It seems to me this once august and revered institution is having its feet greased again. Fresh from its contentious and uncritical (and remarkably un-skeptical) adoption of IPCC dogma on “anthropogenic climate change”, it is putting forward only one candidate (Sir Paul Nurse) for coronation by universal acclaim.

Does this remind you of any other player in the political establishment, perhaps?

Anyway, given that the Royal Society is now seen as much a part of the political establishment as any quango, it’s hardly surprising that the first proclamation of the new “king” of the Royal Society should be something as contentious as this:

Public funding of science should become more elitist, says the Nobel laureate nominated as next head of Britain’s national academy of science.

Sir Paul Nurse, named yesterday as the only candidate to succeed Lord Rees of Ludlow as President of the Royal Society, called for reform of the £3.2 billion budget to give more support to the few scientists who can “really move the needle” by making major discoveries.

It’s quite extraordinary, isn’t it? It almost could be interpreted as “give the money to me and my mates, because we’re the only ones who know what we’re doing”, couldn’t it?

But surely that’s not what he meant?

In an interview with The Times, the geneticist, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2001 and is currently president of the Rockefeller University in New York, said that funders should identify 100 to 150 excellent scientists in all fields, who would get generous long-term support to pursue their interests.

No, it looks like that’s exactly what he meant!

I wonder if there is any chance that an organisation might exist that could help “funders” decide just how to divvy up this £3.2 billion. Perhaps the Royal Society could be of help?

Who knows?

Sir Paul is really getting the hang of being a condescending quangocrat with remarkable deftness:

“I am actually a complete non-elitist in many aspects of my life, including science education up to a certain age, but when it comes to research I am really pretty elitist,” Sir Paul said. “There are not all that many people who can really move the needle.

“It is an interesting paradox, because we have quite a lot of people in the scientific endeavour, but not so many of them are people who are moving things significantly forward. Much of the work is worthy but the question is, do we have enough at that top end who make real discoveries? Are we attracting enough people there, and are we resourcing them enough?

“I think there has probably been too much attention paid to keeping the whole endeavour going in a sensible way, and not enough focus on how you can identify the very, very best, and make sure that they really do perform to their best ability.

Yes, Sir Paul. I agree. I have also got complete faith in entirely unaccountable quangocrats deciding impartially how best to spend our money. Quangocrats and civil servants have such an impeccable record of “picking winners”, don’t they?

What can possibly go wrong?

Tweets that mention The Royal Society – going downhill fast — Topsy.com

May 5, 2010 at 08:37

Tweets that mention The Royal Society – going downhill fast — Topsy.com

May 5, 2010 at 23:42

1
Pericles May 5, 2010 at 09:40

The greatest discoveries — certainly the greatest return in scientific endeavour per buck — have come not from government funding, however mediated, but from two sources :  wealthy individuals motivated by their own curiosity and often by philanthropy ;  and the enterprising motivated by a desire to meet a perceived need.

Estate duty (however named) has largely eliminated the former ;  the latter are stifled — in to-day’s socialist culture (oxymoron ?) — by the dead hand of the state.

ΠΞ

2
ivan May 5, 2010 at 09:45

What he is asking for is the exact opposite of what should happen. Some of the money should be spread as far as possible – just to see what happens, something like the Victorian ‘everyone can be an inventor’ way of thinking. Then, when workable ideas appear they should get funding. That is the way that would have seen the UK in space, with a working space station, years ago. Quangocrats should be kept as far from science funding as possible – they wouldn’t know a scientific breakthrough if it kicked them up the ar**.

3
Alan May 5, 2010 at 09:59

The problem of letting scientists influence where other people’s money ends up is that they then send it to their own field of expertise.

4
Specky May 5, 2010 at 10:05

Researcher 1.
I have a theory that will expand the evidence of Anthoprological Global Warming.
The RS ,excellent have some funding.
Researcher 2
I have a theory that will seriously question the existance of Anthoprological Global Warming.
The RS ,F**K OFF
That in a nutshell is what’s going on in the RS.
Politicised Scammers I believe.
Science now only recieves funding to further political agenda.
We all know that now.

5
Kevin B May 5, 2010 at 10:56

Here’s a plan.

No taxpayers funds should be spent on “science” or “research”.

Many will say that starving our great research institutions of public money will put us at the bottom of the international table in terms of inventions and discoveries, as opposed to where we are now.

Where are we now, by the way? I’m sure we’re near the top of the list in a great many fields, I just can’t quite recall any at the moment.

Oh yes, climate change! Our CRU boys have shown the world how a great country does research when given enough of our money.

Attract business here by cutting taxes and push all our smart kids into working for a living instead of being forced to please their political masters when begging for research funds. And when the businesses are making oodles of money, maybe they’ll endow a chair of high energy physics at Cambridge or something. You know, like it was in the old days. In the old days when our researchers discovered all those wonderful things like DNA and Black Holes and Penicillin and stuff like that.

6
Demetrius May 5, 2010 at 15:24

What Sir Paul Nurse really means that the money should go on “added value”. that is to those industries and activities that will enable a fast short term profit. This will be parcelled out amongst the largest contributers to political parties and those who are able to include key decision makers into the income streams. The rest can go to hell.

7
Paul Perrin May 5, 2010 at 23:48

Pericles is almost right…

He is right about the sources of advances, but not the cost…

The overall cost of a discovery by private enterprise has to include every failed enterprise too – it is truly gigantic. But, in private enterprise that cost is paid out of choice, by free will. So the cost is of no concern to the general public. Some do well, some fail.

The cost of publicly funded discovery is also *huge* but a good part of that is that public funds are coerced from the public, they are not given freely.

Let the public choose what to fund and regardless of the ‘price tag’ the cost is negligible. Make the public fund something and the cost is already too high…

8
Frank Davis May 6, 2010 at 11:51

Moving the needle somehow just makes me think of a heroin addict using a hypodermic syringe to give himself a fix.