If history is a guide, and we want to build more in this time (and in the future), we should all want much more government funding for basic science. Government funding for basic science is in the foundation of almost everything we build.
-
-
Like. Though we already have DOE, DOD, and other sources of funding so that experiment is already partially afoot? I like idea of a wide diversity of sources. Some light, fast, and private (yours!). Some gargantuan. Everything in between.
-
DOE/DOD not that relevant for most scientists. And DOE budget dwarfed by NIH. Certainly better than nothing, yes. I think gargantuan funding institutions are bad because they force ecosystem to adapt to their preferences. (Not doing so is an irrational career strategy.)
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I have a sense that a major issue is structure of peer review / tenure leading to career incentives pushing fad-following research. I lack a sense of how to fix. Maybe funding is the only real lever. Professional culture of scientists seems another, but I am not expert enough.
-
Peer review much less important that funding, in my view. Tenure system isn’t great but is in many ways also determined by funding. (“Who’s going to prosper in this system?”)
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Both NIH and NSF are bottom-up organizations. Scientists propose the research directions and panels of scientists decide which ones to fund. This is not a monoculture
-
The structure itself is the monoculture.
- 9 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Patrick, top researchers already spend all their time writing grant proposals. Will fragmenting the granting agencies just force them to waste even more time, in order to send different versions to different agencies?
-
As you know from http://FastGrants.org , I think this is a big problem! As we see in industries with competition between funders (like tech), the right incentive structure should invert this, and make the funding agencies hunt for the best scientists.
- 2 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Totally agree, and would even support a partial finer grain approach where their are small funds (perhaps for / non profit) working with any approach they can with higher risk bets allowed if desired.
- 7 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.