Public use and public funding of science.
Journal
Nature human behaviour
ISSN: 2397-3374
Titre abrégé: Nat Hum Behav
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101697750
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
received:
21
04
2021
accepted:
19
05
2022
pubmed:
8
7
2022
medline:
25
10
2022
entrez:
7
7
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Knowledge of how science is consumed in public domains is essential for understanding the role of science in human society. Here we examine public use and public funding of science by linking tens of millions of scientific publications from all scientific fields to their upstream funding support and downstream public uses across three public domains-government documents, news media and marketplace invention. We find that different public domains draw from various scientific fields in specialized ways, showing diverse patterns of use. Yet, amidst these differences, we find two important forms of alignment. First, we find universal alignment between what the public consumes and what is highly impactful within science. Second, a field's public funding is strikingly aligned with the field's collective public use. Overall, public uses of science present a rich landscape of specialized consumption, yet, collectively, science and society interface with remarkable alignment between scientific use, public use and funding.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35798885
doi: 10.1038/s41562-022-01397-5
pii: 10.1038/s41562-022-01397-5
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1344-1350Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
Références
Disraeli, B. Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of Glasgow Nov. 19, 1873 (Longmans, Green, and Co., 1873).
Wang, D. & Barabási, A.-L. The Science of Science (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2021).
Merton, R. K. The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations (Univ. of Chicago Press, 1973).
Gibbons, M. The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies (Sage, 1994).
Mokyr, J. The Gifts of Athena: Historical Origins of the Knowledge Economy (Princeton Univ. Press, 2002).
Etzkowitz, H. & Leydesdorff, L. The dynamics of innovation: from National Systems and “Mode 2” to a Triple Helix of university–industry–government relations. Res. Policy 29, 109–123 (2000).
doi: 10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00055-4
Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century, National Academy of Sciences & National Academy of Engineering Institute of Medicine. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. (National Academies Press, 2014).
Hjort, J., Moreira, D., Rao, G. & Santini, J. F. How Research Affects Policy: Experimental Evidence from 2,150 Brazilian Municipalities. Report No. 0898-2937 (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2019).
Fortunato, S. et al. Science of science. Science 359, eaao0185 (2018).
doi: 10.1126/science.aao0185
Jefferson, T. No patent on ideas. Letter to Isaac McPherson (1813).
Arrow, K. in The Rate and Direction of Inventive Activity: Economic and Social Factors (National Bureau of Economic Research) 609–626 (Princeton Univ. Press, 1962).
Stiglitz, J. E. Knowledge as a global public good. Global Public Goods 1, 308–326 (1999).
doi: 10.1093/0195130529.003.0015
Stephan, P. E. The economics of science. J. Econ. Lit. 34, 1199–1235 (1996).
Jewkes, J. The Sources of Invention (Springer, 1969).
Gibbons, M. & Johnston, R. The roles of science in technological innovation. Res. Policy 3, 220–242 (1974).
doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(74)90008-0
Landau, R., Rosenberg, N. & National Academy of Engineering. The Positive Sum Strategy: Harnessing Technology for Economic Growth (National Academies Press, 1986).
Mansfield, E. Academic research and industrial innovation. Res Policy 20, 1–12 (1991).
doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(91)90080-A
Klevorick, A. K., Levin, R. C., Nelson, R. R. & Winter, S. G. On the sources and significance of interindustry differences in technological opportunities. Res Policy 24, 185–205 (1995).
doi: 10.1016/0048-7333(93)00762-I
Caplan, N. The two-communities theory and knowledge utilization. Am. Behav. Sci. 22, 459–470 (1979).
doi: 10.1177/000276427902200308
Dunn, W. N. The two-communities metaphor and models of knowledge use: an exploratory case survey. Knowledge 1, 515–536 (1980).
doi: 10.1177/107554708000100403
National Research Council. Knowledge and Policy: The Uncertain Connection (The National Academies Press, 1978).
National Research Council. Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy (National Academies Press, 2012).
Landry, R., Lamari, M. & Amara, N. The extent and determinants of the utilization of university research in government agencies. Public Adm. Rev. 63, 192–205 (2003).
doi: 10.1111/1540-6210.00279
Snow, C. P. Science and Government (Harvard University Press, 2013).
Langrish, J., Gibbons, M., Evans, W. G. & Jevons, F. R. Wealth from Knowledge: Studies of Innovation in Industry (Springer, 1972).
Hatfield, E. Proxmire’s golden fleece award. Relationship Research News 4, 5–9 (2006).
Coburn, T. The National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope. (Senator Tom Coburn, 2011).
Ridley, M. The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge. (HarperCollins, 2015).
Kealey, T. The case against public science. Cato Unbound 5 https://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/08/05/terence-kealey/case-against-public-science/ (2013).
