چالش‌های سیاست‌گذاری برای تحقیقات بنیادی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دانشجوی دکتری سیاست‌گذاری علم و فناوری، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران

2 استاد گروه مدیریت فناوری اطلاعات، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، تهران

چکیده

در این مقاله، علوم بنیادی به معنای ماحصل تحقیقات بنیادی، مورد مطالعه قرار گرفته است. تحقیق بنیادی به معنای پژوهشی که با هدف ایجاد فهمی بنیادی نسبت به پدیده موضوع پژوهش صورت می‌گیرد، واجد ویژگی‌هایی است که سیاست‌گذاران را برای تصمیم‌گیری با چالش‌ روبرو می‌کند. مهم‌ترین این ویژگی‌ها - که البته جملگی استثناءپذیر هستند - عبارتند از: ابهام مفهومی، عدم قطعیت و ریسک بالا، امتناع پیش‌بینی دقیق نتایج کاربردی و ارزیابی کمّی منافع حاصله، وجود واسطه و تأخیر زمانی برای تحقق نتایج کاربردی، دشواری تملک یافته‌ها و اهمیت در نظام ملی نوآوری. در این مقاله، مضامین اصلی پیشینه نظری تحقیقات بنیادی شامل تعریف و ویژگی‌ها، مبانی نظری و برخی جنبه‌های سیاستی با تمرکز بر سیاست علمی بازخوانی و مبتنی بر آن نیز برخی جنبه‌های مهم برای پژوهش‌های آتی ارائه شده است. یافته‌های کلیدی بازخوانی پیشینه نظری بدین شرح است: ۱) اهمیت تحقیقات بنیادی در توسعه و لزوم حمایت دولت از تحقیقات بنیادی امری مورد اتفاق می‌باشد اما حدود و ثغور آن مورد بحث است. حذف کامل تحقیقات بنیادی و استفاده از نتایج تحقیقات دیگران امری مردود است. ۲) انتقادات زیادی نسبت به فشار دولت‌ها به نهاد علم برای نشان دادن منافع حاصل از تحقیقات بنیادی مطرح است ولی در عین حال آزادی مطلق نهاد علم پذیرفته نیست. ۳) منافع حاصل از تحقیقات بنیادی متنوع و ارزیابی کامل آن غیرممکن است.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها

dor 20.1001.1.20080840.1398.12.2.23.8

عنوان مقاله [English]

Challenges of Policy Making in the Realm of Basic Research

نویسندگان [English]

  • Taha Shokatian 1
  • Sepehr Ghazinoory 2
1 Ph.D. Candidate in S&T Policy, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
2 Professor, Department of Information Technology Mangement, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran
چکیده [English]

