Two dangers come from attempting to guide research in the negative way proposed by Smith (and I know this is not his idea; it is a popular one in certain circles). As one of the retreat participants said in the course of our discussion, "No one is smart enough or well-intentioned enough to predict the eventual outcomes of any research, no matter what its short term goals might be, and it is always possible to imagine bad outcomes if one has a reason to want to do so. So the goal of certainty in predicting bad--or good--social outcomes from any research is unattainable."
The second danger is the one I described in the previous paragraph: absolute power corrupts absolutely. Explicitly granted powers to control all investigations can be tragically misused, either unwittingly or on purpose. It is better to let individual faculty decide on the worth of research within their field. As with democracy, the method isn't perfect but we don't have anything better. (The inference is obvious, of course, that we need to have sound faculty for this method to work.)
But leaving aside the dangers of Smith's recommendation, the fact still remains that certain kinds of potentially desirable research will not be funded because the stakeholders don't ask for it, cannot fund it, or cannot make their voices heard in the circles that control fund disbursement. In many cases, such a "needed new research" will be for socially desirable goals that currently have little or no short-term commercial value ("no profit to business"), even though they will be good for all (including "the corporations") in the long term, through improved societal conditions.
Positive reinforcement is needed for such requests for research--with the goal of adding new research rather than banning certain kinds of research. It seems to me that we need to have some established mechanism or organization to give a voice to those who advocate such research and further, to provide (or find) funding for the research they advocate.
In theory there is a way, and that is the state legislature plus to some extent the Board of Regents. But it is true that the odds are high that advocates of research with little short-term benefit can pick up little support from established strong organizations.
By and large the strongest organizations in our state (and the country) are the ones that feed and clothe us, and also provide housing and entertainment. They provide goods and services to the public for a charge that needs to be collected regularly and in the short-term. The charge needs to be collected in the short-term because the organizations' members need to buy groceries and make house payments. I am of course describing "profit-seeking industry" (including "corporations") and its employees and their families, which means most of the population in the state and nation. Not surprisingly, we, the public, are most interested in furthering our interests as we see them in the short term: long-term goals, or goals for those outside our system don't seem as important, even though they may seem socially desirable.
Some organizations, usually of a socially activist nature ("not-for-profit", although they need to meet a payroll), have attempted to articulate and champion the neglected socially desirable research goals, but they usually are ineffective for the same reasons that Tony Smith is ineffective; they are too confrontational and try to advance their cause by denigrating and even eliminating "the enemy." They nearly always raise strong opposition, usually strong enough and emotional enough to prevent rational and empathetic consideration of their proposals.
So we need a group that looks for neglected areas of socially-desirable research, martials the logic for supporting such research, and then presents these positive ideas to any and all centers of power (funding controllers) in such a way that the research will find funding. Then of course, it will be up to researchers (in this case, ISU faculty), to decide whether they want to do the research. But that is another matter, dealt with briefly, earlier in this note.
Maybe you realize by this time that I am describing an organization that is already in place, The Leopold Center at ISU. I believe this is a model for positive accomplishment in sponsoring research intended to further socially and environmentally desirable ends. Granted, some may not agree with all of its suggestion as being "desirable," but The Leopold Center is in the market-place of ideas, proposing good reasons why its suggestions are worthwhile and worth implementing. Reactions to its suggestions are based on reasonable considerations of the facts as known rather than on instinctive and often irrational protective reactions.
We need more organizations like The Leopold Center. They don't need to be carbon copies, but they should operate from its basic premise--be constructive, not confrontational.
|
Updated: June 25, 1997 |
|
Return to:
|