Session A43: Invited Session: Broader Impacts of Research-NSF Policy and Individual Responsibility

Science, the Scientists and Values

Although individual scientists engage in research for diverse reasons, society only supports the enterprise because it benefits humankind. We cannot always predict how that will happen, or whether individual projects will have clear and direct benefits, but in the aggregate, there is widespread agreement that we are all better off because of the quality and diversity of the science that is done. However, what scientists do and how it benefits humankind is often unclear to the general public and can at times be misunderstood or misrepresented. Moreover, even when members of the public do understand what science is being done they do not always like what it is showing and feel relatively free to disregard or distort its findings. This happens most often when findings are either politically inconvenient or encroach upon issues of core human values. The origins of the universe can fit into that latter category. This array of factors contributes to the obligation of scientists to reach out to the public and share the results of their work and its implications. It also requires the scientific community to engage in genuine dialogue with the public and find common ground where possible.   

Why Physicists Have a Responsibility to Society

The debate and controversy over the NSF criterion on broader societal impacts of NSF-funded research have served the important function of challenging the physics community to reexamine why public money should support pure and applied physics research and what is the role of physicists in society. I will argue that the criterion, while well intentioned, appears ill informed and runs the risk of creating a check list of activities that will seemingly fulfill physicists' responsibility to connect their work to larger societal issues. Moreover, I will argue in favor of having a portion of government-funded research for scientific investigations based primarily, if not solely, on the intellectual and scientific merits of the proposals. Most government-funded research is already connected to larger societal impacts such as national defense, energy research, and economic issues. While I will call for reassessment of the NSF criterion on broader societal impacts, my talk will explain why physicists, as citizens and scientists, must reenergize their efforts to positively effect society and will offer advice about how they can do so.   

The Broader Impact Criteria- What's the solution? A panel discussion

The need for social control of science---especially 20th and now 21st century science---has been debated for decades. Science is supported by society, and research results ultimately have large societal impacts. Physicists arguing for increased research budgets invariably point out the collateral benefits to society---often economic---of their discovery-based research. Congress agreed, and attempted to institutionalize this metric in the `America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010' by insisting that researchers illustrate how their work will provide for (among other things) increased economic competitiveness of the United States and increased National Security. Is such a metric inevitable in these days of constrained resources? Is it desirable or even implementable? Can benefits be predicted, or are the most important societal consequences of basic research serendipitous? This talk will examine these questions, including looking at how other nations are attempting to deal with the issue, and present some suggestions for satisfying both society's insistence on a return on their investment and scientists' need for unfettered exploration. The program will conclude with a Q and A and panel discussion with all of the session's speakers.