I also hadn’t realized to what extent they operate independent of peer review. The graph here repays study: only a weak correlation between review score and which projects were funded.pic.twitter.com/vDgHcEhadA
Show this thread
This account of how DARPA works is surprisingly interesting: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c14096.pdf … I underestimated both how flat it is, and how much authority the 100 program managers have to decide their own programs.
-
-
-
In particular, they apparently look for a high degree of disagreement among reviewers, and to create a diverse portfolio. This is the opposite of how much funding often works.pic.twitter.com/MW0P0qrFJR
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Voice from DARPA is a good series of interviews with correct program managers which reveals the (surprising) scope and ambition of the program: https://www.darpa.mil/about-us/podcast …
-
I’ve listened to a few episodes - they’re very interesting!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
There's also a book called "Department of mad scientists" that talks about DARPA history and current declassified projects
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
They need approval from up the chain, but once funded, PMs have a lot of say about who gets funding. For better or worse.
-
what are the PM measured on?
-
Not entirely sure. I know the PMs must account for the progress of their programs on a regular basis.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Hello, please find the unroll here: Thread by
@michael_nielsen: "This account of how DARPA works is surprisingly interesting: http://nber.org/chapters/c1409 … I underestimated both how flat it […]" https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1011744579882586112.html … Enjoy :)
End of conversation
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.