Dr. Richard Ashcroft: reader in biomedical ethics at Imperial College – examined the criteria (scientific or social welfare) on which prospective research is assessed.
• Is the proposal scientifically interesting/ challenging/unresolved for a long time?
• Is it the most likely to advance understanding in the field?
• Is it the easiest to solve?
• It is a team with the best track record – or the most potential?
Or should the criteria be quite different?
• The solution of which problem would improve social welfare most?
• Should research focus on the poorest in society or on future social welfare?
• No matter how desirable, will scientists be able to provide an answer no matter how much funding is given? (Richard Nixon enabled billions of dollars for cancer research in the 1970s on the understanding that science would have ‘solved’ cancer in 10 years.)
Dr. Ashcroft suggested a combination of both approaches but... transparent to public scrutiny.