IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/nat/nature/v475y2011i7355d10.1038_475141a.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The dubious benefits of broader impact

Author

Listed:
  • Daniel Sarewitz

Abstract

Assessments of the wider value of research are unpopular. Proposed changes will only produce more hype and hypocrisy, says Daniel Sarewitz.

Suggested Citation

  • Daniel Sarewitz, 2011. "The dubious benefits of broader impact," Nature, Nature, vol. 475(7355), pages 141-141, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:475:y:2011:i:7355:d:10.1038_475141a
    DOI: 10.1038/475141a
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/475141a
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1038/475141a?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Caitlin Drummond Otten & Baruch Fischhoff, 2022. "Assessing broader impacts of funded research: the US National Science Foundation v. Lamar Smith [What is Societal Impact of Research and How Can it Be Assessed? A Literature Survey]," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 49(2), pages 313-323.
    2. Bozeman, Barry & Youtie, Jan, 2017. "Socio-economic impacts and public value of government-funded research: Lessons from four US National Science Foundation initiatives," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 46(8), pages 1387-1398.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nat:nature:v:475:y:2011:i:7355:d:10.1038_475141a. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.nature.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.