Lisa, Greg and I started this blog last October as a project for our master’s degree in science journalism at City University. The community interaction has been so tremendous that it was the basis for our being shortlisted for a BBC journalism innovation award.
As for me, after PST and my related Guardian series, I am keen to continue covering the Venn diagram of science, policy, economics and society. I do have some news in that regard, but until the details are finalised I can’t say whether PST will continue, cease or transform.

I’ll keep you posted. In the meantime, the three of us who have worked on PST would like to thank our readers for their support, comments, emails and tweets.

Crowdfunding for science: will members of the public part with their cash?

Crowdfunding is already passé – not over, just old news. I’ve lost track of how many articles I’ve read that cover how scientists are using “innovative” methods to attract funds from among online science fans. Every week seems to bring a new initiative – almost exclusively from the US.

For this post, I’m talking about the sites such as Fundageek, #SciFundChallenge and PetriDish. They allow scientists to create a page for their research, set a funding target and accept money from members of the public.

No doubt these are exciting developments for the handful of scientists who are able to build online communities around their personal brand and research projects. I admire the way these methods are essentially just new forms of science communication wrapped up in a funding plea.

But, as if I were an investigator in need of funding myself, I’ve been thinking about the future impact of these experiments. I’ve formulated a few questions and answers, and would welcome your response too.

Is this a more legitimate and democratic way of testing what the public wants science to be for?

I think it is realistic, not optimistic, to say that as the internet’s connections grow we should expect to see more engagement in initiatives like these. There’s an upward trajectory already, although data is still short. The more these projects grow, the more legitimacy they will rightfully earn. And the more people they bring along, the more democratic they become.

The issue is that in science, the democratic principle is organised under peer review, and no one is assuming that role in decisions made by the crowd about what to fund. So crowdfunding may be good from a philosophical point of view, but not from scientific and practical angles. Until some bright spark cracks it.

Could research councils ever adopt this method?

They should certainly be looking at it. Crowdfunding works only if the hopeful scientist seeking funds builds an online audience for his or herself and the work they do. More than funding, that communication element should be enough for the research councils to be interested. If they really do hope to guide researchers through the hoops of the impact agenda, crowdfunding would seem to offer an excellent opportunity. And it can also bring in the cash as a bonus.

As crowdfunding opens up the allocation of funds for scientific endeavour, would it make traditional sources look as opaque as a blackout window?

A controversial topic. The Wellcome Trust makes big noises about its openness and the openness it expects of the scientific community. The research councils aim to be transparent and are subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

But crowdfunding is problematic because it throws open research to the entire online community and relies on openness – indeed, funders may require results well before they can be published in a peer-reviewed journal. I’d argue that openness is almost always positive, and if crowdfunding presses further transparency on conventional funders, so be it.

Image courtesy of Mark Sardon.

Professor Tony Barrett outside Downing Street on Tuesday

When Professor Tony Barrett pulled a petition out of a coffin on Tuesday, he wanted to start a debate. And boy has he got one.

Twitter, the Guardian, the Telegraph and various blogs have been alive with open discussion about the EPSRC issue and, to a greater degree, the tactics of Barrett’s Science for the Future (SFTF) campaign. My post from Tuesday has been the most visited and commented on in Purse String Theory’s history.

So in this post I intend to synthesise some of the comments of the community in order to move the debate onto how scientists should ‘do’ political action. Pick a point from the list below, and have your way with it in the comments and on Twitter.

1. Factions v friends

Tuesday’s campaigners used the EPSRC controversy to kick start a debate about the overall impact agenda, leading to criticisms of factionalism. Athene Donald commented: “They are not representing all of ‘us’ and many of ‘us’ do not agree with their stunt yesterday.” In science, can factions ever be useful?

Here’s a tweet to illustrate this question:

When scientists start criticizing others for making criticisms of public bodies publicly, I worry bit.ly/J0Hi0h

—
Ananyo Bhattacharya (@Ananyo) May 17, 2012

2. The political palate

One commenter invoked Britt Holbrook to argue that “if scientists and science funders don’t work together, politicians are likely to react by cutting science budgets”. So if scientists fall out with their funders, is it politically palatable for them to argue that science is separate from society? If not, how comfortable are scientists in relying on economic indicators of ‘success’?

3. Mob mentality

If a relatively small number of scientists devise a political stunt that is supported by a few hundred other scientists, the wider group may be seen to stand for everything the organisers argue (I’m thinking of this furore over Barrett’s nod to Stalin). Does collective action override or undermine an individual’s position?

4. The future of Science for the Future

Every campaigner I spoke to on Tuesday said that the coffin stunt was just a start, and that SFTF planned to build a membership for the ongoing fight for reform of the funding regime. I’m interested to see these concrete plans and a response to the comment that the group needs a “PR face-lift”. And while the debate has raged in the blogosphere and on Twitter this week, where was Barrett?

