a single disciplinary approach but rather through a “transdiciplinary approach” (Murphy 2004) which asks us to consider things through a multi faceted lens. Applying this to the research industry will allow researchers to understand the need and opportunity of greater transparency of research will provide. Greater availability of research means better analysis of results, more involvement and recognition from both the general public and in turn potential funders as well as increasing connectivity between researchers themselves. If researchers can move away from considering their industry through this traditional ”top-down” approach to how research is conducted and consider how the industry can improved in the future, acceptance will be achieved while maintaining a focus on the importance of recognition of great discoveries.
References
Guattari, F. ”l’inconscient machinique: essays de schizo-analyse” (1979), Paris: EncresEditions Recherches.
Kelly, K. “Evolving the Scientific Method: Technology is changing the way we conduct science” (2010) , The Scientist. [Online, accessed 9/5/2011] http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/57831/
Murphie, A. ‘The World’s Clock: The Network Society and Experimental ecologies” (2004). Topia: Canadian Journal of Cultural Studies, 11.
Pisani, E. ”Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds” (2011), The Guardian, January 11. [Online, accessed 9/5/2011] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-data-sharing
Wilbanks, J. “On Science Publishing’” (2011), Seed. [Online, accessed 9/5/2011] http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_science_publishing
