The public research and education system should ensure accountability to the public good. Toward this end, the process which determines how some public funds are used should include an evaluation component which considers the potential impact of research and education on critical public needs. Further, the people most likely to be impacted by the work should be involved in the grant review process. While some may see this as interference with a grant review process that is currently controlled by scientists, a case can be made that if public institutions are to serve the public good, a review process is needed to ensure both accountability and scientific quality.

A system that approaches this objective was implemented by the USDA Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program of the North Central Region (USDA). This grant review process includes a two step evaluation which begins with an analysis of potential impact of the research. Representatives of groups most likely to be affected, such as farmers, environmentalists, and rural advocates are included in the first stage of the review. This allows the research process to focus on critical issues. The second step of the review is the traditional scientific review by disciplinary peers which ensures scientific quality. This two step review helps to enhance the potential applicability of research results, while ensuring scientific quality.     

One common objection made by scientists to public involvement in helping to guide the research agenda is that researchers must be free to explore nature unfettered by specific goals. On the other hand, it can be argued that public involvement would not necessarily reduce the serendipity of making new discoveries. Nobel Prize winning scientist, Sir Peter Medawar, has argued that the search for fundamental knowledge doesn't suffer by starting with a real problem, but the potential application of the inquiry process is greatly improved.

Another argument made by scientists is that research must remain free from potential influence by special interest groups. This argument seems to ignore the fact that a special interest group already is involved in setting the research agenda. Agricultural scientists largely control public grant approvals through a peer-review process which doesn't necessarily screen for relevancy nor service in the public good. However, if a balance of divergent groups were included in the decision making process, a true public debate might occur that was indeed representative of the public good. This would allow public research and education programs to address clearly stated societal goals.

John M. Gerber, 1995