Daniel M, Green L W, Sheps S B
School of Nutrition and Public Health, Deakin University, Malvern, Victoria, Australia.
J Health Soc Policy. 1998;10(2):39-56. doi: 10.1300/J045v10n02_04.
Since the 1970s two fundamental shifts have occurred in health research funding: a reduction in the buying power of research dollars, and an increase in the competition for resources. Most fields have also seen a decrease in the dollars available for research. Pressures for justifying the relevance of research activities have become increasingly pragmatic. The thesis of this paper is that scientific creativity and innovation are compromised by the highly uncertain and competitive funding environment of contemporary health research. This is largely because criteria of scientific excellence predicated on an investigation's presumed future impact support the status quo of methods and subject matter in funded research. Extraordinary rationality among scientists seeking and allocating resources promotes the survival of the existing system over time, yet inhibits progressive development through the transformation of conceptual models. Therefore, despite a growing unrest about the way research on population health is conducted, new conceptions of the relationship between theory and methods have been slow to emerge. Amelioration of a disjunction between the institutionalized rules governing science and the culturally sanctioned goals of science requires commitment to a dialectic between orthodoxy and dissent.
自20世纪70年代以来，健康研究资金出现了两个根本性转变：研究资金购买力下降，资源竞争加剧。大多数领域的研究可用资金也有所减少。证明研究活动相关性的压力变得越来越务实。本文的论点是，当代健康研究高度不确定和竞争激烈的资金环境损害了科学创造力和创新。这在很大程度上是因为基于一项调查假定的未来影响的科学卓越标准支持了资助研究中方法和主题的现状。在寻求和分配资源的科学家之间的非凡理性随着时间的推移促进了现有系统的生存，但通过概念模型的转变抑制了进步发展。因此，尽管人们对人口健康研究的开展方式越来越不满，但理论与方法之间关系的新观念却迟迟未能出现。改善管理科学的制度化规则与科学的文化认可目标之间的脱节需要致力于正统与异议之间的辩证法。
