Suchergebnisse

The round table discussion was devoted to the development problems facing such scientiic infrastructure facilities of the Russian Federation as the Centers of Shared Multi-Access to Research Equipment (hereinafter CKP) and Unique Research Facilities (hereinafter UNU). The round table participants included representatives of CKP, UNU and the relevant back-up organizations with a long history of successful management of their Centers and Facilities. The Keynote report sought to frame the major problems of CKP and UNU development, indicated the causes of these problems, identiied guidelines to their solution through the strengthening of governmental support to scientiic infrastructure. According to the author of the report, the most challenging issues of CKP and UNU development include: – inadequate capacity building rates and modest performance of the core centers and facilities due to low research activity of potential R&D customers; – conlict of interest between CKP/UNU and their back-up organizations, which are primarily interested to use their centers and facilities for internal research with whatever resources remain to meet orders of external users;76 Круглый стол – reluctance of CKP and UNU staff to provide services, which may not include a research component; – unreasonable indicators of CKP/UNU capacity and performance, which relect performance of back-up organizations instead. To remedy the speciied problems, the speaker suggests: – to speed up the process of legal recognition for CKP and UNU status criteria and to perform conformance inspection of these items of scientiic infrastructure and eliminate those CKP and UNU, which were established just to get access to public funds; – to expand CKP status beyond the scope of research institutions for independent legal units with competitive research equipment and highly skilled research staff; – to include CKP/UNU performance indicators into the list of performance indicators of back-up organizations in an attempt to promote CKP and UNU activities ...

Promoting Research and Development (R&D) and innovative activity is a key element of the EU Lisbon Agenda and is seen as playing a central part in stimulating economic development. In this paper we argue that, even allowing for benevolent policymakers, informational asymmetries can lead to a misallocation of public support for R&D, hence government policy failure, with the potential to exacerbate pre-existing market failures. Initially, we explore alternative allocation mechanisms for public support, which can help to minimize the scale of these government policy failures. Of these mechanisms (grants, tax credits, or allocation rules based on past performance), our results suggest that none is universally most efficient. Rather, the effectiveness of each allocation rule depends on the severity of financial constraints and on the level of innovative capabilities of the firms themselves. ; peerReviewed

peer-reviewed ; Promoting Research and Development (R&D) and innovative activity is a key element of the EU Lisbon Agenda and is seen as playing a central part in stimulating economic development. In this paper we argue that, even allowing for benevolent policy-makers, informational asymmetries can lead to a misallocation of public support for R&D, hence government policy failure, with the potential to exacerbate preexisting market failures. Initially, we explore alternative allocation mechanisms for public support, which can help to minimize the scale of these government policy failures. Of these mechanisms (grants, tax credits, or allocation rules based on past performance), our results suggest that none is universally most efficient. Rather, the effectiveness of each allocation rule depends on the severity of financial constraints and on the level of innovative capabilities of the firms themselves. ; ACCEPTED ; peer-reviewed

"Based chiefly on Science, the endless frontier, the report by Dr. Vannevar Bush to the President on a program for postwar scientific research, and on the Senatorial hearings on science legislation (S. 1297 and related bills) ; "First edition, July, 1946." ; "For further reading": p. 31-32. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This report is categorized into seven categories: (I) Introduction, (II) Higher Education and the Research Mission, (III) University Research-Industry Partnerships, (IV) The Changing Institutional Context of Research, (V) Distribution of Funding for Academic Research and Development, (VI) The National Academies' Committee on Research Universities and (VI) Policy Considerations.

Hearings held June 27-July 20, 1966. ; Mode of access: Internet.

This article provides an overview of trends in electronic communication among research scientists, with particular attention to the Experimental Research in Electronic Submission (EXPRES) initiative at the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF is an independent agency of the federal government authorized to initiate and support basic scientific research and to strengthen the nation's scientific research potential and education in the sciences. EXPRES is a conceptual and technological project attempting to facilitate the exchange of compound scientific documents between research sites possessing different kinds of computer hardware and software. In its most fundamental aspect, EXPRES is about scientific collaboration as well as communication. This dual process is exemplified in the development of basic research proposals by scientists at universities, and the subsequent procedures by which such proposals are submitted, evaluated for scientific merit by the scientists' peers, and ultimately funded or declined. EXPRES holds the promise of not just streamlining but also enhancing the support systems by which today's scientific research is carried out.

Diffuse support for democracy, as captured in mass surveys, tends to be treated as impervious to regime performance. Such a finding is often presented as confirmation of the basic distinction between 'diffuse' and 'specific' support as proposed by David Easton. This study argues that this line of argument stems from an incomplete reading of important aspects of Easton's theorisation about the relationship between system outputs and diffuse support. Using multilevel models, evidence from more than 100 surveys in close to 80 countries, and different measures of democratic support, it is shown that government effectiveness is the strongest macro-level predictor of such support. In democratic regimes, government effectiveness, understood as the quality of policy-making formulation and implementation, is linked to higher levels of support for democracy. Furthermore, in non-democracies, effectiveness and support for democracy are, under some model specifications, negatively related. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractDiffuse support for democracy, as captured in mass surveys, tends to be treated as impervious to regime performance. Such a finding is often presented as confirmation of the basic distinction between 'diffuse' and 'specific' support as proposed by David Easton. This study argues that this line of argument stems from an incomplete reading of important aspects of Easton's theorisation about the relationship between system outputs and diffuse support. Using multilevel models, evidence from more than 100 surveys in close to 80 countries, and different measures of democratic support, it is shown that government effectiveness is the strongest macro‐level predictor of such support. In democratic regimes, government effectiveness, understood as the quality of policy‐making formulation and implementation, is linked to higher levels of support for democracy. Furthermore, in non‐democracies, effectiveness and support for democracy are, under some model specifications, negatively related.