3 ms·

Frankly, crowdfunded science scares the hell out of me. Pretty much every time I've seen it, it consists of some fringe researcher promising one weird trick to

Frankly, crowdfunded science scares the hell out of me. Pretty much every time I've seen it, it consists of some fringe researcher promising one weird trick to cure A, B, and C. They don't get funding through traditional channels, because actual experts recognize the subtle-but-inescapable reasons they won't succeed, so instead they go to crowdfunding to squander a bunch of public money. I'm sure this could work, genuinely viable projects lack funding all the time, but it's generally because they weren't sexy enough for the grant committee. If the NIH thought it wasn't exciting enough, what are the chances the general public will choose it over some guy promising to cure cancer with nanomachines?

Obi_Juan_Kenobi 10y ago
Yes! The problem with funding science is simply the size of the pot; the way it's dolled out is actually quite reasonable given all the problems it could have. Sure, you'll have cases of grants not getting funded because it runs contrary to the prevailing wisdom, and that is bad, but the magnitude of this problem is often overblown. You can swim against the current if you're careful about it and make a compelling case, absolutely. Compare this to the issues of having anyone other than scientific peers judging the merits of work, and you'll see the easy advantage.