An interesting paper by Gravem et al. (title, abstract, and reference below) came out in the last issue of TREE (Trends in Ecology and Evolution) on whether one can tell if specific research is “transformative”. The authors argue based on a survey of 78 “transformative” researchers that it is difficult or perhaps impossible to tell a priori whether any piece of research has a breakthrough character and give the example of the concept of “keystone species” (i.e., a species that plays a critical role in maintaining the structure of a given ecology — analogous to the role of a keystone in an arch– for example, the canis lupus pictured above). Today, the keystone concept is relevant to a wide range of scientific areas but it was not fully acknowledged as an important discovery when first proposed by Robert Paine. Whether scientists can predict if research is groundbreaking has important implications for funding decisions because many agencies put a premium on “transformative” aspects, as is the case today with starting and consolidator grants of the European Research Council (ERC).
Transformative research is not easily predicted
Transformative research (TR) statements in scientific grant proposals have become mainstream. However, TR is defined as radically changing our understanding of a concept, causing a paradigm shift, or opening new frontiers. We argue that it is rarely possible to predict the transformative nature of research. Interviews and surveys of 78 transformative ecologists suggest that most TR began with incremental goals, while transformative potential was recognized later. Most respondents thought TR is unpredictable and should not be prioritized over ‘incremental’ research that typically leads to breakthroughs. Importantly, TR directives might encourage scientists to overstate the importance of their research. We recommend that granting agencies (i) allocate only a subset of funds to TR and (ii) solicit more realistic proposal statements.
Be the first to leave a comment. Don’t be shy.