Yin, Y., Gao, J., Jones, B. F. & Wang, D. Coevolution of policy and science during the pandemic. Science 371, 128–130 (2021).
doi: 10.1126/science.abe3084
Thelwall, M., Haustein, S., Larivière, V. & Sugimoto, C. R. Do altmetrics work? Twitter and ten other social web services. PLoS ONE 8, e64841 (2013).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064841
Costas, R., Zahedi, Z. & Wouters, P. Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66, 2003–2019 (2015).
doi: 10.1002/asi.23309
Ahmadpoor, M. & Jones, B. F. The dual frontier: patented inventions and prior scientific advance. Science 357, 583–587 (2017).
doi: 10.1126/science.aam9527
Fleming, L., Greene, H., Li, G., Marx, M. & Yao, D. Government-funded research increasingly fuels innovation. Science 364, 1139–1141 (2019).
doi: 10.1126/science.aaw2373
Marx, M. & Fuegi, A. Reliance on science: worldwide front-page patent citations to scientific articles. Strategic Management Journal 41, 1572–1594 (2020).
doi: 10.1002/smj.3145
Wang, K. et al. Microsoft Academic Graph: when experts are not enough. Quant. Sci. Stud. 1, 396–413 (2020).
doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00021
Kosack, S. et al. Functional structures of US state governments. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 115, 11748–11753 (2018).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1803228115
Marx, M. & Fuegi, A. Reliance on Science by Inventors: Hybrid Extraction of In-Text Patent-to-Article Citations (National Bureau of Economic Research, 2020).
Herzog, C., Hook, D. & Konkiel, S. Dimensions: bringing down barriers between scientometricians and data. Quant. Sci. Stud. 1, 387–395 (2020).
doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00020
Weiss, C. H. The many meanings of research utilization. Public Adm. Rev. 39, 426–431 (1979).
doi: 10.2307/3109916
Bornmann, L. What is societal impact of research and how can it be assessed? A literature survey. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 64, 217–233 (2013).
doi: 10.1002/asi.22803
Selvaraj, S., Borkar, D. S. & Prasad, V. Media coverage of medical journals: do the best articles make the news?. PLoS ONE 9, e85355 (2014).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085355
Boudreau, K. J., Guinan, E. C., Lakhani, K. R. & Riedl, C. Looking across and looking beyond the knowledge frontier: intellectual distance, novelty, and resource allocation in science. Manag. Sci. 62, 2765–2783 (2016).
doi: 10.1287/mnsc.2015.2285
Bromham, L., Dinnage, R. & Hua, X. Interdisciplinary research has consistently lower funding success. Nature 534, 684–687 (2016).
doi: 10.1038/nature18315
Ginther, D. K. et al. Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science 333, 1015–1019 (2011).
doi: 10.1126/science.1196783
Ma, A., Mondragón, R. J. & Latora, V. Anatomy of funded research in science. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 14760–14765 (2015).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.1513651112
Wang, Y., Jones, B. F. & Wang, D. Early-career setback and future career impact. Nat. Commun. 10, 1–10 (2019).
Yin, Y., Wang, Y., Evans, J. A. & Wang, D. Quantifying the dynamics of failure across science, startups and security. Nature 575, 190–194 (2019).
doi: 10.1038/s41586-019-1725-y
Hill, R., Yin, Y., Stein, C., Wang, D. & Jones, B. F. Adaptability and the pivot penalty in science. Available at SSRN 3886142 (2021).
Else, H. How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing–in seven charts. Nature 588, 553–554 (2020).
doi: 10.1038/d41586-020-03564-y
Hearing: The science of science and innovation policy. Committee on Science and Technology (2010).
Wang, K. et al. A review of Microsoft Academic Services for science of science studies. Front. Big Data 2, 45 (2019).
doi: 10.3389/fdata.2019.00045
AI2. Science Parse https://github.com/allenai/science-parse (2019).
Adie, E. & Roe, W. Altmetric: enriching scholarly content with article‐level discussion and metrics. Learn. Publ. 26, 11–17 (2013).
doi: 10.1087/20130103
PatentsView http://www.patentsview.org (2019).
Hook, D. W., Porter, S. J. & Herzog, C. Dimensions: building context for search and evaluation. Front. Res. Metrics Anal. 3, 23 (2018).
doi: 10.3389/frma.2018.00023
Garfield, E. & Merton, R. K. Citation Indexing: Its Theory and Application in Science, Technology, and Humanities. Vol. 8 (Wiley New York, 1979).
Price, D. J. D. S. Networks of scientific papers: the pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science 149, 510–515 (1965).
doi: 10.1126/science.149.3683.510
Wang, D., Song, C. & Barabási, A.-L. Quantifying long-term scientific impact. Science 342, 127–132 (2013).
doi: 10.1126/science.1237825
Radicchi, F., Fortunato, S. & Castellano, C. Universality of citation distributions: toward an objective measure of scientific impact. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 105, 17268–17272 (2008).
doi: 10.1073/pnas.0806977105
Wuchty, S., Jones, B. F. & Uzzi, B. The increasing dominance of teams in production of knowledge. Science 316, 1036–1039 (2007).
doi: 10.1126/science.1136099
Rosvall, M. & Bergstrom, C. T. Multilevel compression of random walks on networks reveals hierarchical organization in large integrated systems. PLoS ONE 6, e18209 (2011).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018209