> I'm not sure it's survivorship bias. I'm referring to good ideas being underfunded for a time. Only good ideas survive. Bad ideas obviously don't get to a po

> I'm not sure it's survivorship bias. I'm referring to good ideas being underfunded for a time. Only good ideas survive. Bad ideas obviously don't get to a point where they turn into something accepted and widely applicable (I'm sure there's a countercase or two...) So only the good survive. Does that mean we need to fund across the board? That's just not feasible, so we have some good ideas that go unfunded, but a whole lot of bad ideas that do not. > manage a portfolio of research and (e.g.) hedge across multiple hypotheses. I see this happening in well funded labs. Taking a bit of money from here and some from there in things that are novel, but ethically related enough to be able to be justified. But the ethics involved makes this dangerous. You bring up good points.