3 ms·
The Broad is an amazing place, and I'm very grateful for my time there. The folks there simply do remarkable work. Nevertheless, I'm ambivalent about the size
by bhickey 15y ago
The Broad is an amazing place, and I'm very grateful for my time there. The folks there simply do remarkable work.
Nevertheless, I'm ambivalent about the size of the grants doled out to the senior faculty there. I've heard post-docs and junior faculty express concerns that it's a poor allocation of resources. For one $25m grant issued to a senior faculty member, you could fund 50 junior faculty for years. If diversification is the only free lunch in finance, why should science be any different?
- davi 15y agoI think the idea is that different categories of science might occur at different scales of funding. 50 junior faculty will likely do 50 safe-ish projects which will lead to tenure. 1 senior faculty with 25 million dollars might do something qualitatively different: ambitious, risky, long-term. Or might not, no guarantee. But I think it's a valid exploration of parameter space. The goal is to make great science happen, not fund the maximum number of scientists.
- bhickey 15y agoThe particular example I had in mind had an 18-month time line -- not exactly long term. I agree with your point about goals. Throw fifty-projects worth of money at George Church and you'll get one hundred and five ambitious, high risk/reward projects. (Hey fellow alum! Class of '08 here.)
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]