2 ms·
Why? They answer to people outside of academia, who doesn't care and don't understand, and will be happy with seeing a notice in the press about 'another 5 mill
by cess11 2y ago
Why? They answer to people outside of academia, who doesn't care and don't understand, and will be happy with seeing a notice in the press about 'another 5 million to Alzheimer's research' regardless of whether it goes into a dead end or something worthwhile.
This turned into a huge setback for Alzheimer's research specifically. Politicians and their ilk poured money into 'amyloid research' so to get money that's what you had to do, even though it was rather early on pretty well known among researchers that it wasn't a fruitful way forward.
- wongarsu 2y agoIn some level they care. Everyone wants the press to write about them "X funded research cures Alzheimer". But the feedback cycles for that are long. In the short term a fraud provides at least as much good press as a genuinely great researcher, probably more. It's hard to try some new metric if it might take two decades to show that it lead to better long-term outcomes
- cess11 2y agoCould you show some examples of such breakthroughs where the bureaucrats signing off grants are mentioned?