Skip to 42:00 to see why this isn’t exactly true. cc @patrickc @Noahpinionhttps://youtu.be/Avqi1HeRlCQ
-
-
Unsure which part it challenges? The Progress Studies argument is a strong one. I don't think it suggests that it is good we are spending less, as a pct of GDP, on science than before? We can want both for science to be more effective at discovery and to fund more science.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
While spending as a pct of gdp might be going down, that’s not relevant to the direction of the returns on spending using absolute terms. It’s important to be careful throwing money at a problem that wasn’t caused by a lack of money, which is the case here.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I have yet to hear "lack of money isn't the problem." Maybe I missed that part. One successful funding structure doesn't mean the whole rest of it is broken? I mean, correlation effects, only fits some types of research, etc. The system can be better AND is underfunded.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
I’m generally supportive of more funding for science in principle but I *would* say that lack of money is not the primary problem today and that the marginal returns to additional funding would be (have been!) slight.
1 reply 0 retweets 16 likes -
What would you say is the #1 action our society should take? (Or does that require more study before we know?)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Break up NIH and NSF into 10+ bodies with fully independent approaches. Every 5-10 years, reassess their budgets. Hegemonic monoculture today very pernicious.
12 replies 3 retweets 53 likes -
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
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @tdietterich @roybahat and
The structure itself is the monoculture.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
But if the structure does not determine research directions, does it matter? Isn't it like the CPU that any program can run on?
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Yes, because it's nowhere close to being fully general (like a CPU). The mechanism of study sections is very different to hypothetical alternative mechanism where independent agents can of own volition give $5M to a lab.
-
-
Replying to @patrickc @tdietterich and
I'm not saying that one is a priori better than the other. Just that the NIH (or NSF) embody definite mechanisms that incentivize certain things and discourage others.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @patrickc @tdietterich and
You're a scientist and I'm not, so feel free to push back or tell me I'm totally wrong :-). But my POV is informed by dozens of conversations with practicing scientists and also senior managers at NIH/NSF.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 5 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.