4 ms·

Anyone, everyone. Crowdfunding science should be done more.

NikolaeVarius 10y ago
So science will become "throw money at the people who can win a social media popularity contest". How is that any better than what we have now? Everything about it seems worse.
- Beltiras 10y ago
  I'm not saying it's a perfect solution. It's better than what we have today and that is all we really can ask for at any given time.
  - rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
    I work in academia. Funding is always scarce. It does not come out of the sky. Example: If the grant says that all proposal text must be in 11 point Times New Roman font, and you do 12 point Times New Roman, in the trash you go. People giving vast sums of money want to make sure every penny is carefully spent. As for crowdsourcing research, well, go for it. It's just that we already have a method for this. It's called "taxes." Edit: inevitable tax argument deflection: the vast majority of the US federal budget is, as Thomas L Friedman put it, "an insurance company with a military." Research as a portion is teensy-tiny. Our society could easily fund federal research - "we" just choose not to.
    - Beltiras 10y ago
      I should have been more explicit. When I say "everyone" I mean collectively through taxes. I think both methods have merit.
- mordymoop 10y ago
  This is probably fine as long as there is a greater-than-zero correlation between actual quality and ability to win the popularity contest.
- api 10y ago
  It doesn't seem much worse than "throw money at people who can navigate a byzantine bureaucracy." It may be better since winning a social media contest requires creative thinking.
  - Beltiras 10y ago
    Both models require creative thinking, if you approach the bureaucracy in a certain way. I've taken part in applying for grants, not in the US. I'm becoming good enough at it that companies are contracting me to write the report part. Properly constructing the pitch is an artform.

So science will become "throw money at the people who can win a social media popularity contest". How is that any better than what we have now? Everything about it seems worse.

Beltiras 10y ago
I'm not saying it's a perfect solution. It's better than what we have today and that is all we really can ask for at any given time.
- rm_-rf_slash 10y ago
  I work in academia. Funding is always scarce. It does not come out of the sky. Example: If the grant says that all proposal text must be in 11 point Times New Roman font, and you do 12 point Times New Roman, in the trash you go. People giving vast sums of money want to make sure every penny is carefully spent. As for crowdsourcing research, well, go for it. It's just that we already have a method for this. It's called "taxes." Edit: inevitable tax argument deflection: the vast majority of the US federal budget is, as Thomas L Friedman put it, "an insurance company with a military." Research as a portion is teensy-tiny. Our society could easily fund federal research - "we" just choose not to.
  - Beltiras 10y ago
    I should have been more explicit. When I say "everyone" I mean collectively through taxes. I think both methods have merit.
mordymoop 10y ago
This is probably fine as long as there is a greater-than-zero correlation between actual quality and ability to win the popularity contest.
api 10y ago
It doesn't seem much worse than "throw money at people who can navigate a byzantine bureaucracy." It may be better since winning a social media contest requires creative thinking.
- Beltiras 10y ago
  Both models require creative thinking, if you approach the bureaucracy in a certain way. I've taken part in applying for grants, not in the US. I'm becoming good enough at it that companies are contracting me to write the report part. Properly constructing the pitch is an artform.