Why do research on research?

The importance of research evaluation is now well recognised in some quarters but this activity is being looked upon as essentially negative by others. We believe this view to be mistaken. The case for investing some money in research evaluation is essentially a very straightforward one. It is clear that a significant fraction of the money spent on research will be wasted (ie, will produce no usable data--positive or negative--on any time-scale and will be of no educational or training value). The problem is, and has always been, that there is no way of knowing in advance which fraction of the resources will be wasted. That is the nature of research and we would not argue that it could or should be otherwise. Research is about exploration and discovery and it is inevitable that some scientific endeavours will be fruitless. Research evaluation can help to minimise resource wastage and thus the case for conducting research on research is entirely positive. Analytical techniques are available to examine the ways in which we train research workers, fund research workers, and assess research outputs; and these should be applied with a view to improving the system. There is also a strong case for setting up an effective mechanism for strategic forecasting and planning, and an urgent need to take a radical look at the entire range of biomedical research activities in the UK. It is essential that the research community should take steps to evaluate its performance and adopt a positive approach to planning. If it does not do so, assessments will be made by those without a fundamental understanding of the nature of the enterprise, and the prospects for any further increases in public support would appear to be bleak.