Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction Since 2015, the Guanghua School of Stomatology has established an elective dental basic research course (EDBRC). To make all students benefit from the dental basic research course without causing excessive academic burden, the “flexible” compulsory dental basic research course (CDBRC) was settled in 2020. This study intends to introduce the “flexible” compulsory teaching module and assessment system of CDBRC, and analyze its effectiveness over 3 years. Materials and methods The grade point average (GPA), course pressure, level of basic research knowledge and skills, and students’ research achievements were collected and analyzed between EDBRC and CDBRC. The unpaired t test was used to analyze the difference. Results The “flexible” CDBRC has been successfully constructed with compulsory teaching module and hierarchical assessment system. The CDBRC has not caused significant course pressure to students compared with the EDBRC. Besides, the “flexible” CDBRC can improve the students’ GPA, basic research knowledge, and research achievements. Conclusions The “flexible” CDBRC can improve students’ academic performance and basic research abilities without causing significant course pressure, which can be conducted in dental schools with similar backgrounds. Trial registration Not applicable.

Purpose This study aims to develop and apply a process model for prioritizing and selecting basic research projects in developing countries. Design/methodology/approach Basic research is mainly funded by governments and since, unlike technological research, it does not have clear business goals, its prioritization is one of the complicated issues in formulating science and technology policy. Adopting a design science research methodology, the authors chose a general framework for project portfolio selection as an appropriate artifact for solving this problem. By customizing it for two specific features of this study, i.e. national scale of the problem and the basic nature of research proposals, the authors developed the proposed framework for solving the problem of priority setting. Findings The process for selecting basic research proposals consists of several steps, which can be categorized into eight steps including strategic decisions, preparation, pre-screening, evaluating individual proposals, screening, portfolio selection and monitoring. This study emphasizes the necessity of defining goals that can be evaluated for the national basic research portfolio, as a key strategic decision. Evaluating individual proposals is a peer-review-based process. In contrast, portfolio selection is done through a zero-one linear programming model. The validity of the proposed framework has been confirmed based on the data obtained from the Iran National Science Foundation. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, in this research, for the first time, a mathematical model for prioritizing basic research at the national level has been presented, which effectively contributes to policymaking regarding the development of an optimum national research portfolio.

We join others in envisioning a future for affective science that addresses society’s most pressing needs. To move toward this vision, we consider a research paradigm that emerged in other disciplines: use-inspired basic research. This paradigm transcends the traditional basic-applied dichotomy, which pits the basic goal of fundamental scientific understanding against the applied goal of use in solving social problems. In reality, these goals are complementary, and use-inspired basic research advances them simultaneously. Here, we build a case for use-inspired basic research—how it differs from traditional basic science and why affective scientists should engage in it. We first examine how use-inspired basic research challenges problematic assumptions of a strict basic-applied dichotomy. We then discuss how it is consistent with advances in affective science that recognize context specificity as the norm and consider ethical issues of use being a complementary goal. Following this theoretical discussion, we differentiate the implementation of use-inspired basic research from that of traditional basic science. We draw on examples from recent research to illustrate differences: social problems as a starting point, stakeholder and community engagement, and integration of research and service. In conclusion, we invite affective scientists to embrace the “lab meets world” perspective of use-inspired basic research as a promising pathway to real-world impact.