Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Patiently awaiting mutations, seeking crossovers to enrich our ideas.
Search NovelVig
Blog Archive
Contributors
NovelVig reading list
Themes
- academia
- Artists
- borges
- collaboration
- Collection
- Compilation
- complexity
- contests
- creativity
- credit
- ebook
- eco
- education
- ethics
- Events
- evolution
- extinction
- food
- free software
- gender
- GNU
- green energy
- Hindustani
- humiliation
- information
- innovation
- Introduction
- KL
- leadership
- linux
- Music
- negotiation
- open source
- organic
- pharma
- poetry
- politics
- post-modern
- power
- presentation
- psychology
- random
- rationality
- Review
- science
- silicon valley
- Society
- Software
- startup
- talks
- taxonomies
- technology
- Transhumanism
- typos
- university
- visualization
- wolverine
- wordplay
This article is bleak. how would one go about initiating an "innovation" in the funding of scientific research? who makes the decisions, and would they listen to rank-and-file scientists? what would be an incentive for them to do so? how can that be created? and by whom?
ReplyDeletemaybe it's time for one huge overhaul, from the way things are funded to the way they are published (ie let's get rid of the 500-euro colour-figure fees of for-profit publishing companies, paper journals, etc.).
incremental innovational changes are perhaps happening as the open-source PLoS journals gain popularity. but no idea about the funding game.
I agree that a systemic overhaul is needed in the criteria for writing, judging, funding and gaming proposals. However, I'm not sure what my attitude is towards the question of whether it is relevant to possess the fundraising ability. I think believe a significant amount of science gets done in the process of selling an idea effectively.
ReplyDeleteAlso, placating a young scientists career insecurities is necessary for good output, but by no means sufficient! As we know anecdotally, several scientists with guaranteed positions start losing interest and motivation.
The publishing world itself is bad but that is a topic by itself; the 500€ fee on color figures is disgusting. Peer review is good for assigning lowerbounds to quality of papers but not for objectively ranking them. But what is the alternative?
About fundraising ability: scientists must always have this, not only for grants, but for everyone else they talk to (peers, collaborators, the public, at meetings, etc.). I think the "selling" the article is referring to is the charade that it has now (seemingly) become: glossy, snazzy, having "obvious" industry spinoffs and patents that often have to be made up, direct applications to save the world and make profit for somebody.
ReplyDeleteAbout scientists with guaranteed funding losing motivation: in the modified scenario proposed by the authors, this would not arise, because lakadaisical scientists would lose their funding after 5 years (for example) if they do not have any results to show for it. So, this is self-correcting, as all good capitalists systems are. ...