Even incredible funding institutions like the Arnold foundation, the Gates foundation, etc, channel most of their giving through institutional bodies instead of writing blank checks to scientists they directly employ. Let's get 100 different foundations in place instead.
-
I think there are potentially a lot of really positive outcomes! Funding bodies, even when they claim they want to fund revolutionary research, are exceedingly conservative. They are exceedingly paperwork heavy - etc, etc.
Most funded academics are little better than expensive university decor. Grant-making mechanisms are not only conservative but profoundly broken, even incapable of making determinations about the basic features of an application, like whether it's essentially truthful.
-
-
I agree with the point about being too conservative, but, I completely disagree about the latter point. Have you taken a look at some of the NIH's own published documents about their review process? Most grants that are funded are exceptionally well done.
-
I'm not saying anyone in particular has a poor grant-making process relative to someone else's grant-making process. I'm saying that paperwork alone cannot enable a particularly good selection mechanism for funding.
- Show 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.