I suspect the central challenge here is to find alternative mechanisms for selecting what research/researchers to fund. How do grantors know their money is being well-spent? Who makes those decisions? Is there a way to do this that doesn’t just replicate the existing pathologies?
The question is who wants what sort of research done on what terms. There are various classes of research-for-hire cos., e.g. CROs (for routine life science stuff), defense contractors who slurp up most of the NASA research budget, political/policy thinktanks, etc.
-
-
The original musing was about how to get funding for projects that are high risk, high value, and not obviously within any funder's mandate, e.g. because they are in pre-paradigm domains, or take a highly unusual cross-disciplinary approach.
-
I've been impressed with
@tylercowen's Emergent Ventures program for its initial work along these lines. I hope it scales up (at a sustainable pace!) and that other similar programs emerge. Very dependent on the good taste of the person/team choosing projects to fund. - 1 more reply
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.