Discussion on Innovation

Disclaimer: I’m not going to talk about innovation because it means so many different things to different people. I am going to talk about the importance of protecting and fostering scientific creativity – as this is the fragile flower upon which scientific innovation depends. And it is being endangered.

Jim Lepock Symposium, June 7, 2016

The Problem with Scientific Research Research is inherently unpredictable and the only thing going for it is that it inexpliquably, but consistently, delivers new ideas, new ways of doing things and new benefits to society.

$

$$$$$

$$

$$ $$

Promises(in Klingon words)

Something..Maybe

in 10 years..

Science is Terribly Inefficient, Corrupt & Fraudulent!

Inefficient: Funders can’t accurately predict where the next advance will come from. This, err, FRUSTRATES them.

Solution: Regulate!

Fraud: Everyday claims of irreproducibility, plagiarism, outright fraud. Can scientists even be trusted?

Corrupt: Scientists get to decide who among their fellow scientists are to be allocated funds! How is this even a thing?

1. Reduce scientific collusion through virtual review!Bonus: saves travel and hotel expenses - double win!

2. Force grant applications to be written in a tightly structured, inflexible manner to make it easier to judge by less competent people. Fairer!3. Make reviewing faster by removing feedback to applicants. 90 minutes per application is enough! Bonus, no renewable grants! Ideas good. Continuity bad.4. Increase reporting burden on grants to keep check that nefarious things aren’t being done. Invent expensive new metrics and other quantification methods. Encourage short-term impact stories to impress politicians.

Rescued by Administrative Solutions*

*any resemblance to CIHR policies purely coincidental

But Science Doesn’t Work that Way!

• Scientific impact typically lags 5-20 years and often passes through *many* hands and minds

• Creativity is not quantifiable at the time it is occurring • Science is a continuous, incremental learning process, it learns from correcting its mistakes

• Science is largely non-formulaic (albeit, repetition is). Also reason why “moonshots” in biology are doomed to fail

• Most metrics lag (e.g. citations), those that don’t have major issues (e.g. JIF)

• Won’t know (+ve or -ve) impact of science procedural changes until too late.

So What Can/Should We Do?

• Be more open and accessible!• Be more communicative, but…..

• Enough with the hype! Educate, don’t exaggerate

• Public confidence in science is fragile (see persistence of pseudoscience), never take it for granted

• Encourage risk, happenstance, challenge

• Seek and correct for bias (including career structure)

• Ask how many scientists can/should Canada support?

• Recognize full spectrum of research

• No level of misconduct is tolerable – see it, declare it