Society’s needs cannot be met by applied science alone: A response to Cochrane et al. (2019)

Abstract

In their article 'Science in the service of society: Is marine and coastal science addressing South Africa's needs', Cochrane et al. 1 express concern, based on an analysis of abstracts from a single South African Marine Science Symposium (SAMSS 2017) that too little research is either interdisciplinary or 'actionable'-defined as science whose results translate easily to policies, management actions or industry. They argue that science is disconnected from the needs of society, may not adequately benefit society and, therefore, that the science risks losing support and credibility. To remedy such drawbacks, they propose funding actionable science as a priority, including in the tertiary education arena, and emphasising interdisciplinary research. In conclusion, they offer eight recommendations for future funding of marine science. Because their article may substantially influence the policies of funding agencies and thus the trajectory of marine science in South Africa, it is important that their claims are examined in the wider context of how science benefits society. Cochrane et al. 1 's arguments are built on four premises which do not stand up to scrutiny. Firstly, they assume a clear distinction between pure, basic and applied (or actionable) research. Secondly, they underestimate, to the point of discounting, the value of 'pure' science in advancing the goals and imperatives that, in their opinion, should be urgently addressed. Thirdly, they assume an unrealistic linearity in the way that science translates to policy and management. Finally, they do not account for the manner in which the funding system already addresses many of their concerns.

Reply to ‘Society’s needs cannot be met by applied science alone: A response to Cochrane et al. (2019)’

“…We can only cover some of the more important disagreements we have in the words available to us. Glassom et al 2 misinterpret our paper in their title: 'Society's needs cannot be met by applied science alone': a statement of the obvious and unrelated to any of our arguments. Another misinterpretation occurs in their comment: 'It makes no sense to sacrifice strong disciplinary research because of a perceived imperative for interdisciplinary work'.…”

“…We welcome discussion on our paper on science in the service of society 1 but find the response by Glassom et al 2 to be weak and frequently flawed. We can only cover some of the more important disagreements we have in the words available to us.…”