SummitPost.org

that´s what it´s about IMPACT. No IMPACT then no research grant! IMPACT is what counts these days if you want research money from the government. IMPACT means financial benefits, practical use, instant success - all those buzz words that the bean counters like to use to justify themeselves! If Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Boyle, Darwin or Einstein were alive today and looking for a research grant from the British government they´d fail the IMPACT test.

I have no idea what yer referring to here Charles. I suspect something is going over my head here. Is IMPACT an acronym for something?

More generally, I'm quite puzzled why people get so impassioned about attention-seeking by research grant applicants while apparently nursing no suspicions about scientists working quite visibly in the employ of vested interests. Let's face it, private industry is where most science graduates get employed and. if what's going on in Australia is typical (I don't know if it is) then industry is getting more and more say in the direction that post-graduate study and even undergraduate study is heading in the sciences.

dadndave wrote:I have no idea what yer referring to here Charles. I suspect something is going over my head here. Is IMPACT an acronym for something?

More generally, I'm quite puzzled why people get so impassioned about attention-seeking by research grant applicants while apparently nursing no suspicions about scientists working quite visibly in the employ of vested interests. Let's face it, private industry is where most science graduates get employed and. if what's going on in Australia is typical (I don't know if it is) then industry is getting more and more say in the direction that post-graduate study and even undergraduate study is heading in the sciences.

How it will impact on society dadndave (it´s their word by the way) it´s not an acronym, although it does sound like something made up by a government clever bastard. But it´s not just about science it´s about ALL granting. How would Wittgenstein have coped with that? I ask myself

"All granting" ?

I dunno. Just thinking about the examples I've been most familiar with recently (My son is an honours graduate in nanotechnology and is about to start his PHD)

He has received the benefit some pretty good research grants from both government and private sources in the last year or so.

Very varied projects from research into electrical stimulus of artificial polymers (ie artificial muscles for amputees etc) to special coatings on sheet steel.

So who should pay for what?

dadndave wrote:"All granting" ?

I dunno. Just thinking about the examples I've been most familiar with recently (My son is an honours graduate in nanotechnology and is about to start his PHD)

He has received the benefit some pretty good research grants from both government and private sources in the last year or so.

Very varied projects from research into electrical stimulus of artificial polymers (ie artificial muscles for amputees etc) to special coatings on sheet steel.

So who should pay for what?

Yep "all granitng" from government - so they say. Like I wrote effing bean counters

2_climbaxes wrote:A thread with no point...perhaps you should add a LIST to make it interesting.

No point because it´s not about the USA? This is unmoderated isn´t it? Ok then fuck off.

But if I remember correctly Christopher Columbus sailed east and discovered Portugal.
He IMPACTED the natives there, civilization went eastward and that is the dawn of what we now call Europe.

charles wrote:that´s what it´s about IMPACT. No IMPACT then no research grant! IMPACT is what counts these days if you want research money from the government. IMPACT means financial benefits, practical use, instant success - all those buzz words that the bean counters like to use to justify themeselves! If Kepler, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, Boyle, Darwin or Einstein were alive today and looking for a research grant from the British government they´d fail the IMPACT test.

Reminds me of Bob Newhart's routine about Abner Doubleday trying to sell his newly invented game called baseball to Parker Brothers.

charles wrote:

2_climbaxes wrote:A thread with no point...perhaps you should add a LIST to make it interesting.

No point because it´s not about the USA? This is unmoderated isn´t it? Ok then fuck off.

Hey, hey, we don't say that! (We say STFU)

I thought this was about the font

Hey Charles, it's true. Buzz words are important in successful grant applications. Solid, neccessary research that doesn't use the latest and greatest technology (and often the latest and greatest is used for the sake of using the latest and greates) is difficult to promote. People making decisions (bean counters) don't have the understanding to properly evaluate the merit of a given research proposal.

Fury wrote:Hey Charles, it's true. Buzz words are important in successful grant applications. Solid, neccessary research that doesn't use the latest and greatest technology (and often the latest and greatest is used for the sake of using the latest and greates) is difficult to promote. People making decisions (bean counters) don't have the understanding to properly evaluate the merit of a given research proposal.

Or even the vision that maybe this blue sky stuff might someday give us an advantage that we today cannot even dream about - even if it´s just something abtract.

2_climbaxes wrote:

truchas wrote:

charles wrote:

2_climbaxes wrote:A thread with no point...perhaps you should add a LIST to make it interesting.

No point because it´s not about the USA? This is unmoderated isn´t it? Ok then fuck off.

I thought PnP was all about the U.S. because you Euros and wannabe Euros made it that way. Every time I make a post about a Scandinavian country (that's not the U.S. by the way), you guys go berzerk and make a hate America post.

Go easy on Charles Truchas, he's a sensitive Euro type & has the blues today. Turn that frown upside down Charles.

Now how about that impact list???

EDIT :

Working on it.

charles wrote:

Fury wrote:Hey Charles, it's true. Buzz words are important in successful grant applications. Solid, neccessary research that doesn't use the latest and greatest technology (and often the latest and greatest is used for the sake of using the latest and greates) is difficult to promote. People making decisions (bean counters) don't have the understanding to properly evaluate the merit of a given research proposal.

Or even the vision that maybe this blue sky stuff might someday give us an advantage that we today cannot even dream about - even if it´s just something abtract.

Yes, the private sector generally has little interest in pursuing such research (understandly), yet the potential value of such pursuits can be fantastic. You never know how far reaching a discovery will lead. When Kary Mullis discovered PCR the initial thought was this would replace gene cloning by typical means (i.e. using plasmids). However this technology has moved well beyond the initial application to include things sucy as rapid genotyping and even applications such as marker assisted selection in plant breeding. The private sector benefits from publicly funded research in the long term. Without basic research to feed applied research, the research stream runs dry.