In this paper, basic science regarded as the output of basic research has been the subject of investigation. Basic research, i.e. research undertaken with the aim of developing a fundamental understanding of the phonamonon under investigation, has properties that make policy decisions about it challenging. The most important of these properties, all of which could have exceptions, are: conceptual ambiguity, uncertainty and high risk, impossibility of a comprehensive prediction of practical ends and precise quantitative assessment of the benefits gained, the mediums and time lags for realization of the practical ends, difficulties in approapriation of the findings and importance in the national innovation system. In this paper, the main themes in the scientific and policy literature on basic research, including the definition and characteristics, theoretical foundations, and some policy aspects, with an emphasis on a sciece policy perspective is reviewed and based on that, some lines for future research is proposed. The literature reviewed yields the following key findings: 1) there is a consensus on the importance of basic research in development and the necessity that governments support it; the debate is on the limits; total elimination of basic research and using the findings of others is a rejected hypotheis; 2) there are sever criticisms about the governmental pressures on the scientific institution to represent the benefits gained from basic research; however, the absolute freedom of the scientific institution is not accepted as well; 3) the benefits from basic research are diverse and complete assessment of them is not possible.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Basic Research
  • Science Policy
  • Benefits from Basic Research
  • Research Assessment
  • Research Funding
  • Priority Setting
[1] OECD. (2002). Frascati Manual 2002. OECD Publishing.
[2] Martin, B., & Tang, P. (2007). The Economic and Social Benefits of Publicly Funded Basic Research. SPRU Electronic Working Paper Series, (Working Paper No.161).
[3] Salter, A. J., & Martin, B. R. (2001). The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review. Research policy, 30(3), 509-532.
[4] Arrow, K. (1962). Economic welfare and the allocation of resources for invention. In The rate and direction of inventive activity: Economic and social factors (pp. 609-626). Princeton University Press.
[5] Pavitt, K. (2001). Public policies to support basic research: What can the rest of the world learn from US theory and practice? (And what they should not learn). Industrial and corporate change, 10(3), 761-779.
[6] Polanyi, M. (1962). The Republic of science. Minerva, 1(1), 54-73.
[7] Stokes, D. E. (1997). Pasteur’s quadrant: Basic science and technological innovation. Brookings Institution Press.
[8] Calvert, J. (2006). What’s special about basic research? Science, Technology & Human Values, 31(2), 199-220.
[9] Nelson, R. R. (1959). Simple Economics of Basic Scientific Research. The J. Reprints Antitrust L. & Econ., 3, 725.
[10] Mansfield, E. (1998). Academic research and industrial innovation: An update of empirical findings. Research policy, 26(7-8), 773-776.
[11] Drew, C. H., Pettibone, K. G., Finch, F. O., Giles, D., & Jordan, P. (2016). Automated research impact assessment: a new bibliometrics approach. Scientometrics, 106(3), 987-1005.
[12] Czarnitzki, D., & Thorwarth, S. (2012). Productivity effects of basic research in low-tech and high-tech industries. Research Policy, 41(9), 1555-1564.
[13] Rosenberg, N. (1990). Why do firms do basic research (with their own money)? Research policy, 19(2), 165-174.
[14] Callon, M. (1994). Is science a public good? fifth mullins lecture, virginia polytechnic institute, 23 march 1993. Science, Technology & Human Values, 19(4), 395-424.
[15] Pavitt, K. (1991). What makes basic research economically useful? Research policy, 20(2), 109-119.
[16]         Ghazinoory, S., & Ghazinoory, S. (2014). Science, Technology and Innovation Policy; an Introduction. Tarbiat Modares University Press. ISBN: 978-600-5394-51-1. {In Persian}.
[17] Lundvall, B.-Å., & Borrás, S. (2006). Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy. In The Oxford Handbook of Innovation.
[18] Suk, W. A., Heacock, M. L., Trottier, B. A., Amolegbe, S. M., Avakian, M. D., Henry, H. F., … & Reed, L. G. (2018). Assessing the economic and societal benefits of SRP-funded research. Environmental health perspectives, 126(6), 065002.
[19] Newson, R., King, L., Rychetnik, L., Milat, A., & Bauman, A. (2018). Looking both ways: a review of methods for assessing research impacts on policy and the policy utilisation of research. Health research policy and systems, 16(1), 54.
[20] Bornmann, L. (2013). What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(2), 217-233.
[21] Vanino, E., Roper, S., & Becker, B. (2019). Knowledge to money: Assessing the business performance effects of publicly-funded R&D grants. Research Policy.
[22] Kay, J. A., & Smith, C. L. (1985). Science policy and public spending. Fiscal Studies, 6(3), 14-23.
[23] Moussavi, A. (2018). Investigating the Role of Basic Sciences for Comprehensive Development of Developing Countries. Journal of Science & Technology Policy, 9(4), 45-54. {In Persian}.
[24] Weinberg, A. M. (1965). Scientific choice, basic science and applied missions. Minerva, 3(4), 515-523.
[25] Ghaneirad, M. A. (2000). Jāme’eh-shenāsi-e Roshd va Oful-e Elm dar Irān (The Sociology of Growth and Decline of Knowledge in Iran). Madineh Press Institution, Tehran. ISBN: 9649189750. {In Persian}.
[26] Arratia, M. N. M., Lopez, I. F., Schaeffer, S. E., & Cruz-Reyes, L. (2016). Static R&D Project Portfolio Selection in Public Organizations. Decis. Support Syst., 84(C), 53-63.
[27] Weinberg, A. M. (1964). Criteria for scientific choice II: The two cultures. Minerva, 3(1), 3-14. doi:10.1007/BF01630147
[28] Guida, G. (2018). An Analysis of Scientific Research Performance in Italy: Evaluation Criteria and Public Funding. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 10(7).
[29] Hicks, D. (2012). Performance-based university research funding systems. Research policy, 41(2), 251-261.
[30] Hamann, J. (2016). The visible hand of research performance assessment. Higher Education, 72(6), 761-779.
[31] Bloch, C., & Schneider, J. W. (2016). Performance-based funding models and researcher behavior: An analysis of the influence of the Norwegian Publication Indicator at the individual level. Research Evaluation, 25(4), 371-382.
[32] Geuna, A., & Martin, B. R. (2003). University research evaluation and funding: An international comparison. Minerva, 41(4), 277-304.
[33] Ebadi, A., & Schiffauerova, A. (2016). iSEER: an intelligent automatic computer system for scientific evaluation of researchers. Scientometrics, 107(2), 477-498.
[34] Devyatkin, D., Suvorov, R., Tikhomirov, I., & Grigoriev, O. (2018). Scientific Research Funding Criteria: An Empirical Study of Peer Review and Scientometrics. In Practical Issues of Intelligent Innovations (pp. 277-292). Springer.
[35] Martin, B. R., & Irvine, J. (1983). Assessing basic research: Some partial indicators of scientific progress in radio astronomy. Research Policy, 12(2), 61-90.