5 ms·

I would suggest the entire science funding apparatus is also a type of cargo cult. Money is allocated to high profile academics who are good at writing compelli

by knolan 6y ago

I would suggest the entire science funding apparatus is also a type of cargo cult. Money is allocated to high profile academics who are good at writing compelling proposals in the hope that they will continue to produce the ‘cargo’. Younger academics, who may have fresh ideas or be closer to the technical details struggle to get funded because they are less skilled in the buzzword incantations needed for an attractive proposal. The response is for younger academics to write their own cargo cult proposals that align with what they believe the funding body wants rather than what they think is good science.

higerordermap 6y ago
This kind of problems are present everywhere where empty headed suits allocate resources without a clue of the field.
- knolan 6y ago
  I wouldn’t consider them empty headed, just focused on the cargo rather than funding good science. There is too much of a focus on ‘strategic plans’ and theme alignment because the circular reasoning tells them that pumping more money into an economically relevant area will make more jobs in that area. It just leads to recycling of ideas and instead of producing new science we become tax payer funded finishing schools for industry. My understanding is that there is frustration in the European Commission that H2020 has not produced more economic impact. Of course every proposal is going to promise transformative ideas because that’s what was listed as a requirement but when you fund low risk research spread across geographically and culturally diverse consortia you get the lowest common denominator output. My humble opinion is that you should fund more small scale projects and fewer big consortia. Let the risky ideas have a chance to publish and stop investing in rock stars.
erdos4d 6y ago
This is 100% because NSF funders are not allowed to make "mistakes". They need every dollar of grant money to lead to published research, so they almost always bet on the established horses. Simply changing the rules to allow funders to bet on longer shots would fix much of this.

by knolan 6y ago

higerordermap 6y ago

This kind of problems are present everywhere where empty headed suits allocate resources without a clue of the field.

knolan 6y ago
I wouldn’t consider them empty headed, just focused on the cargo rather than funding good science. There is too much of a focus on ‘strategic plans’ and theme alignment because the circular reasoning tells them that pumping more money into an economically relevant area will make more jobs in that area. It just leads to recycling of ideas and instead of producing new science we become tax payer funded finishing schools for industry. My understanding is that there is frustration in the European Commission that H2020 has not produced more economic impact. Of course every proposal is going to promise transformative ideas because that’s what was listed as a requirement but when you fund low risk research spread across geographically and culturally diverse consortia you get the lowest common denominator output. My humble opinion is that you should fund more small scale projects and fewer big consortia. Let the risky ideas have a chance to publish and stop investing in rock stars.

erdos4d 6y ago

This is 100% because NSF funders are not allowed to make "mistakes". They need every dollar of grant money to lead to published research, so they almost always bet on the established horses. Simply changing the rules to allow funders to bet on longer shots would fix much of this.