ACCOUNTS OF CHEXICAL RESEARCH" Registered in US.Patent and Trademark Office;Copyright 1982 by the American Chemical Society
VOLUME 15 EDITOR JOSEPH F. BUNNETT
ASSOCIATE EDITORS Joel E. Keizer John E. McMurry
EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD Fred Basolo R. Stephen Berry Michel Boudart Maurice M. Bursey Edward A. Collins John T. Gerig Jenny P. Glusker Kendall N. Houk Jay K. Kochi Maurice M. Kreevoy Theodore Kuwana Ronald N. McElhaney Eva L. Menger Kurt Mislow John C. Polanyi Alexander Rich Anthony M. Trozzolo Gene G.Wubbels Published by the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY 1155 16th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036
BOOKS AND JOURNALS DIVISION D. H. Michael Bowen. Director Journals Department: Charles R. Bertsch, Head; Marianne C. Brogan, Associate Head; Mary E. Scanlan, Assistant Manager Marketing and Sales Department: Claud K. Robinson, Head Production Department: Elmer M. Pusey, Jr., Head Research and Development Department: Seldon W. Terrant, Head The American Chemical Society and its editors assume no responsibility for
the statements and opinions advanced by contributors. Views expressed in the editorials are those of the writers and do not necessarily represent the official position of the American Chemical Society.
NUMBER 12
DECEMBER, 1982
Evaluation of Scientific Research in Small Countries In countries with perhaps ten or fewer universities, there are inherent problems in the objective assessment of research. Evaluation of overall national research activity in a given field is important to persons concerned with the development of national science policy, while judging the contributions of particular research groups is essential for agencies with responsibility for the support of research. Objective assessment is impeded by the close personal relationships that usually exist among the scientists in any field in a small country. They meet and hear each other frequently a t national committee meetings and scientific conferences, they chat a t social gatherings, and there is a possibility that their evaluations of each other as scientists may be considerably influenced by personality characteristics. Also, within a small country the likelihood of special affinity because of former companionship within a research group is high. Moreover, attitudes toward research areas may be strongly influenced by shared common experiences or by the enthusiasm of outspoken advocates. Recently I had an opportunity to see a t first hand the praiseworthy way in which Sweden deals with this problem. Although Sweden is large in area, much of it lies in sparsely populated arctic and subarctic regions. Its population and university establishment are of size comparable to those of Belgium, The Netherlands, and Switzerland. I served as a member of a small international team invited by the Swedish NFR (Naturvetenskapliga Forskningsradet, or Natural Sciences Research Council) to evaluate research projects in physical organic chemistry to which NFR gives grant support. Members of the team were sent, beforehand, reports and reprints of published work by the various research groups. The team then spent a week making site visits to the several research groups, and finally wrote a report offering evaluation of the several projects. The physical organic chemistry evaluation was a component of a program, instituted in 1977, to evaluate all fields supported by NFR. A report on the first 4 years of the program, published in 1981, lists the fields evaluated and those planned for evaluation. They include, for example, ecological microbiology, atomic and molecular physics, astrophysics, marine geology, nuclear and radiation chemistry, membrane biochemistry, and organic synthesis (including bioorganic chemistry). The cost of the evaluation program has been a little less than 170of the grant funds dispensed. The several evaluation teams have gone beyond the mere rating of specific projects to offer commentary on the general condition of the respective fields and on the organizational structure of science in Sweden. Some have commented on the rigid structure of Swedish universities and on the curious fact that some major investigators of international standing do not have secure academic appointments. These comments are taken seriously; an observation that Swedish astrophysics required strengthening in its theoretical aspects was followed by the creation of a special research post for a theoretical astrophysicist. The Swedish program deserves study by other small countries and indeed by countries not so small. Although another country might choose to organize its program a little differently, most if not all would benefit by obtaining the advice of appropriately chosen external evaluators. The same principles apply to corporate research establishments, for it is possible to develop within a company some of the same bias and limited outlook that can arise within a small country. Joseph F. Bunnett
