I've always wondered how a prize is supposed to get resources into the hands of those who might be most likely to innovate (less established, fresh ideas), when you have to already have a lot of resources to compete..
Would neuroscience benefit from prize challenges, a la XPrize? Are there specific endpoints that need to be reached, but won't be without the right community incentives?
-
-
-
Some gov agencies now run prize challenges with two tracks- one for self-funded teams, and one that comes with funding to enable participation (e.g.
@DARPA's SubT challenge is doing this).
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Sure.. NChannels, bits/s for prosthetic device, genetically encoded detectors of all known celltypes, whole brain connectomics.
$price/ voxel< epsilon for structure etc. -
Do we not have the right community incentives for such efforts already?
-
Not really. They are all *hard* if you want to push the limit and only few nature papers on the way.
-
But why is a prize the right strategy?
-
If it is big then industry may be better than us.
-
I love prizes, and experimenting w/ funding models in general. And of course you're aware that my goal is to make science go faster any way we can, and I think reexamining incentives is a crucial part of that.
@ATabarrok 's book on this was among the most important of my postdoc. -
Should I read it?
-
When I am a professor, I plan on making all my grad students read it, along with The Idea Factory, Big Science, and working through the Software Carpentry course materials.
- 2 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.