This is from Sarah Taber who has one of the more interesting accounts on Twitter, with lots of good insights into agriculture (although intermixed with the usual Twitter cheap shots). Nice to see...
This is from Sarah Taber who has one of the more interesting accounts on Twitter, with lots of good insights into agriculture (although intermixed with the usual Twitter cheap shots). Nice to see her writing something longer than tweetstorms.
I'm not sure I buy the central argument though. MIT Media Labs is a bad example, but it seems like a mix of funding sources would be best to avoid the biases of each kind of funder. Applying for grants is problematic too. It's possible for private funders to be innovative rather than sleazy.
This actually started as one of her tweetstorms last week that I guess she decided to develop into an article. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171895657872941056
While I think the author correctly sees a big problem in science funding, she is wrong in her blame. There are plenty of grant opportunities out there with lots of money, but the competition is...
While I think the author correctly sees a big problem in science funding, she is wrong in her blame. There are plenty of grant opportunities out there with lots of money, but the competition is fierce and may not be the exact project that you had in mind. She comes close to this when she mentions Partners in Health, but fails to recognize that they are partially funded by grants. The reason these get overlooked is that these opportunities aren't going to make you famous on social media or get you plays on your podcast. The people that are willing to blow smoke up everyone's ass to get attention will continue to do so, regardless of the source of funds.
Full disclosure: I have written proposals for and won millions in grants for my business and feel this author comes across like Elon Musk, a self marketer that is good at jumping on bandwagons and throwing out buzz words while missing the real points.
This is from Sarah Taber who has one of the more interesting accounts on Twitter, with lots of good insights into agriculture (although intermixed with the usual Twitter cheap shots). Nice to see her writing something longer than tweetstorms.
I'm not sure I buy the central argument though. MIT Media Labs is a bad example, but it seems like a mix of funding sources would be best to avoid the biases of each kind of funder. Applying for grants is problematic too. It's possible for private funders to be innovative rather than sleazy.
Scott Alexander makes some strong arguments in favor of billionaire philanthropy: https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/07/29/against-against-billionaire-philanthropy/
This actually started as one of her tweetstorms last week that I guess she decided to develop into an article. https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1171895657872941056
While I think the author correctly sees a big problem in science funding, she is wrong in her blame. There are plenty of grant opportunities out there with lots of money, but the competition is fierce and may not be the exact project that you had in mind. She comes close to this when she mentions Partners in Health, but fails to recognize that they are partially funded by grants. The reason these get overlooked is that these opportunities aren't going to make you famous on social media or get you plays on your podcast. The people that are willing to blow smoke up everyone's ass to get attention will continue to do so, regardless of the source of funds.
Full disclosure: I have written proposals for and won millions in grants for my business and feel this author comes across like Elon Musk, a self marketer that is good at jumping on bandwagons and throwing out buzz words while missing the real points.