A

Amitabha Lahiri

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.

James Hoover Thank you.

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.

James Hoover I have read your essay and given it a rating. I believe you have already seen my essay "Efficient funding produces better science." I hope you have given a rating.

Christian Corda I found your essay very interesting -- partly because I agree with the general statement that we should not accept a statement or theory (such as information loss) simply because many scientists repeat it, but also because I learned a few new things about the quantum nature of black holes. I also agree that the influence of lobbies and economic interests limits the development of science and new ideas. Your essay is also very well written and highly stimulating. I have given an appropriate rating.

My essay "Efficient funding produces better science" suggests a model of funding research in which unusual ideas could have a chance of getting some funds. You might wish to read it and give a rating.

Good luck in the final round.

Kelvin McQueen Your essay was an enjoyable read. It was very well-written and exceptionally well-argued. I really like the concept of falsification trees. This concept is new to me, possibly it is created by you, but once I have learnt about them, they seem totally obvious and inevitable. I really like your examples as well. I have given a rating to your essay based on these comments.

My essay is on a somewhat different subject -- that of funding in research and how to make it more efficient and equitable. It is called "Efficient funding produces better science". Perhaps you would like to read and rate it?

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?

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.

Kevin Knuth I enjoyed reading your essay! The basic premise that anomalous events and unusual theories do not get the attention they (sometimes? often?) deserve is something I totally agree with. No one is asking for scientists to spend all their time thinking about anomalous things, but some scientists may be interested in doing so for some part of their time, and they should be encouraged to do so. In my own essay "Efficient funding produces better science," I have suggested a funding model which could allow some funding for unusual research -- you might wish to take a look at it and also give a rating, as I have done with yours.

Peter Jackson Interesting essay. You seems to cover all of physics -- at least what goes by the nae of fundamental physics. But there is something about it that confused me -- because it is written as a conversation, there are "answers" to many problems, but in most cases it is not clear how to reach those answers. Did you do that on purpose, or was it because of length constraints?

I have given a rating on your essay. Good luck for the next round.

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.

In my essay "Efficient funding produces better science", I address the issue of funding in scientific research, something you also touch upon in your essay. Perhaps you will find it interesting and also give a rating?

Your essay was a joy to read! I have read several essays in this competition and I can safely say that very few essays are as well-written and well-argues as yours. There is only one thing about it that bothers me a little: what you suggest -- the convivial approach to scientific research -- requires a change in attitudes in our society, not only in the community of scientists, but also in the rest of the society which employs the scientists and draws upon their knowledge and skills. This seems to me rather utopian. What you suggest is a great ideal, but will we be able to achieve it in our lifetimes?

James Hoover

I liked your essay and have given a rating.

I have given you a rating as you requested on my essay. Please give a rating to mine. It is "Efficient funding produces better science."

Steven Andresen

Thanks! I will take a look at yours.

James Hoover

Thanks. I will take a look at yours.

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.

PhysicsHertzMe

Thank you for the encouraging words and I am sorry I didn't see your remarks earlier.

You are quite right in your characterization of the universities -- the way they suppress wages for researchers, both faculty and various levels of research assistants, should attract strong condemnation. And yes, a union could work. But we do have things similar to unions, called learned societies, like the APS, the ACS, the AAAS, the science academies in many countries. But their voices are not strong enough. Perhaps it is a flaw in the ``market-driven'' system, the workers, no matter how well they band together to ask for more, can never really change the system. The instruments of control remain with the rulers and the middlemen, while a few leaders of the workers are rewarded with a seat at the high table, as a distraction to the rest and also as something to aspire to.

My suggestion would remove one of the controlling instruments from the hands of the middlemen, so as to provide some freedom to the workers. If the agencies are actually looking for novel research, they would allow something like this.

Vladimir Rogozhin

Thank you for the encouraging remarks! Unfortunately scientific agencies tend to behave more like factory managers rather than venture capitalists, so I doubt if my suggestions will be taken at all.