Money is a necessary condition for science to work; but does the competition for money promote or hamper scientific progress?
There are many theoretical claims and prejudices, but hardly any robust data on the impact of competition for research money in science; but we know that:
- Funding decision processes are not reliable.
- Competitive funding is time-consuming and costly: In current competitive funding systems it takes about 100 to 500 person-days to prepare proposals for a single project to be funded.
- Competitive funding hampers innovation.
- Scientists despise the system - not only because of its negative impact on their well-being.
In this blog post, I discuss theoretical claims, empirical data, unresolved issues, but also statistical flaws: https://medium.com/@schweiger.gerald/on-money-science-907b47aa6abd
How can we get the ball rolling to change things?
#science #research #funding
Chuck A Arize
https://www.briantracy.com/blog/financial-success/the-science-of-how-to-make-more-money/
2 votes
1 thanks
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science and Engineering
- Programming Languages
- Python
More Gerald Schweiger's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions