> It also creates an absurd incentive of not taking risks, because if things don't work out you are likely not getting funding again because of the gap in your

> It also creates an absurd incentive of not taking risks, because if things don't work out you are likely not getting funding again because of the gap in your research output. I think the root problem here is not that money is needed to do research, but that negative results don't advance an academic career and actually hinder the ability to get future monies. It's a very hard landing if you take too big of a risk. Honestly I think needing to constantly get external approval for one's research is a very helpful forcing function for academics, who in my experience can be quite... nose down in their work to put it mildly. How can a researcher evaluate the actual importance of their research without larger buy-in from the public? Certainly many think whatever they are working on is of the utmost importance for the world, and they all have quite a long story to tell you how. > I also agree that outside solutions are often very much missing the mark, in particular solutions from communities like HN who often look for quick technical solutions for social problems. That's exactly what I was reading into your words, my apologies. > All this based on the reasoning that there needs to be accountability for the money the government spend on research. But what's the alternative? We all agree research takes money, and money is limited. We have more research to do than we have money to spend on research. Therefore we can't research everything, and must instead choose how to allocate our limited funds. I suppose at this point we could say that research funds are allocated by a lottery where no one proposes anything. Some people feel the current funding model is akin to a lottery. But I don't think we really live in a world where allocating lots of public money to unseen projects is going to fly. The only alternative then seems to be that researchers should put forth a description of their proposed research agenda so we can discern one project from the next... You see where I'm going with this? Every attempt I've seen to revamp the funding process inevitably reinvents it, or tries to turn it into a corporate profit-seeking model. We already have that, so I don't think we need to duplicate it in another context.