Monday, February 23, 2009

What's the story?

One of the basic templates of thinking that I have found to be quite useful boils down to three questions:
* What's the story?
* Does the story correspond to the facts? And if not sufficiently:
* What can be done to improve the correspondence of the story and the facts in the future?

So what is the story behind the current 500 million budget for FES? 
What is the purpose of this type of spending? What effects, what impact is expected from the many projects?

The general assumption seems to be that if we invest money into scientific research, that this will stimulate innovation, which will ultimately benefit the economy. If you like there is a "mental model" here, a practical theory that justifies the large investment being made.

The question is of course, if this general idea really works out in practice.  Answering that question is of course not so easy.  It would be a good idea to have a look at what evaluations of the former 37 projects have been made, and what conclusions were drawn. 

The most obvious work that was done to evaluate the programs was the the formal "Mid Term Review".  The formal public documents on this review proces are available on: http://www.senternovem.nl/bsik/algemeen/index.asp.

The most recent publication in this series is actually the position of the Dutch Kabinet on the mid term evaluation of the BSIK projects.  ("Kabinetsreactie over de midterm evaluatie van de Bsik projecten"). 
I expect that it is interesting to start here. What is the current formal perception of the Kabinet on these projects? What was expected? What are the perceived outcomes? What are the conclusions for the next time around?

To be continued.

Some first questions on goverment spending on research and innovation

Currently the dutch goverment is in the midst of a process to spend a (FES) fund of 500 million euro's on innovative research projects. The purpose of this money is to select the best parts of the 37 BSIK research programs that were funded four years ago, when a budget of  800 million euros was available. Many of those 4-6 year programs have ended or will end this year. With the reduction of the available fund to almost half its size not all topics an consortium partners will have place in the new programs.

The money will be spent selectively in 8 thematic areas:  hightechsystems en materialen; food & flowers; life sciences & health; water, climate and space; ICT; chemistry and energy; creative industry and education.

Baground information (in dutch) can be found here:

In the area of ICT it has been decided that only one large program will be submitted, in contrast to the previous round where several competing ICT programs were submitted. The ministeries have asked ICT-regie (www.ictregie.nl)  to direct the effort of making this one program. It has therefore been up to them to make the initial selection of partners and topics, that are believed to be the best to spend tax-payers money on.

During the last months I have been able to participate in a very small piece of the development of the ICT program, and have thus been able to witness part of the proces. This experience has revived the interests I had 5 years ago to investigate how goverment funded research and innovation processes take place.

Many questions could be asked from a scientific and a political point of view.  In general the most important one is perhaps: What have we learned from the previous 37 programs that were funded at the end of 2003? Does what we have learned have any impact on the way we develop and select the programs for the next round?

This is truly a question, to which I do not yet have an answer. But in all honesty, I must admit,  that I do have a slight worry that it is very difficult to learn from past program experiences, and consequently that not a great deal will change.  Let's say that this is a hypothesis, that requires further refinement.

On another level, an important question is if we would at all want any changes in the way this type of money is spent. I suppose the answer to this question is not so much a matter of facts, but a matter of choice. How should money for research and innovatio be spent under the given circumstances?

A final question could be: Is there anything special about the current circumstances, that justifies a better evaluation of past programs and perhaps a change in the way future programs are positioned?

Blog entries should be short.  This seems like a nice point to stop for now.


Perfect Is the Enemy of the Good

I am often reminded of this saying. And it certainly does apply to me. Perhaps not in everything that I do. I can be quite action oriented. I can be opportunistic in the positive sense of the word. But not in all things. The one area I have been very very reluctant to do things and to finish them of is in public writing. I have hardly published anything, and it is not for lack of ideas or materials. I have just been to darn fussy. If I was to publish anything of a scientific nature, it had to pretty new or fundamental, and yes, pretty perfect. The same goes for articles of a more opionating, political nature.

Next to wanting to have things just right, I think I have also worried about intellectual property. During the years that I had a small software engineering company, I was very strict about maintaing the IPR on the basic framework I was developing and reusing from project to project.  That wasn't unreasonable, given the vast amounts of project-non-specific investment the framework required.  But you wonder if any intellectual framework I might now have in mind is worth protecting at all. It's not the same game. 

Clearly the disadvantage of protecting a (basic) idea, is that few people will read it.  That means that few people can use or steal it. But it also means that few can comment on it, and that few can give you credit for it.  

So what is it I want? Do I at all care if people would use ideas, without giving me any credit for them? Do I at all think, that I will produce anything important enough worth stealing? Well - yes and no.  The 'no' is that even my best ideas are developed in response to, or in interaction with other people. I am never starting from scratch.  And most ideas are never completely new. Someone somewhere will have had comparable thoughts, perhaps in another language or with the use of other terms. So I should not be so bold as to think that I will ever come up with anything so brilliant, that no one has ever thought of it. But there is a "yes" too. Use of good ideas, without reference and credit - perhaps unitentionally - does take place.

So what to do? It doesn't seem wise to just sit on ideas, and in practice it is difficult to do so if you want to function well within a social context.  But what I could and should do, is write up the ideas I have, actively share them. If in doing so I produce anything at all origianl - there will be evidence of that, and I suppose that in the end I will get some credit for that. 

Ah, but then there is the aspect of how ideas are made public. Making an excellent powerpoint presentation is not quite the same as publishing in some scientifically recognized journal. And writing something up on a blog for that matter, does not have much scientific value either. Perhaps in content, but not in formal recognition. So wouldn't it be nasty, if one would put up really good ideas in a blog, and then see that those very ideas are put into a scientific journal publication - without reference. Yes that would be nasty. And - I don't know what the current morals are - must one reference blogs too? Should one? Or would that be beneath the standards of the established scientific community?

In any case I have (finally) decided not to worry about this AT ALL.  In this blog I will write whatever I feel is worth sharing with others. Perhaps some things should later be integrated into more formal publications - an then I will try to do so.  If by chance someone beats me to that - then it is just too bad. 

The advantage of this medium, is that the time between having an idea and sharing it is minimal. That also makes it possible to use blog posts in the conversations that are taking place now. Formal publications, I expect, will quickly fall out of context. Not that this is necessarily a bad thing - but on the other hand I do feel that there is great value in context-specific conversation and knowledge. But that is a topic for later on.

I suppose this little brainstrom, that I have now shared publically, is meant to push myself accross a threshold; for better or for worse.

Well then: by pushing "publish post" it will have been done.

Here goes.