Under the Microscope: Science-based technology now underpins the economies of the developed world and, consequently, governments support science with considerable resources, writes Dr William Reville.
Like any human endeavour, scientific research can be conducted effectively or ineffectively. One important determining factor of effectiveness is the nature of the organisation in which the research is conducted.
This aspect of effectiveness was the focus of an international symposium held in Dublin in 2001, organised by John Hurley, professor of organisational psychology at Dublin City University. The papers presented at the meeting have been published as a book - Scientific Research Effectiveness: The Organisational Dimension (ed John Hurley, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2003).
The financial support given to research and development in Ireland was traditionally quite small compared with other OECD countries, but it has risen considerably in recent times. As an illustration, here are the figures for expenditure, expressed as a percentage of GNP, in 1980 and in 1995 for 3 OECD countries (the first figure is for 1980, the second for 1995): US (2.32, 2.63); Germany (2.30, 2.41); Ireland (0.74, 1.61). GNP expenditure of 2.63 per cent in the US represents $171 billion (€227 billion). It is clearly important that such huge amounts of money are spent effectively.
In the first chapter of the book, Hurley gives an overview of the principal explanatory frameworks that have been/are used to explain and influence scientific effectiveness. These are: good scientific method; serendipity; creative people; ability to clarify the nature of research problems; and supportive and effective organisational factors.
Laboratory science is very expensive and requires specialised laboratories, expensive equipment and highly trained and well-paid scientists. The Government has committed €2.5 billion to a range of research and development programmes in the current National Development Plan. But more than money is required to underpin effective research. A sudden influx of money into a previously poorly-funded system can come as a shock. The existing infrastructure - both physical and administrative - is usually poorly equipped to absorb the new funding. Upgrading the infrastructure to the required level takes patience and wisdom and must be effected in tandem with expanding research activity. Ad hoc re-organisation can cause great tensions and leave long-lasting scars.
The human factor is of paramount importance in fostering effective research. Very recently, a colleague entertained me by parodying the university's method of appointing heads of science departments as follows. Selection criteria have usually ranged little beyond the numbers and quality of candidates' research publications and the amount and size of research support grants they have won. Realistic candidates for such positions will typically have worked intensely hard for many years building up an impressive track record.
My colleague pointed out that the conditions of long apprenticeship and practice required to become an outstanding scientist are also the conditions that tend to cultivate selfishness and self-centredness in people. And such appointees are then employed to run large departments with several different categories of staff other than scientists, with all the attendant human problems that will exist in such a department.
Although my colleague's analysis was a parody, it contains a strong grain of truth. All too often, research leaders are chosen exclusively on academic credentials and little attention is paid to their people-managing skills. This latter aspect may be difficult to measure but it is of vital importance. Everyone who has worked for any significant time in a university will know of brilliant scientists who have caused unnecessary problems in the departments they headed because of personality problems. Thankfully, such situations are the exception rather than the rule.
One contributor to the book, Baruch Blumberg, spent many years leading the division of clinical research at the Fox Chase Centre in Philadelphia. He won the 1976 Nobel Prize for the discovery of the Hepatitis B virus (HBV) and the invention of the HBV vaccine. Blumberg describes how the director of the Fox Chase Institute went about his work. He gave the scientists who worked there great freedom to pursue their own ideas. Priorities and future directions were arrived at by consensus and he saw his role largely as providing support to his staff. The proof of the effectiveness of his approach was the discovery of HBV and the production of the vaccine.
Other chapters in the book are contributed by international experts chosen by Hurley for their expertise in various organisational aspects of effective science, including explanatory theory, policy, leadership, group effects, evaluation and measurement, enculturation, and cognitive psychology. Hurley himself proposes a new theory to account for exceptional scientific results based on a combination of individual and organisational factors. A colleague of Hurley's, James Ryan, has tested this theory in the UK Research Assessment Evaluation system and found support for it. I would encourage anyone involved in scientific research in Ireland to read this valuable and thought-provoking book.
William Reville is Associate Professor of Biochemistry and Director of Microscopy at UCC