The EPSRC today published a response letter (scroll down) in the Telegraph to SFTF’s letter on Tuesday. In what looks like the community engagement the EPSRC is alleged to have avoided, the letter picks up on some of the criticisms railed against SFTF by calling for unity among scientists in the run up to the next spending review.

The comments below remain open 24/7 for our very own community engagement. I’m thinking of somehow capturing this debate for an article in my ongoing Guardian series, Talking Science to Power. Ideas welcome.

All day there’s been a surreal blend of funeral rites and jovial camaraderie in the face of an evil monolith based in Swindon.

There is apparently no limit to the number of faults the protestors can find with how the EPSRC allocates funds – from the “circumvention” of peer review to the allegation that excellence is no longer a funding criterion (both denied by the EPSRC).

And almost everyone I’ve spoken to is optimistic that they’ll be able to bring down the EPSRC. Or, at least, convince enough MPs to sign an Early Day Motion. They need around 40. I just heard that Menzies Campbell confirmed that he would put his name to it.

But I feel that regardless of how much enthusiasm bonded all these chemists together today, their protest won’t make much of an impact. The EPSRC’s controversial Shaping Capability plan, the subject of today’s protest, was agreed with government and signed off by its own council of senior scientists and engineers. If David Willetts responds at all to today’s stunt, he’s likely to scream “Haldane!” and run away from all this mess.

But the biggest thing standing in the way of the 100 people today are, well, all the other scientists out there. I believe today’s protestors when they tell me that they’ve received many emails of support from colleagues who are not prepared to risk funding or reputation by making a stand. And they did manage to mobilise more than just chemists – I found physicists and mathematicians here too.

But I’ve also heard a lot of very sensible arguments from beyond today’s group that what science needs right now is unity.

In the run up to the next spending review, which could be as little as one year away, scientists need to make evidence-based arguments for science as a whole. This is what the Science is Vital movement achieved in 2010. Now we’re in 2012 and science is splitting into factions.

James Wilsdon, professor in science and democracy at SPRU, puts it thus:

Rather than continuing to escalate this row (most of which is motivated by sour grapes from a few research groups who consider themselves to have lost out) we need to draw a line under all this and focus attention instead on the real battle, which is maintaining, and ideally increasing, overall public investment in research next time around.

Today also marks the launch of Science for the Future, which states its aims as broader than just this EPSRC issue. But it is not yet clear whether the group’s leadership will be able to rely on today’s protestors in the bigger fight that is sure to come.

The caper will be part of the anti-EPSRC lobby day, which also includes over 100 researchers coming to London to meet with their MPs, a rally led by Sir John Cadogan and the delivery of a petition to Number 10. The petition, signed by 250 people so far, calls for “immediate reform of the EPSRC’s policies to restore credibility in the scientific funding process and secure [the] UK’s competitive edge in science innovation”.

As reported previously, the day will mark the founding of Science For The Future, a new group which, according to co-director Stephen Clark, is more than just a single-issue pop-up lobby. “We’re not going to disappear any time soon,” he says. “Even if the EPSRC said they’ll dump Capability Shaping, the same people will be there. We’re fulfilling an oversight function that should be fulfilled by government: sitting above [EPSRC boss] David Delpy.”

Delpy’s policies have enraged academics like Clark, who are gunning both for him and his organisation. “There’s a really good debate to be had whether it’s a good thing to have physical sciences and engineering funded by the same research council,” says Clark. “Their objective is applied science, not science. [The EPSRC has] a philosophy that everything has to produce the next iPhone or whatever. It really affects fundamental research.”

Although the text of the petition, seen by PST, does not call for the abolition of the EPSRC, sources from the campaign have stated this as a goal. The EPSRC said that it may publish a statement today on this matter. If that happens, look out for the statement here on PST.

There are few details from Science For The Future on how the new group will build momentum after tomorrow, but it is understood to be planning a membership model. For now, says Clark, “one or two individuals have dipped their hands into their own pockets” to fund tomorrow’s stunt and the PR pros behind it. The group will need to build a paying membership soon, not only to survive but also to defend against allegations of astroturfing.

The event kicks off from 9am at the Church House’s Bishop Partridge Room (1st floor), beside Westminster Abbey. Virtual campaigners can follow the day on Twitter using #science4thefuture.

I’ll also be covering the rally in the next article in my Guardian series on science in politics.

Image courtesy of Jonno Witts.

Mark Henderson has a solution. Mark, PST friend and former science editor at the Times, calls in his new book for a bipartisan “long-term investment strategy” in science. But is any government ever going to commit to this?

