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.
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.
-
-
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.
-
I have worked with both NSF and DARPA, and I think we need both kinds of funding mechanisms. DARPA is closer to the "give $5M to a lab" model, and I think biomedicine needs much more of that kind of project-oriented funding too
- 4 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.