James Hoover

Thank you for the comments!

It is possible that my proposal (of a "no-proposal" approach to funding) will not work for socially directed research like drug development, but that is not necessarily true. Suppose you were in a committee making funding decisions on cancer and you receive a grant application without a proposal. Of course it would have to be in the general area of cancer, but does not say much else -- definitely not what they are planning to find and how. Then you look at the work done by the PI's and collaborators for the last 5 years -- if they have done promising work, they are likely to get more, while if they have done more of the same they are likely to get less.

Basically, if you wonder if this process will work for some particular type of research, put yourself in the place of the funding committee. What would you ask for in the grant proposal? Does it really matter to you that you know exactly what they are looking for? Should it matter? Can you trust them that they are working really hard to find solutions of genuine problems? Of course, you know the field and you know the background of these researchers. I think genuine researchers should be trusted with the money, They are more likely to surprise us than those who can describe every step of their research, because the latter are likely to be totally mechanical in their approach.

    You identify an important topic, and I like the 'no proposal' concept. A well written and argued essay. I also agree that the MAJORITY of advancements are serendipitous, saying much about old doctrinal views! My own also touches on the grant funding issue, though as one of many key issues and much new physics identified in what I present as an 'interview' with intelligent aliens, Sound crazy? The subliminal communications may as well have been from a past iteration, but they are what they are; Shocking, but I found them Irrefutable except with old beliefs! Do have a look and score it. I'm scoring yours consummately with my comments. Very well done.

    Amitabha Lahiri Hi PeachHippopotamus. You've written a great essay, very well done. I was very pleased that you suggested AI might be a resolution to the issues that arise from competitive funding. It would be a big win if significant distractions for scientists could be avoided, and while more effectively allocating the funding. I can believe you're glimpsing the future. I'll rate your essay now and best of luck in the next stage of the contest.
    Swan

        Steven Andresen

        Thank you for your comments! AI is a powerful new entity which has the potential to do great things -- good or bad. We need to figure out how to rein it in our service before long.

          Great essay.

          The mechanism of grant funding is well explained and the criticisms raised are effective.

          Your "no proposal" model is also very interesting and could really be useful to support those young scientists with innovative ideas.

          Your story reminds me of the following painful experience. I had the opportunity to write a grant in which a very important Nobel laureate (one of the most eminent living scientists) made himself available to supervise me in the project, hosting me in his department for a collaboration. The project was indeed visionary but well supported by peer-reviewed results. Unfortunately, due to a certain obtuseness of the bureaucracy that you well-described in your essay, and largely due to censures received by arXiv for my research on which the grant was based, my proposal was rejected. No words!

          If you want more information on the negative effects that arXiv can have on the progress of scientific research and on its absolutely anti-scientific policies, please read (and rate) my essay "The Name of the arXiv: when too much zeal is an obstacle to science"

            Hi PeachHippopotamus,

            I see you're one rating short of the 10 ratings needed to qualify for the next stage of the contest. Would you like to help each other get across the line by reading and rating each others essays before the June 8 deadline? Mine is titled "A tool for helping science find the optimal path toward the truth: falsification."

            Cheers
            CoralBear

              Donatello Dolce Thank you for your comments! I hope the model I have proposed -- if it is ever adopted by ANY agency -- will help not only the young scientists, but also older ones who have difficulty securing funding simply because their proposal may be a little outside their perceived expertise or because it not quite "more of the same." Your experience is not unique, I am sure.

              I have read your essay and given a rating. I thank you if you have given one to mine.

                  Kelvin McQueen Thank you for the comment! I have read your essay and given it a rating. I will appreciate it if you do the same to mine?

                    Amitabha Lahiri

                    Yes, I have definitively well-rated your essay as a concrete proposal to circumvent the present ostracism against those who propose new ideas in science.

                    Note that a simple but very important step in this direction would be for arXiv to respect the peer-review response and related cataloging for those controversial articles if already accepted for journal publication (at least Q1 and Q2) upon submission, as proposed in my essay.

                    In fact arXiv openly admits that it cannot enter into the scientific merits of the articles. This is the basic aspect of the scientific method which must allow authors the possibility of defending their theses from possible criticisms.

                        Donatello Dolce Thank you for the comments. I agree with you that arxiv's policies are too opaque and too subjective, dependent on the whims of individuals. It would help everyone if something were to be done about that.

                          This Essay deserves a high rating because it is very interesting and original. The problem of funding the scientific research is complex and, in my opinion, the Author discussed it in a general and complete way.
                          I have been both a researcher who attempted to obtain funds and a Referee for funds applications. From my point of view, the approach of no-proposal could be an interesting solution which could remove various bureaucracy problems

                            Christian Corda

                            Dear Tan Aardwolf,

                            I agree that it's quite an interesting thought to get rid of the proposal, but, as the Peach Hippopotamus, I have also experienced rejections for interdisciplinary proposals and I am not sure whether not requiring proposals would help for such endeavours. While the approach could be viable for continuing on an existing path having established one's name, how about entering a field as a newbie? I sincerely doubt that people would like to give someone funding who is appreciated for making progress in field X to now abandon that and explore field Y if it is unclear whether that person could make any progress in that field as well.
                            Having a permanent position usually allows you to do such things without having to hand in any proposals, too and recently, programs like PIVOT from the Simons Foundation also allow individuals to explore new fields. On the whole, however, do you think that tax payers would like to put money in a "black box" without knowing in advance how it could be spent? For me, the idea has some advantages and should partly be pursued, for sure, but as the sole remedy, I doubt it would resonate well with a lot of investors and the mixture of funding individuals vs. funding specifically planned project has moved science forward so far.

                            What do you think?

                            Bests,
                            Beige Bandicoot.

                              Christian Corda Thank you! It will also help save a lot of time, for both researchers and reviewers, so they can spend more time doing science. It will also save money for funding agencies, money required for maintaining an elaborate grant submission and review process. Of course the bureaucrats (including scientists who think like bureaucrats) may not like it -- they like obfuscation, in triplicate -- they tend to like the power they exert over the money given as research grants. So there will be a lot of resistance if any agency tries to implement this idea.

                                Write a Reply...