In The Geek Manifesto, in which he defines ‘geeks’ as not just scientists but people with an affinity for science or an understanding of how science underpins modern society, Mark points out that it is clear that investment in science leads to national prosperity. On this basis, he says, geeks ought to be calling for a doubling or trebling of the research budget. I can’t see that getting very far, either with the chancellor or granny.

But Mark then brings up an Institute for Fiscal Studies report from September 2011 which said, “Failing to invest sufficiently in science and skills can be short sighted. The impact of such spending occurs in the long run, in the form of higher productivity and economic growth… The current economic climate should not prevent investment in our capacity for economic growth in the future.”

Arguing that all parties would understand this, Mark calls for a investment to be made in science over a long time period and with bipartisan support. He says this would dodge the short-termism that science funding suffers from. A long-term strategy could replace any policy that is subject to the whim of the next government in favour, say, a 15-year plan.

I can’t imagine any PST readers, all of whom are probably geeks, disagreeing with Mark on this. But it is hard to imagine how on earth geeks will persuade any government to put it into action.

The book just came out this week and it’s well worth reading for anyone interested in science and policy, and the prospect of injecting more evidence into politics.

Bob Watson: in control of Defra’s research spend

In his role as chief scientific advisers (CSA) to Defra, Bob Watson has £1 million with which to commission research on any issue containing science that he wishes to challenge. When GO Science worked on its foresight study of food and farming, Watson tested the robustness of its projected food prices. “I use my £1 million to challenge where I think there are significant uncertainties,” he said last October as he gave evidence to the House of Lords Select Committee during its inquiry into the role of CSAs.

The Lords eventually recommended that all CSAs are allocated “a dedicated, ring-fenced fund by their departments to enable them, where they judge necessary, to commission research or to convene groups of experts”.

The government has today agreed in principle that CSAs should have some research cash, which is not groundbreaking because most already do. But the government has ditched the Lords’ idea that all CSAs should be in charge of it. Here’s the government’s thoughts on the matter, from a statement issued today:

In some cases there is a central research budget for which the CSA is responsible, in other cases the research budget may be allocated direct to policy programmes with the CSA having an oversight role… flexibility is required and the case for a dedicated budget allocated to the CSA should be considered as part of these broader considerations of how overall research budgets are managed.

The government is at pains to say that CSAs should be able to convene experts and commission research. But would this be difficult for a CSA not in direct control of his or her budget?

Since CSAs are supposed to offer advice that is independent of the civil service and government, isn’t their ability to challenge policy by commissioning research undermined if the budget they have for that is already “allocated direct to policy programmes”?

The government agrees with the Lords that “CSAs should have a formal role in the decision making about departmental research spend”, but says the details will depend on the individual departments.

Reading the government’s response in full, it seems that while the Lords made some constructive recommendations on how to improve the functioning of the CSA network, they were too wide-reaching. Several times in its response, the government seems to say, ‘we can’t take a one-size-fits-all approach’, which actually gets it hook from implementing some of the Lords’ proposals.

Image from UEA.

The winner will be announced at the Connecting Communities Conference on May 24 at BBC Media City in Salford. Maybe we should check out how the graphene commercialisation project at the University of Manchester is coming along while we’re up there…

Thanks to the entire PST community for your support, your tweets, your comments, your input, your opinions – the whole nature of this blog is based around the community discussion, so thank you.

We’ll let you know how we get on come May 24. For now, stay tuned for some delicate science funding news tomorrow…

Full details of how the £180m Biomedical Catalyst will work have appeared, with events planned for real-life networking between scientists and the business people who hope to commercialise their research.

It sounds just like the latest film from Aardman Animations, only with business owners in the role of the pirates.

As outlined by the Technology Strategy Board and the Medical Research Council (MRC), which are both involved in the fund:

Support through the Biomedical Catalyst is available to UK businesses (SMEs) and academics looking to develop innovative solutions to healthcare challenges either individually or in collaboration… Support will be available for projects arising from any sector or discipline that are aimed at addressing healthcare challenges… The Biomedical Catalyst will seek to support those opportunities which demonstrate the highest scientific and commercial potential irrespective of medical area.

Potential applicants are no doubt advised to go to one of the two networking events, planned for 15 May in Edinburgh and 17 May in London. Topics will include leveraging private investment and exploitation in the NHS (presumably not of this variety). We’d love to hear from anyone who attends one of these events and has an opinion on how the fund is being allocated.

Finally, here’s a note from the MRC pages on the Biomedical Catalyst that may be of interest:

MRC intends to align its current funding mechanisms under the Biomedical Catalyst, and in due course subsume some or all of them into joint processes with TSB ensuring that the existing range of research is still supported.

If you missed our video post on how some members of the research and medical sectors might spend the £180m, here it is again:

Image from Wikimedia Commons.