Conversation

Replying to
Some outstanding researchers recognize the problem and go independent, hoping that it’s easier to do serious thinking outside an institutional context than within one. In this 🧵 explains some of the reasons that mostly doesn’t work:
Quote Tweet
I was briefly calling myself an independent researcher: somebody who self-funds spec R&D on their own ideas. In theory it’s something like indie-research : academic research :: blogging/self-publishing : traditional publishing. But the idea doesn’t really work.
Show this thread
2
20
We urgently need alternative mechanisms/institutions for research support. This 🧵 from crunches some numbers: what would that cost? Answer: surprisingly little, in the scale of things.
Quote Tweet
Thinking about my thread this morning on why independent research is hard, and what it would take to make it possible, and whether it’s within the reach of private investors who ALL complain endlessly about how they have far too much capital and don’t know where to put it. twitter.com/vgr/status/119…
Show this thread
2
18
.’s 🧵 also covers many of the issues that come up in discussions of alt-research funding and institutions. This is a common, live discussion among people I talk with often. There’s growing momentum and consensus in the conversation, but will it lead to action?
3
8
I suspect the central challenge here is to find alternative mechanisms for selecting what research/researchers to fund. How do grantors know their money is being well-spent? Who makes those decisions? Is there a way to do this that doesn’t just replicate the existing pathologies?
5
12
Making alt-research institutions happen will probably require alt-researchers to collectively come up with a coherent story about how they can be managed, convincing enough to persuade grantors that it’s feasible and worthwhile.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @Meaningness
Probably not anytime soon, and the fault is probably more on our side as wannabe beneficiaries of such a system as much as those with capital to deploy. There is a significant lack of imagination and energy on both sides of the capital supply/demand equation.
5
14
Replying to
A basic problem is lack of administrative energy. Research requires enlightened administration more than most demanding human activities. Kinda like people on spacewalks or deep-sea dives need a mission control partner at safer loci. This is a thankless task few want to do.
1
3
Replying to and
Like, I stepped off a career path in industrial R&D that would have gone from program management to lab management. It simply did not look like fun compared. I'd probably be willing to do it under some special conditions, like an exciting dream-team to work with. Those are rare.
1
3
Replying to
That’s the way I feel about it too. I’ve toyed with the idea of volunteering for this, but I don’t really have the credentials, and it doesn’t seem like fun at all.
1
1
Replying to and
OTOH, anyone who *does* have adequate administrative credentials is likely to impose excessive bureaucracy and to be insufficiently open-minded. And “I'd probably be willing to do it under some special conditions, like an exciting dream-team to work with” is also plausible!
1
2
Replying to
Yeah, it would take people with imagination stepping off the traditional path sufficiently early, and updating skillset. The closest to this class I've seen starting to emerge is "Kickstarter agents" (basically specialists in running kickstarter campaigns).
1
2
Replying to and
They are the crowdfunding equivalent of NSF-whisperers... instead of being good at working funding agency directors/commissions and knowing the game of responding to RFPs, they are crowd-whisperers, who know how to clickbait funding out of the masses.
Replying to and
But while they have the marketing instincts the old-school administrator types didn't, they generally lack the technical literacy required to administer advanced stuff wisely once it is in motion, and various kinds of review/monitoring disciplines.
1