3 ms·

> It sounds like she was not able to raise the money to continue her research. That’s not really UPenn’s fault. No one can know in advance which ideas are promi

> It sounds like she was not able to raise the money to continue her research. That’s not really UPenn’s fault. No one can know in advance which ideas are promising enough, so it isn’t reasonable to blame them. As one had wrote 2-3 grant proposal during graduate studies, my takeaway is that the system failed to give the really impactful ideas the right amount of resources. That's matching a 2-day-old submission [1] about peer-reviewed research papers are becoming boring, as another sign that the existing research management systems are not producing interesting results, even just from reading the papers, which presumably is already the most interesting thing can be produced from a research project. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25605156 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25605156

moron4hire 6y ago
It seems like having the scientists do their own fundraising is the wrong way to do things. You'd have to be an expert in both the science and the fundraising, to compete against the other scientists who are fundraising. Obviously, since learning how to raise funds competes with learning and developing the science, this system is going to prioritize greater-skilled-fundraisers/lesser-skilled scientists. If you're a great fundraiser, why do you even need the University?
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  That makes sense, but if you’re a fundraiser and not a scientist, how do you evaluate the claims and the potential for every project that wants you to raise for them? If that were my job, I’d have no idea how to tell a Theranos apart from what this research was, other than going with my personal rule of favoring the one who doesn’t put on a fake voice. But there is a limited supply of money, and someone has to figure out how to get the right amount to the right people for the right length of time. If you know how to do that, I’ll definitely fund you, and every project you recommend!
- ksk 6y ago
  > If you're a great fundraiser, why do you even need the University? Because funds don't cover certain operational costs. You also lease lab space/equipment/staff from the university, etc. Everyone can identify problems with the existing model, its rather difficult to propose workable solutions!

moron4hire 6y ago

It seems like having the scientists do their own fundraising is the wrong way to do things. You'd have to be an expert in both the science and the fundraising, to compete against the other scientists who are fundraising. Obviously, since learning how to raise funds competes with learning and developing the science, this system is going to prioritize greater-skilled-fundraisers/lesser-skilled scientists. If you're a great fundraiser, why do you even need the University?

lawnchair_larry 6y ago
That makes sense, but if you’re a fundraiser and not a scientist, how do you evaluate the claims and the potential for every project that wants you to raise for them? If that were my job, I’d have no idea how to tell a Theranos apart from what this research was, other than going with my personal rule of favoring the one who doesn’t put on a fake voice. But there is a limited supply of money, and someone has to figure out how to get the right amount to the right people for the right length of time. If you know how to do that, I’ll definitely fund you, and every project you recommend!
ksk 6y ago
> If you're a great fundraiser, why do you even need the University? Because funds don't cover certain operational costs. You also lease lab space/equipment/staff from the university, etc. Everyone can identify problems with the existing model, its rather difficult to propose workable solutions!