.@michael_nielsen and I discussed this yesterday in a tweet thread that unfortunately forked so it's a bit hard to point to, but here's one pointer into it:https://twitter.com/Meaningness/status/1196125642342858753 …
There seems to be a specificity gap between funders’ “vision” and execution. “We want to use this money to enable innovative scientific research” is not really a vision; it lacks a how. (I know almost nothing about CZI specifically.)
-
-
In the absence of an innovative “how” you mostly end up just dumping more money into the existing model that isn’t working. Exciting for me is seeing some (very small scale, so far) innovation in the way grantees are selected, resulting in funding new types of projects.
-
The state of the art, based on what I learned from
#metascience19, seems to be leaning in to the lottery aspect:https://twitter.com/NickFoxstats/status/1196837637664989185 …
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Maybe they're not the best example of a clear "how", but more central planning of research projects is distinctly different from how most bio research is funded.
-
The lottery model is exciting because it *is* innovative and decreases work. But it also seems an abdication of responsibility. Time may tell? Interesting point about CZI’s more-top-down model; I hadn’t thought of this (probably partly because I know so little about them).
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
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.