Facing the Challenges of Selecting Fundamental Research in the Seventh Development Plan A Blockchain Approach

Document Type : review paper

Authors

1 PhD candidate, Science & Technology Policy, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

2 Professor of Information Technology Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

3 Professor of IT Management, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

4 Professor of Technology Management, Technology Studies Institute, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Research that leads to a fundamental understanding of the research topic and does not have a specific applied purpose is called basic research. Basic research, as the main foundation for the scientific, technological, and economic progress of societies, plays a vital role in the development of countries. Conventional methods in basic research policy-making, which are mainly based on the opinions of experts and limited evaluators, face problems such as the application of personal opinions, lack of transparency, and top-down policy-making. These issues have led to a decrease in public trust, lack of acceptance in the scientific community, and a waste of resources. Also, the lack of objective criteria for evaluating basic research and the complexities arising from interactions between projects have made the management of this field more difficult. Although the Seventh National Development Plan considers demand-driven development and meeting domestic practical needs, impact on skilled workforce training, global scientific authority, and concentration of financial resources to achieve this goal, and ultimately, attention to new technologies in supporting research projects, the complexity of the process of evaluating and selecting basic research projects has made it practically impossible to observe these goals in selecting research projects. In such circumstances, the need for innovative and technological approaches that can help improve this process is felt more than ever.
In this study, first, using qualitative content analysis of articles, the most important challenges in selecting basic research in Iran were identified. These challenges can be classified into five categories: unpredictability of outputs, top-down policymaking and difficulties of centralized decision-making and personal decisions, indivisibility and non-possession, overlapping and synergy of projects, and policy conflict. In the next step, a model for selecting basic research is proposed using prediction markets and blockchain-based smart contracts. This technology can make decision-making processes more transparent, increase collective participation, and strengthen trust in the decisions made.
This research, focusing on identifying the challenges of selecting basic research in Iran and presenting the generalities of a blockchain-based theoretical model, seeks to provide a solution to improve this process. The findings of this study can help policymakers make better decisions and take effective steps towards the transformation and promotion of basic sciences.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

