3 ms·

>Allocating money on the condition that some must be given to other researchers would create several downstream benefits. Scientists who maximize the ability of

>Allocating money on the condition that some must be given to other researchers would create several downstream benefits. Scientists who maximize the ability of other scientists to produce their own new and useful results would have a big advantage in this system. Jerks would be punished appropriately. Feels too naive to me - jerks in powerful posts will be rewarded by this system. If I know you sit on the committee to decide on thing X I'm very interested in (let's say, access to a new computation cluster), I'll contact you and hint how favorable inclusion of myself will result in more of my 'share' towards yuo. Jerks tend to thrive in such a system since they look for opportunities where they can control the lever, any lever. It doesn't create a more friendly environment, it amps up science's political game, where people look friendly but stab you in the back, without your knowledge.

throwaway2048 10y ago
Not to mention, being a "jerk" has precious little to do with your ability to do good research. Some of the most earth shattering members of their fields were infamously unpopular with their peers. Kurt Gödel, George Cantor and Albert Einstein were all responsible for massive fundamental shifts in the understanding of there respective fields, but were all deeply unpopular outsiders, and would be much less likely to get funded under a system like this.
kem 10y ago
Damn, I'm a tenured professor and reading through the comments it seems like I'm the only one who thinks this is a good idea at some level. The reasons I think it probably wouldn't work are things I haven't seen anyone mention, though. This is really not too different from the current system, except for one critical thing, which is that instead of decisions being based on nepotistic review panels, they're based on everyone. So this has the benefit of everyone getting funding, and decisions on who to fund based on some highly democratized process rather than the old boys club. The issue you're raising is important, but making funding decisions totally anonymous would help. Of course, I don't know that you could make it totally anonymous, and what you're suggesting would still be an issue, but anonymity would go a long way. Also, the thing you're suggesting would probably still happen anyway even in today's system. The problem in my mind is deciding who gets to participate in the system. Everyone who's a tenured professor? Tenure-track? What disciplines? My guess is this would just shift the funding decision from a per-project issue to a per-researcher issue. My favorite idea for remedying the current process is to randomize rewards. That is, everyone above the median gets thrown into a pool and everyone has X% chance of being funded. Also, I'd like to see "term limits" and more randomization of review panels. Make it more akin to jury duty, where, if an institution receives federal funding, their researchers are all put into a pool, and review panels are randomly selected for fixed periods of time. Finally, indirect costs need to be eliminated, sharply curtailed, or reorganized to require explicit justification. Republicans are finally drawing attention to this, and they're right: it's slush funding. Universities wouldn't give as much of a crap about funding if it weren't a profit margin for them.

throwaway2048 10y ago

Not to mention, being a "jerk" has precious little to do with your ability to do good research. Some of the most earth shattering members of their fields were infamously unpopular with their peers. Kurt Gödel, George Cantor and Albert Einstein were all responsible for massive fundamental shifts in the understanding of there respective fields, but were all deeply unpopular outsiders, and would be much less likely to get funded under a system like this.

kem 10y ago

Damn, I'm a tenured professor and reading through the comments it seems like I'm the only one who thinks this is a good idea at some level. The reasons I think it probably wouldn't work are things I haven't seen anyone mention, though. This is really not too different from the current system, except for one critical thing, which is that instead of decisions being based on nepotistic review panels, they're based on everyone. So this has the benefit of everyone getting funding, and decisions on who to fund based on some highly democratized process rather than the old boys club. The issue you're raising is important, but making funding decisions totally anonymous would help. Of course, I don't know that you could make it totally anonymous, and what you're suggesting would still be an issue, but anonymity would go a long way. Also, the thing you're suggesting would probably still happen anyway even in today's system. The problem in my mind is deciding who gets to participate in the system. Everyone who's a tenured professor? Tenure-track? What disciplines? My guess is this would just shift the funding decision from a per-project issue to a per-researcher issue. My favorite idea for remedying the current process is to randomize rewards. That is, everyone above the median gets thrown into a pool and everyone has X% chance of being funded. Also, I'd like to see "term limits" and more randomization of review panels. Make it more akin to jury duty, where, if an institution receives federal funding, their researchers are all put into a pool, and review panels are randomly selected for fixed periods of time. Finally, indirect costs need to be eliminated, sharply curtailed, or reorganized to require explicit justification. Republicans are finally drawing attention to this, and they're right: it's slush funding. Universities wouldn't give as much of a crap about funding if it weren't a profit margin for them.