4 ms·

Government is much more efficient at distributing capital like this than having scientists, who are not marketing experts or salesmen/ running around asking for

by nkassis 13y ago

Government is much more efficient at distributing capital like this than having scientists, who are not marketing experts or salesmen/ running around asking for money. The government agencies that have the mandate to fund research do the work of judging proposal using people who are expert in the proposal's particular field and also audit to ensure that research is being conducted and funds are used appropriately. It's not perfect but it's something government is capable of doing well enough. And you do have a say in how this money is being handled. You have the ability to vote and influence your representative if you live in a democratic country. And obviously you might not have as much impact as you might which but that's the reality of democracies.

dnautics 13y ago
"Government is much more efficient at distributing capital like this" [citation please] Do you actually understand how grant review boards work? It's really quite nasty cronyism going on. "And you do have a say in how this money is being handled through you ability to vote and influence your representative if you live in a democratic country." Not really. This stuff is handled by bureaucrats, who wield a high amount of unaccountable power. These sorts of issues get by through salutory neglect. How often do you think scientific fund mismanagement is going to be a "tipping point" vote changer, versus, say, torture in guantanamo, or prosecuting an illegal war, or voting to restrict [internet/abortion/economic] rights?
- nkassis 13y ago
  Sure but do you want scientist to go around looking for money all the time or doing research? Like I said it's not perfect but doing a kickstarter type experiment to fund science research (a worthy idea) will probably not have a better success rate than grant review boards will have. And yes I've had some experience with grant review boards and funding agencies through my past work and I've seen and yes they have many issues including cronyism (but that would occur with even private industry funding) but I still think they provide value and eliminating them in favor of a completely decentralized system would not be a good idea. This is my opinion and I haven't done the research or the experiments to vet it so I understand if you don't agree with it.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    "do you want scientist to go around looking for money all the time" That's what they do anyways in a granting regime. cronyism isn't a problem when it's their own money (yes, I'm sidestepping the fact that there are corporations that have very, very ill-gotten gains) they're putting up. When it's our money, taken without our consent, filtered through a barely-accountable bureaucracy... That's a problem. I wrote it above, and I'll write it here, too - the fundamental problem is that "good basic science" really requires a certain level of budgetary and intellectual freedom and no accountability besides "don't lie". "good governance" demands for its projects an accounting of how money is going to be spent beforehand, and accountability if the project goes south - these are a little bit incompatible with how generally science projects should be run (but perfectly fine for, say, building a road, operating a judiciary, or, yes a limited subset of science projects like going to the moon). I think this is one reason why science has been derailed of late, with record levels of fraud and misconduct.

by nkassis 13y ago

dnautics 13y ago

"Government is much more efficient at distributing capital like this" [citation please] Do you actually understand how grant review boards work? It's really quite nasty cronyism going on. "And you do have a say in how this money is being handled through you ability to vote and influence your representative if you live in a democratic country." Not really. This stuff is handled by bureaucrats, who wield a high amount of unaccountable power. These sorts of issues get by through salutory neglect. How often do you think scientific fund mismanagement is going to be a "tipping point" vote changer, versus, say, torture in guantanamo, or prosecuting an illegal war, or voting to restrict [internet/abortion/economic] rights?

nkassis 13y ago
Sure but do you want scientist to go around looking for money all the time or doing research? Like I said it's not perfect but doing a kickstarter type experiment to fund science research (a worthy idea) will probably not have a better success rate than grant review boards will have. And yes I've had some experience with grant review boards and funding agencies through my past work and I've seen and yes they have many issues including cronyism (but that would occur with even private industry funding) but I still think they provide value and eliminating them in favor of a completely decentralized system would not be a good idea. This is my opinion and I haven't done the research or the experiments to vet it so I understand if you don't agree with it.
- dnautics 13y ago
  "do you want scientist to go around looking for money all the time" That's what they do anyways in a granting regime. cronyism isn't a problem when it's their own money (yes, I'm sidestepping the fact that there are corporations that have very, very ill-gotten gains) they're putting up. When it's our money, taken without our consent, filtered through a barely-accountable bureaucracy... That's a problem. I wrote it above, and I'll write it here, too - the fundamental problem is that "good basic science" really requires a certain level of budgetary and intellectual freedom and no accountability besides "don't lie". "good governance" demands for its projects an accounting of how money is going to be spent beforehand, and accountability if the project goes south - these are a little bit incompatible with how generally science projects should be run (but perfectly fine for, say, building a road, operating a judiciary, or, yes a limited subset of science projects like going to the moon). I think this is one reason why science has been derailed of late, with record levels of fraud and misconduct.