3 ms·

Don’t be appalled. This is not a failure. There are limited funds. Hypothesis driven work is thought to be more probably productive. If you were handing out th

Don’t be appalled. This is not a failure. There are limited funds. Hypothesis driven work is thought to be more probably productive. If you were handing out the funding, assuming equally good teams, do you choose the work that targets Parkinson’s mechanisms or the functional map of a less-explored bit of CNS? We are doing basic exploration as well. We are just prioritizing targeted work in a resource constrained environment.

Balgair 8y ago
Maaaaybe. Truth be told, it's all about networking. Grants go to the friends of the reviewers more so than to those deemed most deserving [0]. Granted, it's really hard to read a bunch of proposals and determine whose is 'most' deserving. So reviewers act like the humans they are and give the grants to their friends. [0]Total anecdata, I have no source for this.
- robotresearcher 8y ago
  I don't review grants for my friends. This is a strong community norm. It's unethical to do so. This causes a shortage of qualified reviewers, but that's less of a moral hazard than conflicts of interest.
- SubiculumCode 8y ago
  If you admit you do not know this, then why say it? I've had opportunities to review papers from people I have co-authored with before and declined the opportunity. I've reviewed a paper, then got an invitation from another journal to review the same paper. I declined, but sent the editor my former review. I thing there are strong social mores in the scientific community.
marcosdumay 8y ago
In a field where we know nearly nothing about, putting any one of those above the other looks like a problem to me. A field should go from purely exploratory, to both, to mostly hypothesis driven as it matures, but no sooner (with fractal subdivisions where subfields go through all those stages too). Thus either neurology is way more mature than I'm aware of (a real possibility, I'm far from knowledgeable on it) or we do have a problem.
- Balgair 8y ago
  Nit: neurology != neuroscience. We do know a LOT about neuroscience, but we've no idea how much we've yet to discover. Likely, it's a fractal, so we're not anywhere close and never will be. Like in Physics, we know a LOT about electrons and how to build a bridge, but we know nothing about 'dark energy'. It's also true in neuroscience that we know a LOT about action potentials but nearly nothing about how astrocytes interact with synapses. It's not a smooth march, but a VERY spasmatic stumble. I don't think fields should progress in any manner whatsoever. They progress as they do and at their own paces. Otherwise it wouldn't be research, it'd be following plans. It's not something that can be proscribed, but more described.
pasabagi 8y ago
I think the problem is, solving large complex problems (like Parkinsons) requires a very solid foundation of basic research. If you don't pay for the basic research, you don't get the foundation - and everybody is essentially leaping around in the dark. I don't think the issue is about resources per se. I think it's more about Universities prioritizing high impact research, as in, the kind of research that appeals to non-scientists, in industry, media, or academia in general.
- robotresearcher 8y ago
  Something like 1 in 10 proposals submitted by universities are funded. Priorities are set by funding agencies, not universities.

Balgair 8y ago

Maaaaybe. Truth be told, it's all about networking. Grants go to the friends of the reviewers more so than to those deemed most deserving [0]. Granted, it's really hard to read a bunch of proposals and determine whose is 'most' deserving. So reviewers act like the humans they are and give the grants to their friends. [0]Total anecdata, I have no source for this.

robotresearcher 8y ago
I don't review grants for my friends. This is a strong community norm. It's unethical to do so. This causes a shortage of qualified reviewers, but that's less of a moral hazard than conflicts of interest.
SubiculumCode 8y ago
If you admit you do not know this, then why say it? I've had opportunities to review papers from people I have co-authored with before and declined the opportunity. I've reviewed a paper, then got an invitation from another journal to review the same paper. I declined, but sent the editor my former review. I thing there are strong social mores in the scientific community.

marcosdumay 8y ago

In a field where we know nearly nothing about, putting any one of those above the other looks like a problem to me. A field should go from purely exploratory, to both, to mostly hypothesis driven as it matures, but no sooner (with fractal subdivisions where subfields go through all those stages too). Thus either neurology is way more mature than I'm aware of (a real possibility, I'm far from knowledgeable on it) or we do have a problem.

Balgair 8y ago
Nit: neurology != neuroscience. We do know a LOT about neuroscience, but we've no idea how much we've yet to discover. Likely, it's a fractal, so we're not anywhere close and never will be. Like in Physics, we know a LOT about electrons and how to build a bridge, but we know nothing about 'dark energy'. It's also true in neuroscience that we know a LOT about action potentials but nearly nothing about how astrocytes interact with synapses. It's not a smooth march, but a VERY spasmatic stumble. I don't think fields should progress in any manner whatsoever. They progress as they do and at their own paces. Otherwise it wouldn't be research, it'd be following plans. It's not something that can be proscribed, but more described.

pasabagi 8y ago

I think the problem is, solving large complex problems (like Parkinsons) requires a very solid foundation of basic research. If you don't pay for the basic research, you don't get the foundation - and everybody is essentially leaping around in the dark. I don't think the issue is about resources per se. I think it's more about Universities prioritizing high impact research, as in, the kind of research that appeals to non-scientists, in industry, media, or academia in general.

robotresearcher 8y ago
Something like 1 in 10 proposals submitted by universities are funded. Priorities are set by funding agencies, not universities.