My Photo

November 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30      

Atkins Papers & Talks

« NSF CI-TEAM Competition | Main | New Open Access Journal for human-centered ICT research »

Comments

Michael Cohen

It's one thing to say that some research lies in Pasteur's Quadrant, when an individual or group wants to do such research, and another thing to say that all research should be understood or regulated without using distinctions like fundamental/applied.
There really isn't anything applied about the core reasons for chasing the Higgs' Boson, even if one claims in justifying the expense that the quest in conceptually momentous and there could be spinoffs from the technology required.
So while I want the P's Q. idea to be understood and credited, I'm not sure I want the fundamental/applied distinction to be abandoned, despite its ambiguities. I suspect doing so will make it harder to see whether NSF is further shortening its time horizon.

Dan Atkins

Yes, thanks for raising this. I really do need to clarify that I do not mean that all activies of discovery need to be in the Pasteur Quadrant.. the Bohr and Edison quandrants need to exist too. Maybe we need three (or perhaps) 4 classifications...

Yan Chen

I googled "science policy" and the first two pages did not contain any leading research universities. At least part of the reason for the lack of researh in social sciences on science policy might be due to the social scientists' lack of (or limited) knowledge of science and technology. SI, however, should be able to lead in this area, because of our in-house mix of social and computer scientists and the existing contacts and cumulative knowledge from CREW research.

The comments to this entry are closed.