Das Thema Reproduzierbarkeit von Forschungsversuchen – das seit 2014 in den USA intensiver diskutiert wird – ist noch ungelöst. Die National Science Foundation ist hier noch im Wort, eine Studie vorzulegen. Dieses Problem berührt laut PEW-Analyse beide gesellschaftliche Gruppen - die Bürger und Forscher. Denn die Reproduzierbarkeit beschriebener Versuchswege trage entscheidend zur Glaubwürdigkeit der Wissenschaft und damit zur Unterstützung aus der Gesellschaft bei. Einige Fakten der Studie: Grundlagenforscher in den USA sehen die Zukunft der eigenen „Branche“ negativer. Doktoranden haben zu einem hohen Prozentsatz keinen amerikanischen Pass. Und mit 31 Prozent verfügt nur ein knappes Drittel der Beschäftigten in Science and Engineering über einen akademischen Abschluss, der oberhalb des Bachelor liegt.
Brücke zur deutschen Diskussion
Eine thematische Verbindung des Reports (Reproduzierbarkeit von Ergebnissen) besteht auch zur Forderung des Deutschen Ethikrates und der Diskussion um den Leistungsdruck in der Wissenschaft, der auch zu Fehlverhalten verleiten kann.
Die Rats-Vorsitzende Christiane Woopen sprach sich im Februar vor dem Ausschuss für Bildung, Forschung und Technikfolgenabschätzung des Bundestages nachdrücklich dafür aus, in der deutschen Wissenschaftsgemeinschaft das Bewusstsein für Missbrauchsgefahren zu schärfen und einen bundesweit gültigen Forschungskodex für einen verantwortlichen Umgang mit missbrauchsgefährdeter Forschung zu erstellen.
Die PEW-Autoren Cary Funk und Lee Rainie schreiben in ihrem Bericht grundsätzlich: „Scientific innovations are deeply embedded in national life — in the economy, in core policy choices about how people care for them-selves and use the resources around them, and in the topmost reaches of Americans’ imaginations.”
Mit der nach 2009 erneut durchgeführten Untersuchung wurden Einstellungen von Bürgern und eine repräsentative Gruppe von Wissenschaftlern, die Mitglieder der American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) sind, verglichen. Beide Gruppen haben eine sehr gegensätzliche Sicht auf die Gegenstände, wobei der Wert wissenschaftlicher Leistungen von beiden Lagern gewürdigt wird. Es heißt: „Science holds an esteemed place among citizens and professionals. Americans recognize the accomplishments of sci-entists in key fields and, despite considerable dispute about the role of government in other realms, there is broad public support for government investment in scientific research.”
Folgende Eckpunkte in ungekürzter Form aus dem Originaldokument:
• 79% of adults say that science has made life easier for most people and a majority is positive about science’s impact on the quality of health care, food and the environment.
• 54% of adults consider U.S. scientific achievements to be either the best in the world (15%) or above average (39%) compared with other industrial countries.
• 92% of AAAS scientists say scientific achievements in the U.S. are the best in the world (45%) or above average (47%).
• About seven-in-ten adults say that government investments in engi-neering and technology (72%) and in basic scientific research (71%) usually pay off in the long run. Some 61% say that government invest-ment is essential for scientific progress, while 34% say private in-vestment is enough to ensure scientific progress is made.
• Only 16% of AAAS scientists and 29% of the general public rank U.S. STEM education for grades K-12 as above average or the best in the world. Fully 46% of AAAS scientists and 29% of the public rank K-12 STEM as “below average.”
• 75% of AAAS scientists say too little STEM education for grades K-12 is a major factor in the public’s limited knowledge about science. An overwhelming majority of scientists see the public’s limited scien-tific knowledge as a problem for science.
Redaktionell wurden folgende Passagen zusammengetragen:
Entering a Career in Science Today
“While a majority of AAAS scientists consider this a good or very good time to begin a career in their specialty areas, scientists are more downbeat about entering the profession today than they were five years ago. Some 59% of scientists surveyed say this is a good time to enter their specialty ar-ea, down 8 percentage points since 2009. The more pessimistic assessments are primarily among scientists working in basic research as compared with applied research, and among those working in university settings as com-pared with business or industry.
Among scientists whose research is focused on basic knowledge questions 48% say it is a good or very good time to start a career, down 15 points from 63% in 2009. Some 69% of those in applied research say this is a good time to enter their specialty area, roughly the same share as said this in 2009 (71%). Similarly, among all those working in a university setting, 49% say this is a good or very good time to enter their specialty, down 14 points from 2009. Views among those working in industry have held steady: 71% to-day and 70% in 2009.
Fully 58% of AAAS scientists consider it harder to attract the best people to the profession today than it was five years ago, 32% say it is about the same and just 9% say it is easier today. Basic researchers (62%) are more likely than applied researchers (55%) to say attracting talent is harder today.
Scientists see a number of hurdles facing new career entrants today. Fully 85% of AAAS scientists say the lack of adequate funding for research is a serious problem for new entrants. They also cite the limited number of ten-ure-track jobs (73% of AAAS scientists say it is a serious problem) in uni-versity settings and too few R&D jobs in industry (54% say it is a serious problem). Half of scientists (50%) consider salary levels to be a serious problem for new career entrants and 46% say the long hours needed to suc-ceed in a research career is a serious problem. By comparison, fewer fault the graduate training being offered today. About three-in-ten (31%) say training that doesn’t meet todays’ needs is a serious problem.
There are, of course, a number of differences in the economic and political context over these time points. While the 2009 survey was conducted during the Great Recession, there was also a promise of scientific funding through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 around the same time.
In 2009, AAAS scientists were asked to rate a similar list of potential problems on a four-point scale from very serious to not serious at all. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced an initiative to enhance the reproducibility of biomedical research in 2013 in response to growing concern about this issue in the scientific community.
The Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 finds 36% of science and engi-neering doctorates have been awarded to students with temporary resident visas . And, “compared with the entire college-educated workforce, college graduates working in science and engineering occupations are disproportion-ately foreign born”. The share of international students receiving doctor-ates in science and engineering fields has grown since 2000 as has the share of foreign-born workers in science and engineering occupations.
The 2009 survey of AAAS scientists conducted by Pew Research in collabora-tion with AAAS asked respondents to rate each of four possible motivations for becoming a scientist. An overwhelming majority (86%) said that “an in-terest in solving intellectually challenging problems” was a very important in their decision to become a scientist. Forty-one percent (41%) said that “a desire to work for the public good” was very important. 30% said the same about “a desire to make an important discovery” and just 4% said “a desire for a financially rewarding career” was very important in their de-cision.
Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 reports 28% of the science and en-gineering workforce are women although that share varies widely by field and has been growing over the past decade, particularly in the life scienc-es, engineering and the physical sciences. The median age of the science and engineering workforce was 44 years as of 2010, a figure that has been growing since the 1990s.
Only 31% of those working in science and engineering occupations hold a relevant degree above the bachelor’s level although, a doctorate degree is the norm among those working in post-secondary education.”
http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-sci...
