4 ms·
They're actually pretty terrible. It isn't a high bar to do better than the NIH when it comes to supporting new technologies. Almost all important early fundame
by reasonattlm 10y ago
They're actually pretty terrible. It isn't a high bar to do better than the NIH when it comes to supporting new technologies. Almost all important early fundamental research, the high-risk part leading up to new knowledge and potential new technologies, is supported by philanthropy.
The NIH really only funds follow-on work for things that are already known. In order to win a grant you have to have already proven your thesis. It is somewhat ridiculous.
So if you want to delegate your vote, delegate it to a non-profit. Or invest in a startup in the field you care about. Anything other than giving to the NIH.
- Fomite 10y agoIronically, you skipped "Give it to a lab whose research you want to support."
- reasonattlm 10y agoTrue. In fairness, that's much harder to do at lower levels of money than either of the options I suggested, despite efforts like labcures.com. You need to know a lot more about the field than you'd need to know in order to give to a non-profit in the space.
- Fomite 10y agoTrue. Unfortunately, there's also a lot of spaces in science where there isn't a clear and direct non-profit necessarily working in the space and funding research.