3 ms·

We did consider it, and we are working with some established academics. However, I think it's a good idea to push forward alternative models of doing (and fund

by sama 10y ago

We did consider it, and we are working with some established academics. However, I think it's a good idea to push forward alternative models of doing (and funding) research. Frankly, most of the existing institutions we thought about partnering closely with were somewhat bloated, and it would have made the whole study significantly more expensive and slower.

Alupis 10y ago
> push forward alternative models of doing (and funding) research > thought about partnering closely with were somewhat bloated > made the whole study significantly more expensive and slower Not to be obtuse, but these reasons sound an awful lot like the excuses Theranos gave when questioned why they didn't do things more correctly. I mean, it sounds like ycombinator wants to help propel this idea forward, but you're attempting to minimize your cost and also rush it, instead of doing things right. > it would have made the whole study significantly more expensive and slower And so be it. This is a major paradigm shifting idea, and you're not going to be able to take short-cuts and come out with respectable results that hold up to scrutiny.
Fede_V 10y ago
This is a real problem, and it sucks. By offering money with strings attached (about bureaucracy, overhead, etc) you have an opportunity to shape how things are done though.
Fomite 10y ago
I'll be interested to see if this actually works. As an established academic, we constantly interact with private companies that seriously underestimate how much research actually costs.
- thomasjudge 10y ago
  If the "actual cost of research" as you mention it includes some "overhead" amount which has some amortized portion of professorial salaries, departmental costs, university costs, etc, then I think you've just underlined Sam's point about bloat and expense
  - Fomite 10y ago
    The problem is whether or not that's "bloat" or actual expenses. For example, at my university, the "true" cost of research, including all of those things, is actually lower than our overhead rate - the good people of our state are subsidizing the rest. Companies often want a much lower overhead rate. I get why. But if things like the copy machine, our phone system, keeping the lights on, etc. aren't baked into overhead, then they need to be baked in somewhere. You'll just end up with agreements where you pay for itemized lists of expenses, and haggling over those instead of the indirect rate. Universities are also often very flexible as to the indirect rate - we have several subsidized rates for specific groups or particular types of projects, etc. You just need a better reason for the lower rate than "I don't want to pay that much". Like I said, I'll be interested to see if this works. But in my experience, companies that are newly "dabbling" in research are often shocked by how expensive research actually is. Calling something bloat because Sam doesn't want to spend the money doesn't automatically make it bloat.
    - Fomite 10y ago
      By "lower than our overhead rate" I mean higher, but it's too late to edit.
jspaulding 10y ago
What if there were a startup that partnered with science funders to help them distribute their money in a way that produced better models of doing science? That's the idea behind Thinklab: https://thinklab.com/d/38 https://thinklab.com/d/38
etendue 10y ago
> Frankly, most of the existing institutions we thought about partnering closely with were somewhat bloated, and it would have made the whole study significantly more expensive and slower. Some of that "bloat" is due to compliance and ethics: has YC engaged an IRB yet? SV tech companies (Facebook, OkCupid) have shown very questionable judgement with respect to ethical considerations.
- Fomite 10y ago
  There's a reply to this elsewhere in the thread - they've said they're using an external IRB.
  - etendue 10y ago
    Excellent to hear, thanks for clarifying that.
haaen 10y ago
Based on your tweet about 2 hrs ago, you seem to be in favor of equality of opportunity. What's your opinion about about parents who want to give their children the best opportunities in life?

by sama 10y ago

Alupis 10y ago

> push forward alternative models of doing (and funding) research > thought about partnering closely with were somewhat bloated > made the whole study significantly more expensive and slower Not to be obtuse, but these reasons sound an awful lot like the excuses Theranos gave when questioned why they didn't do things more correctly. I mean, it sounds like ycombinator wants to help propel this idea forward, but you're attempting to minimize your cost and also rush it, instead of doing things right. > it would have made the whole study significantly more expensive and slower And so be it. This is a major paradigm shifting idea, and you're not going to be able to take short-cuts and come out with respectable results that hold up to scrutiny.

Fede_V 10y ago

This is a real problem, and it sucks. By offering money with strings attached (about bureaucracy, overhead, etc) you have an opportunity to shape how things are done though.

Fomite 10y ago

I'll be interested to see if this actually works. As an established academic, we constantly interact with private companies that seriously underestimate how much research actually costs.

thomasjudge 10y ago
If the "actual cost of research" as you mention it includes some "overhead" amount which has some amortized portion of professorial salaries, departmental costs, university costs, etc, then I think you've just underlined Sam's point about bloat and expense
- Fomite 10y ago
  The problem is whether or not that's "bloat" or actual expenses. For example, at my university, the "true" cost of research, including all of those things, is actually lower than our overhead rate - the good people of our state are subsidizing the rest. Companies often want a much lower overhead rate. I get why. But if things like the copy machine, our phone system, keeping the lights on, etc. aren't baked into overhead, then they need to be baked in somewhere. You'll just end up with agreements where you pay for itemized lists of expenses, and haggling over those instead of the indirect rate. Universities are also often very flexible as to the indirect rate - we have several subsidized rates for specific groups or particular types of projects, etc. You just need a better reason for the lower rate than "I don't want to pay that much". Like I said, I'll be interested to see if this works. But in my experience, companies that are newly "dabbling" in research are often shocked by how expensive research actually is. Calling something bloat because Sam doesn't want to spend the money doesn't automatically make it bloat.
  - Fomite 10y ago
    By "lower than our overhead rate" I mean higher, but it's too late to edit.

jspaulding 10y ago

What if there were a startup that partnered with science funders to help them distribute their money in a way that produced better models of doing science? That's the idea behind Thinklab: https://thinklab.com/d/38 https://thinklab.com/d/38

etendue 10y ago

> Frankly, most of the existing institutions we thought about partnering closely with were somewhat bloated, and it would have made the whole study significantly more expensive and slower. Some of that "bloat" is due to compliance and ethics: has YC engaged an IRB yet? SV tech companies (Facebook, OkCupid) have shown very questionable judgement with respect to ethical considerations.

Fomite 10y ago
There's a reply to this elsewhere in the thread - they've said they're using an external IRB.
- etendue 10y ago
  Excellent to hear, thanks for clarifying that.

haaen 10y ago

Based on your tweet about 2 hrs ago, you seem to be in favor of equality of opportunity. What's your opinion about about parents who want to give their children the best opportunities in life?