4 ms·

That's a reasonable explanation, but "we have scientific knowledge that we'd like to hide, an we're asking the government for more money to further our understa

That's a reasonable explanation, but "we have scientific knowledge that we'd like to hide, an we're asking the government for more money to further our understanding of the subject" isn't much of an excuse. Isn't the entire rationale for providing government funding for academic research premised on the idea that scientific knowledge is a public good, to be shared freely?

mjn 13y ago
The government has purposely set up the process in an adversarial manner (you must prove why you uniquely are positioned to make scientific advances here, better than anyone else), so it's not surprising that the process plays out in an adversarial manner. The government also encourages institutions to be entrepreneurial by doing things like patenting their results, or keeping them as trade secrets to hand to spinoff companies, so academia can prove its worth in the startup economy. Is this the best way to make scientific advances? Probably not. But it's a systemic problem. There is at least one study (I believe Canadian, can't find a link currently) which found that it would be more efficient just to give every researcher in Canada some baseline funding, rather than spending all the money they currently do on the adversarial funding process. That was actually somewhat closer to the traditional CS funding model in the U.S., though largely accidentally, through military funding. Why did someone like Richard Stallman (not an academic) get employed for decades in the MIT AI Lab? Because DARPA gave non-micromanaged block grants to the MIT AI Lab to fund a "center of excellence" for years at a time, which they were free to use to employ staff as they saw fit. Nowadays most grants are 3 years long and very specific, so it's all about positioning yourself for the next 3-year grant, if you want to keep the lights on and your staff paid.
fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
It has to do with competition for scarce grant resources, and some researchers being cutthroats. Some of them are surprisingly petty, too.
ISL 13y ago
Grant applications contain plans and guesses. If you're better positioned to capitalize on someone else's plan, they're screwed. Grant applications are submitted with at least a partial understanding of confidentiality. Because they're confidential, you can't cite them. The first group to publish a new result gets the cookies.
roel_v 13y ago
"Isn't the entire rationale for providing government funding for academic research premised on the idea that scientific knowledge is a public good, to be shared freely?" No it isn't, it's only a part of it, and only applicable in some cases. Other rationales include stimulating research on things that are considered too risky by the mainstream manufacturers, so as to facilitate radical innovations (in the Geoffrey Moore meaning of that concept). Under those circumstances, allowing patents on the results is required otherwise the people doing the research wouldn't have a reason to do it in the first place. Plus, the grant money is only a part of the eventual results; the original ideas, the extra labor, outside financing, etc are equal contributors.

mjn 13y ago

The government has purposely set up the process in an adversarial manner (you must prove why you uniquely are positioned to make scientific advances here, better than anyone else), so it's not surprising that the process plays out in an adversarial manner. The government also encourages institutions to be entrepreneurial by doing things like patenting their results, or keeping them as trade secrets to hand to spinoff companies, so academia can prove its worth in the startup economy. Is this the best way to make scientific advances? Probably not. But it's a systemic problem. There is at least one study (I believe Canadian, can't find a link currently) which found that it would be more efficient just to give every researcher in Canada some baseline funding, rather than spending all the money they currently do on the adversarial funding process. That was actually somewhat closer to the traditional CS funding model in the U.S., though largely accidentally, through military funding. Why did someone like Richard Stallman (not an academic) get employed for decades in the MIT AI Lab? Because DARPA gave non-micromanaged block grants to the MIT AI Lab to fund a "center of excellence" for years at a time, which they were free to use to employ staff as they saw fit. Nowadays most grants are 3 years long and very specific, so it's all about positioning yourself for the next 3-year grant, if you want to keep the lights on and your staff paid.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago

It has to do with competition for scarce grant resources, and some researchers being cutthroats. Some of them are surprisingly petty, too.

ISL 13y ago

Grant applications contain plans and guesses. If you're better positioned to capitalize on someone else's plan, they're screwed. Grant applications are submitted with at least a partial understanding of confidentiality. Because they're confidential, you can't cite them. The first group to publish a new result gets the cookies.

roel_v 13y ago

"Isn't the entire rationale for providing government funding for academic research premised on the idea that scientific knowledge is a public good, to be shared freely?" No it isn't, it's only a part of it, and only applicable in some cases. Other rationales include stimulating research on things that are considered too risky by the mainstream manufacturers, so as to facilitate radical innovations (in the Geoffrey Moore meaning of that concept). Under those circumstances, allowing patents on the results is required otherwise the people doing the research wouldn't have a reason to do it in the first place. Plus, the grant money is only a part of the eventual results; the original ideas, the extra labor, outside financing, etc are equal contributors.