The progress of science and technology shows that good research does get funded—but it doesn’t show that peer review is the best way to select it, writes Steven Wooding.
Apr 25, 2013 Research Europe
Steven Wooding is a senior research leader at RAND Europe. He works principally in the science of science, including work in research evaluation, improving funding decisions in research and understanding the social processes of science. He is co-leading a project to map mental health research funding across the world using bibliometrics. Previously he led the Mental Health Retrosight project that explored the impact of mental health research over the past 25 years and identified ways to increase the benefit that the public and patients get from research.
Wooding is the co-director of the Centre for Policy Research in Science and Medicine, supported by the English Department of Health. The centre carries out a range of research including developing bibliometric techniques to support decisionmaking and evaluating National Institute for Health Research programmes.
Wooding is investigating the effect of co-location on researchers in the biosciences, taking both a qualitative and economic approach. He contributed to the Ministerial Accelerated Access Review in the UK that is examining how to speed up access to new drugs, diagnostics and devices in the National Health Service.
Wooding's expertise is in developing and applying measurement frameworks and evaluation tools that capture the diverse range of benefits produced by research in biomedicine, social science and the humanities. He also has expertise in data visualisation and large-scale data processing.
He has worked for government and charity sector clients in the UK, Ireland, Canada, USA and Australia and led a number of international studies on evaluating the long-term (10-25 year) impacts of research.