Two problems with an executive order to make science “transparent, rigorous and impactful” are (1) leaving out the Oxford comma, and (2) “impactful,” if it is even a word, is not a desideratum of good science: you never know when the study is done what its impact is going to be.
I agree with you regarding impactful. It's not a criterion of good science. Nor as you point out is it even a word in some dictionaries. Thank you for the comment and I stand corrected.
I think the Executive Order is concerned with making "federal government sponsored" science impactful, which is a perfectly reasonable ambition IMO. You wouldn't want to be spending tax dollars on science which has little or no impact. But it's also laudable in that it requires that science to be transparent and rigorous. Phony climate change science and Covid science, sponsored by federal government has certainly been impactful, in that it has shaped policy and public awareness, but not in a positive way, precisely because it is not rigorous or transparent.
Yes, the word impactful was used in the EO, and it makes sense in that, as you say, tax payer money should not be spent on scientific research that has no practical impact on policy or welfare. So, yes, while impactful is not a criterion of scientific research per se, it is an important trait of science that government funding should be concerned with.
Excellent article, thank you.
Imagine applying Popper’s criterion of falsifiability to today’s cosmological theories.. Much of this research would have to be defunded.
Two problems with an executive order to make science “transparent, rigorous and impactful” are (1) leaving out the Oxford comma, and (2) “impactful,” if it is even a word, is not a desideratum of good science: you never know when the study is done what its impact is going to be.
I agree with you regarding impactful. It's not a criterion of good science. Nor as you point out is it even a word in some dictionaries. Thank you for the comment and I stand corrected.
I think the Executive Order is concerned with making "federal government sponsored" science impactful, which is a perfectly reasonable ambition IMO. You wouldn't want to be spending tax dollars on science which has little or no impact. But it's also laudable in that it requires that science to be transparent and rigorous. Phony climate change science and Covid science, sponsored by federal government has certainly been impactful, in that it has shaped policy and public awareness, but not in a positive way, precisely because it is not rigorous or transparent.
Yes, the word impactful was used in the EO, and it makes sense in that, as you say, tax payer money should not be spent on scientific research that has no practical impact on policy or welfare. So, yes, while impactful is not a criterion of scientific research per se, it is an important trait of science that government funding should be concerned with.
The government (mostly) funds basic science, the impact of which cannot be assessed for a generation.