5 ms·

Do you claim that 90% of proposals are not worthy of funding? Because it it was not an extremely high number, we could significantly increase spending and still

Do you claim that 90% of proposals are not worthy of funding? Because it it was not an extremely high number, we could significantly increase spending and still only fund the best. You stated: " It can be debated if grant reviewers are actually doing a good job (versus being a whitewashed version of cronyism)" If they are already evaluating research and researchers the way the rest of profession does, I don't see how cutting funds would help. It would not drive better proposal writing. And if the cronies are already getting their money anyway, the added batch might have a higher percent of high quality. I understand the desire to punish the undeserving of your profession, but when weighed against the advancement of science (even if artificially inefficient)...I don't care. And cutting funding won't make a significant dent in the problems you describe.

dnautics 13y ago
I'd claim that a lion's share of the top 10% of proposals are not worthy of funding. The best proposals are probably usually rated in the 70-80% range, depending on the funding agency (NSF, NIH, DOE), but most of it is utter embarassment. "when weighed against the advancement of science (even if artificially inefficient)...I don't care." Well, no, we're talking about funding here. What if the structure of funding was causing a net regression in the advancement of science? Is it a safe assumption that funding directly correlates to advancement? "And cutting funding won't make a significant dent in the problems you describe." If I had my druthers, I'd cut science funding to zero (there would be other ways to raise money for science - endowments, 501(c)(3)s, foundations, bake sales, etc. Keep in mind Peter Mitchell validated the chemiosmotic effect, a cornerstone of basic biochemistry and cell biology, by launching his own completely independent science research foundation) That would make a significant dent in the problems I describe.
- moocowduckquack 13y ago
  What about the medical funding for stuff like cancer, where the vast bulk is in the public sector? Also, while I agree with Theodore Sturgeon that 90% of everything is crap, in science it is especially hard to tell what that 90% is going to be in advance, so I think it is better to overfund and then concentrate on the improvement of quality in the review process to filter out the crap.
  - dnautics 13y ago
    I guess I'm uncomfortable using taxes to pay for stuff (especially overfunding) that will be mostly crap. Taxes, because if you don't pay for them, you go to jail, should be subject to a particularly strong level of accountability[0], and "we don't know what is going to be useful" is just really a recipe for spending abuse. Peer review is one thing (and it looks like it's going to be getting better)... But reviews for funding - that's really tricky. How do you select whom to review science? In our current system, you wind up with program administrators (people who advocate and shepherd funding projects) who are mostly[1] people who 'couldn't make it in science'. So you get effectively second-rate-intelligence fanboys and fangirls who get paid six figures to fawn over the scientists with the biggest mouths and most outlandish claims. To actually conduct the reviews, typically PIs are hired (in a secreted process[2]), so there's of course a level of cronyism involved - not to mention how PIs are generally clueless for other structural reasons. It is hard to believe that this system is efficient or effective at being a good steward of the public trust. [0] Science is not by far the worst area where government excels at failing to be accountable, but I also see no reason to increase our investment in a system that isn't working. [1] I know one program administrator who isn't incomptent, she's my ex-boss; the reasons why she wound up as a program administrator are rather complicated and everyone hates her because she isn't interested in doing things the usual way. My neighbor growing up - who introduced me to science - was a physics administrator was probably also not incompetent, but I don't really know. [2] by which I mean the process is not secret, but the actual goings on are, i.e. you don't know who reviewed you etc.
    - moocowduckquack 13y ago
      I agree that using taxes to pay for stuff that isn't going to be used is wasteful, however there is waste in all activities and at least science funding has a good economic return on the whole, even when there is a lot of waste. Besides, I don't see stuff like CERN happening privately. Also, to avoid confusion, I was meaning tightening up the peer review process and loosening the funding review. The biggest problem I see in poor science is not in the fact it was funded in the first place, but that it is difficult to filter out later. Like you said, funding decisions are tricky, but I think the trick would be to fund even more things and concentrate on excellence in peer review. This would, I think, increase the overall benefit to society, which is the only thing that justifies paying for it with tax in the first place.

dnautics 13y ago

I'd claim that a lion's share of the top 10% of proposals are not worthy of funding. The best proposals are probably usually rated in the 70-80% range, depending on the funding agency (NSF, NIH, DOE), but most of it is utter embarassment. "when weighed against the advancement of science (even if artificially inefficient)...I don't care." Well, no, we're talking about funding here. What if the structure of funding was causing a net regression in the advancement of science? Is it a safe assumption that funding directly correlates to advancement? "And cutting funding won't make a significant dent in the problems you describe." If I had my druthers, I'd cut science funding to zero (there would be other ways to raise money for science - endowments, 501(c)(3)s, foundations, bake sales, etc. Keep in mind Peter Mitchell validated the chemiosmotic effect, a cornerstone of basic biochemistry and cell biology, by launching his own completely independent science research foundation) That would make a significant dent in the problems I describe.

moocowduckquack 13y ago
What about the medical funding for stuff like cancer, where the vast bulk is in the public sector? Also, while I agree with Theodore Sturgeon that 90% of everything is crap, in science it is especially hard to tell what that 90% is going to be in advance, so I think it is better to overfund and then concentrate on the improvement of quality in the review process to filter out the crap.
- dnautics 13y ago
  I guess I'm uncomfortable using taxes to pay for stuff (especially overfunding) that will be mostly crap. Taxes, because if you don't pay for them, you go to jail, should be subject to a particularly strong level of accountability[0], and "we don't know what is going to be useful" is just really a recipe for spending abuse. Peer review is one thing (and it looks like it's going to be getting better)... But reviews for funding - that's really tricky. How do you select whom to review science? In our current system, you wind up with program administrators (people who advocate and shepherd funding projects) who are mostly[1] people who 'couldn't make it in science'. So you get effectively second-rate-intelligence fanboys and fangirls who get paid six figures to fawn over the scientists with the biggest mouths and most outlandish claims. To actually conduct the reviews, typically PIs are hired (in a secreted process[2]), so there's of course a level of cronyism involved - not to mention how PIs are generally clueless for other structural reasons. It is hard to believe that this system is efficient or effective at being a good steward of the public trust. [0] Science is not by far the worst area where government excels at failing to be accountable, but I also see no reason to increase our investment in a system that isn't working. [1] I know one program administrator who isn't incomptent, she's my ex-boss; the reasons why she wound up as a program administrator are rather complicated and everyone hates her because she isn't interested in doing things the usual way. My neighbor growing up - who introduced me to science - was a physics administrator was probably also not incompetent, but I don't really know. [2] by which I mean the process is not secret, but the actual goings on are, i.e. you don't know who reviewed you etc.
  - moocowduckquack 13y ago
    I agree that using taxes to pay for stuff that isn't going to be used is wasteful, however there is waste in all activities and at least science funding has a good economic return on the whole, even when there is a lot of waste. Besides, I don't see stuff like CERN happening privately. Also, to avoid confusion, I was meaning tightening up the peer review process and loosening the funding review. The biggest problem I see in poor science is not in the fact it was funded in the first place, but that it is difficult to filter out later. Like you said, funding decisions are tricky, but I think the trick would be to fund even more things and concentrate on excellence in peer review. This would, I think, increase the overall benefit to society, which is the only thing that justifies paying for it with tax in the first place.