Akcigit, U., Hanley, D., & Serrano-Velarde, N. (2021). Back to basics: Basic research spillovers, innovation policy, and growth. The Review of Economic Studies, 88(1), 1-43. DOI: 10.1093/restud/rdaa061
Akhkan, S. (2002). National Research Laboratory Network proposed by the country for basic sciences. Rahyaft, 7(16), 120-131. (Persian)
Arnold, E., & Balazs, K. (1998). Methods in the evaluation of publicly funded basic research. Hove: Technopolis Ltd.
Baradaran Niko, M. A., Ghodrati, H., & Mosavi, A. (2020). Spectral look at science: ‎A solution to the debate of commercialization of scientific research. Innovation Management Journal, 9(2), 34-62.  (Persian)
Carvalho, A., & Karimi, M. (2021). Aligning the interests of newsvendors and forecasters through blockchain-based smart contracts and proper scoring rules. Decision Support Systems, 151, 113626. DOI: 10.1016/j.dss.2021.113626
Dolatkhah, S. (1998). Basic sciences and Iran 1400: A look at the basic sciences and Iran seminar. Rahyaft, 12(27), 18-23. (Persian)
El bok, G., & Berrado, A. (2022). A data-driven project categorization process for portfolio selection. Journal of Modelling in Management, 17(2), 764-787. DOI:10.1108/JM2-10-2020-0257
Fatemi, M., & Arasti, M. (2019). Priority-setting in Science, Technology and Innovation. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 119-133. (Persian)
ForouzeshNejad, A. (2023). A hybrid data-driven model for project portfolio selection problem based on sustainability and strategic dimensions: A case study of the telecommunication industry. Soft Computing, 28(3), 2409-2429. DOI: /10.1007/s00500-023-08445-w
Ghazinoory, S., & Heydari, E. (2008). Potential impacts of nanotechnology development in Iran. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 27(4), 37-44. DOI:10.1109/MTS.2008.930886
Ghazinoory, S., & Shokatian, T. (2021). Policy making challenges for basic researches. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 11(2), 347-361. (Persian)
Ghazinoory, S., Mardani, A., Maddah-Ali, M. A., & Montazer, G. A. (2024). A blockchain-powered e-Cognocracy Model for democratic decision making. Information Systems and e-Business Management, 22(2), 209-246. DOI: 10.1007/s10257-023-00663-x
Hanson, R. (2007). The policy analysis market (A thwarted experiment in the Use of prediction markets for public policy). Innovations: Technology, Governance, Globalization, 2(3), 73-88. DOI:10.1162/itgg.2007.2.3.73
Hanson, R. (2013). Shall we vote on values, but bet on beliefs? Journal of Political Philosophy, 21(2), 151-178. DOI: 10.1111/jopp.12008
Hellström, T., Jacob, M., & Sjöö, K. (2017). From thematic to organizational prioritization: the challenges of implementing RDI priorities. Science and Public Policy, 44(5), 599-608. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scw087
Jaspers, K. (2015). The idea of the university (M., Parsa, & Parsa, M., Qoqnus, Persian Trans.). Tehran: Qoqnoos. (Persian)
Kaldewey, D., & Schauz, D. (2017). “The politics of pure science” revisited. Science and Public Policy, 44(6), 883-886. DOI: 10.1093/scipol/scx060
Kaldewey, D., & Schauz, D. (2018). Basic and applied research: The language of science policy in the twentieth century. New York City: Berghahn Books.
Kazerooni, H., & Farajollah Poor, T. (2019). The Top of the peak with basic sciences. Tehran: National Defense University.
Kettunen, J., & Lejeune, M. A. (2022). Data-driven project portfolio selection: Decision-dependent stochastic programming formulations with reliability and time to market requirements. Computers & Operations Research, 143(1), 105737. DOI:10.1016/j.cor.2022.105737
Krishna, V. V. (2014). Changing social relations between science and society: Contemporary challenges. Science, Technology and Society, 19(2), 133-159. DOI: 10.1177/0971721814529876
Liu, F., Chen, Y. W., Yang, J. B., Xu, D. L., & Liu, W. (2019). Solving multiple-criteria R&D project selection problems with a data-driven evidential reasoning rule. International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), 87-97. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijproman.2018.10.006
Maknoon, R. (1997). Examining the methods of determining research priorities by the commissions of the National Scientific Research Council. Rahyaft, 6(12), 24-30.  (Persian)
Martin, B. R. (1996). The use of multiple indicators in the assessment of basic research. Scientometrics, 36(3), 343-362. DOI: 10.1007/BF02129599
Moeller, R. M., & Christensen, D. M. (2009). System mapping: A genre field analysis of the National Science Foundation's grant proposal and funding process. Technical Communication Quarterly, 19(1), 69-89. DOI: 10.1080/10572250903373098
Möller, M., Höfele, P., Tauber, F. J., Reuter, L., & Grießhammer, R. (2021). How to assess technological developments in basic research? enabling formative interventions regarding sustainability, ethics, and consumer issues at an early stage. Journal for Technology Assessment in Theory and Practice, 30(1), 56-62. DOI: 10.14512/tatup.30.1.56
Mousavi, A. (2017). Investigating the role of basic sciences for comprehensive development of developing countries. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 10(4), 45-54.  (Persian) DOI: 10.22034/jstp.2017.9.4.538264
Narimani, M., Askarian, M., Sahebkar Khorasani, S. M., & Soltani, A. M. (2024). Presentation a policy model for supporting the basic research: A case study of the Iranian National Science Foundation (INSF). Iranian Journal of Public Policy, 10(2), 67-82. (Persian) DOI:  10.22059/jppolicy.2024.98280
Nasiri, H. (2022). Reviewing the performance of policies and programs to strengthen basic sciences. Parliament Research's Center. Retrieved from: https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/report/show/1743013 (Persian)
OECD. (1970). The measurement of scientific and technical activities proposed standard practice for surveys of research and experimental development. Retrieved from: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/1970/12/frascati-manual-1970_7208bbd9/f1c2c22b-en.pdf
OECD. (2002). Frascati manual 2002: Proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development. Retrieved from: https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2002/12/frascati-manual-2002_g1gh2d91.html
Parandi, M., Ghahremani, M., Abulghasemi, M., & Farasatkhah, M. (2014). A survey of commercialization barriers of university research results in different majors of fundamental sciences presented in universities of Tehran. Journal of Iranian Higher Education, 6(4), 83-106. (Persian)
Parliament Research's Center. (2024). Law on the seventh five-year development plan of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1403-1407). Retrieved from: https://rc.majlis.ir/fa/law/show/1809128 (Persian)
Paya, A. (2018). A brief, though critical, assessment of Iran’s first science and technology roadmap. Rahyaft, 28(71), 117-127. (Persian)
Polanyi, M. (1962). The republic of science. Minerva, 1(1), 54-73. DOI: 10.1007/BF01101453
Riahi, M. E. (1997). Seminar on "investigating the future status of basic sciences in Iran". Rahyaft, 7(13), 110-111. (Persian)
Safari H., & Safari J. (2022). Co-authorship network of authors of articles published in Scientific Journals of Persian Literature. LIRE, 19(78), 165-196. )Persian( ‎DOI: 2634.19.78.7
Safari, H., & Ghazinoory, S. (2022). A review of Iranian studies on basic research policymaking in Iran. Science Cultivation, 13(1), 8-18. (Persian)
Shokatian, T., & Ghazinoory, S. (2019). Challenges of policy making in the realm of basic research. Journal of Science and Technology Policy, 12(2), 347-361. (Persian)
Shokatian, T., Ghazinoory, S., Nasri, S., & Safari, H. (2024). A mathematical model for managing national portfolio of basic research projects. Journal of Modelling in Management, 20(3), 797-824. DOI: 10.1108/JM2-12-2023-0310
Szabo, N. (1997). Formalizing and securing relationships on public networks. First Monday, 2(9), 1-21. DOI: 10.5210/fm.v2i9.548
Teich, A. H. (1994). Priority-setting and economic payoffs in basic research: An American perspective. Higher Education, 28(1), 95-107.
Vose, P. B., & Cervellini, A. (1983). Problems of scientific research in developing countries. IAEA Bull, 25(2), 37-40.
Wei, H., Xia, B., Yang, Z., & Zhou, Z. (2019). Model and data-driven system portfolio selection based on value and risk. Applied Sciences, 9(8), 1657. DOI: 10.3390/ap9081657
Weijie, Z., & He, Z. (2024). Extensive reforms to improve funding efficiency: An interview with President Xiankang Dou of National Natural Science Foundation of China. National Science Review, 11(6), nwae123. DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwae123
Yaga, D., Mell, P., Roby, N., & Scarfone, K. (2018). Blockchain technology overview. Retrieved from: chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.11078
Yaghmaei, A. (2018). A philosophical assessment of the linear model of pure science-applied science distinction. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 8(15), 127-141. (Persian)
Yaghmaei, A. (2020). The functionalist account of basic-applied distinction of research and its implications for research policy. Methodology of Social Sciences and Humanities, 26(102), 39-56. (Persian)
Zheng, Z., Xie, S., Dai, H. N., Chen, W., Chen, X., Weng, J., & Imran, M. (2020). An overview on smart contracts: Challenges, advances and platforms. Future Generation Computer Systems, 105, 475-491. DOI: 10.1016/j.future.2019.12.019

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics