4 ms·
How do we know what projects are worth funding? Anything that labels itself science? Is sociology science and basic research? Do we fund people instead of proje
by grandempire 2y ago
How do we know what projects are worth funding? Anything that labels itself science? Is sociology science and basic research? Do we fund people instead of projects? How do you get in the group?
- brookst 2y agoI can’t read between the lines you’re drawing. Are you trying to say that unless we can make perfectly efficient funding decisions, we should fund nothing?
- grandempire 2y agoThe concern is that we are defunding important things because science is getting cut. But every university group associates itself with science. Saying “we have to fund science” is a sentiment which is synonymous with saying “we have to fund good research projects that help society”. Which important efforts are we losing? Or which are essential to keep?
- jltsiren 2y agoWait a few decades and you'll know. If a research topic is obviously valuable, the industry is probably already working on it. Academic research mostly deals with topics where the benefits are too unpredictable or too far in the future to make sense for the industry. But many of those topics eventually become valuable – you just don't know in advance which ones.
- grandempire 2y agoI think you wait a few decades and you have thousands of people using their full brain power and attention to continue to secure that funding. And not just money - but a continuing affirmation that their work is valuable. > you just don't know in advance which ones. at the limit, this sounds like “you can’t question what’s good science because it’s unknowable, but it’s also a moral imperative to fund” which leads back to my original question. If that’s true, which projects and fields get to forgoe scrutiny in hopes of paying off?
- jltsiren 2y agoIt's fundamentally no different from what VCs are doing, except the timescales are longer. You expect that most startups are going to fail but some are going to be really successful. Because you can't predict the outcomes in advance, you fund a large number of startups, hoping to catch the successful ones. There are some heuristics that should help you pick the winners. Or at least you hope so. But you also know there is a real chance that your intuition is wrong and the heuristics just make your choices worse.
- grandempire 2y agoVCs vet investments. A good opportunity is one that might make money. A bad investment is one that won’t, Shouldn’t we be asking a similar question? Which research projects are going to deliver insight and value for the public? That doesn’t mean every project needs to be perfect from the start, but it does mean a lot of what’s called science now is not included.
- jltsiren 2y agoAnd there is plenty of vetting. Writing a grant application typically takes weeks of full time work, split between the prospective PI, their collaborators and trainees, and administrators. When the funding agency receives the application, there is administrative vetting to ensure that the application meets all formal requirements. Then there is vetting by internal and external experts, who evaluate the application for both scientific merit and whatever other values politicians happen to prioritize at the moment. If it looks like that the grant will be awarded (typical success rates are 20-25%), there is further administrative vetting to ensure compliance with various regulations. And this entire process typically takes anything from a year to a year and a half. If anything, the process is inefficient, because there is too much vetting. Especially considering how small the individual grants are.
- grandempire 2y agoYou’re telling me we know it’s quality because there are hoops to jump through to get the funding. But shouldn’t the results tell us that? Do we have a list of the most recent successes from these grants?
- brookst 2y ago“Concern” may be the best single term for the downfall of civilization. It’s not that anyone’s doing anything wrong, it’s that there is concern that there could be someone doing something wrong, so best to hit the self destruct button.
- grandempire 2y ago> It’s not that anyone’s doing anything wrong, I think plenty of things are being done wrong.
- brookst 2y agoWe all do. But that’s not concern. Tell me something specific and I’ll agree or disagree. Tell me you are concerned in some abstract sense and I’ll accuse you of trying to get the outcome you want without presenting any reasonable argument.
- acdha 2y agoThese grants are competitively reviewed by experts in their fields, and are quite hard to get. Even twenty years ago getting an NIH R01 was considered an important career accomplishment. Now, as to the topics being funded, the broad strokes are set by Congress, which is why much of the funding goes to medical research since pretty much everyone likes the idea of better treatments for things like cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. If there was an entire field they considered unnecessary, the legal process would be working with Congress to either remove it entirely or put in restrictions. They aren’t doing that, of course, because that would force people to actually go on the record voting for something specific and that usually exposes that “junk science” claims are deceptive.