Revisiting the Basic/Applied Science Distinction: The Significance of Urgent Science for Science Funding Policy

Pursuitworthiness in urgent research: Lessons on well-ordered science from sustainability science

Urgent and complex sustainability problems are redefining the conditions for success of science and instigating novel methodologies and new roles of values in science. At the same time, sustainability research, mostly under the umbrella of sustainability science, is abundant with dubious methods and dubious aims of research, contributing to the already widespread crisis of the quality control mechanisms in science. This paper identifies some of these dubious methods (non-systemic thinking and specific contractual funding mechanisms) and dubious aims (unclear aims and undisclosed value assumptions), and argues that, with proper expert evaluation, it is possible to predict the type of content (and the scientific value) these forms of research will result in. Identifying the forms of research with predictably dubious results has practical implications for doing and evaluating research in sustainability science, on the one hand, while on the other, it contributes to the discussion on the ideal of well-ordered science by concretizing the ideal and developing a criterion for ordering science in the case of sustainability science. Finally, the paper provides a connection of sustainability science with the meta-science discussions on the crisis in the quality of science and on science organization, what at the same time more closely connects the philosophy of science with problems encountered in research practice tackling urgent, complex and value-laden problems.

Peer review in funding-by-lottery: A systematic overview and expansion

Despite the surging interest in introducing lottery mechanisms into decision-making procedures for science funding bodies, the discourse on funding-by-lottery remains underdeveloped and, at times, misleading. Funding-by-lottery is sometimes presented as if it were a single mechanism when, in reality, there are many funding-by-lottery mechanisms with important distinguishing features. Moreover, funding-by-lottery is sometimes portrayed as an alternative to traditional methods of peer review when peer review is still used within funding-by-lottery approaches. This obscures a proper analysis of the (hypothetical and actual) variants of funding-by-lottery and important differences amongst them. The goal of this article is to provide a preliminary taxonomy of funding-by-lottery variants and evaluate how the existing evidence on peer review might lend differentiated support for variants of funding-by-lottery. Moreover, I point to gaps in the literature on peer review that must be addressed in future research. I conclude by building off of the work of Avin in moving toward a more holistic evaluation of funding-by-lottery. Specifically, I consider implications funding-by-lottery variants may have regarding trust and social responsibility.