things science needs:
- grants to reward risk over incremental innovation
- micro-bounties for specific research breakthroughs
- rewards for 'whistleblowing' on assumptions
- more funding for basic research
**more people thinking about this stuff**
cc: @james_ough @alexeyguzey
Lack of incentives to replicate research seems like a big problem. What about: Bounties for replicating research. A deposit is required to validate/invalidate an experiment and collect bounty. If later found you validated/invalidated incorrectly, deposit is taken or slashed.
-
-
Who would validate the replicated research, though? Bounties incentivize scammy replications; unlike code bounties, the truth isn't immediately obvious. Turtles all the way down
-
Yep, hard problem. Augur model has votes bubble up to more and more people with skin in the game, and ultimately the universe can fork if no global agreement can be reached.
-
@robinhanson is working on a project to use replication-prediction-markets to prioritize/fund replication-attempts: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2019/01/replication-markets-team-seeks-journal-partners-for-replication-trial.html …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
How would this be possible when most research replication happens in academic institutions with a majority of funding (grants) coming from the public (NIH in the US)? Seems like the researchers need more skin in the game for this to work
-
new funding groups / philanthropic bounty programs / for-profit bounty programs / prediction markets
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hey
@FEhrsam we’re working on this with http://osn.global -
(You’re not addressing me here but I guess it’s my original tweet so I can step in :-) ).. just read your whitepaper / tokenomics doc, have a bunch of Qs - in my mind it doesn’t need to be this structurally complicated? maybe my model is flawed tho
- would enjoy chatting) -
Hey
@rivatez sent you a DM, please check in the request inbox. :)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You should check out https://seed2019.io organized by
@alex_sokolowska -
Thanks
@FlavioRump!@rivatez we will be collaboratively discussing this issue in the context of new technologies and then building a prototype for@ethliblab . Join us in Davos in feb if you want to contribute to this (r)evolution!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
hard to pull on just one thread at a time in a complex, operating system. the core need is to digitize the workflow of science(s), which would allow prediction markets & standardized replication besides the implicit collaboration / knowledge distribution. truth as incentive.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If something helps a scientist get more funding, they’ll do it. But the more requirements you put on scientists to jump thru specific hoops (like replicating others’ work) the less flexibility they have to do things the way they see fit
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Take promising research with immediate medical value, and have companies concerned with employee wellbeing invest in replicative research. If the research replicates, they buy the product. If it doesn't, we learn something new and they get good PR for funding science.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.