Manage episode 288844890 series 2854797
The way science is funded today is broken.
Writing grant proposals for raising funds takes a significant amount of time and, unlike papers, they aren’t published in journals or valued for their scientific contribution. With grant rates now in single digits in many fields, scientists are spending more time raising funds than doing actual science. Is there a better way?
Kevin Gross, professor at North Carolina State University, urges us to explore alternative ways of funding science. One such suggestion is using partial lotteries to award grants which, according to the models he’s built, generate more scientific output for the society than current methods.
What we talk about
1:55 – How did you get interested in meta-science?
6:45 – What progress have we made in the science of science?
8:45 – Existing science funding mechanisms
16:15 – Psychological pressure on scientists from the perspective of funding
22:54 – Why hasn’t the funding been kept up with the number of scientists applying for funding?
26:22 – How do the review panels rank the proposals for funding?
33:21 – What are the most prominent issues with the current funding system?
36:48 – Alternative ideas to improve the current funding system
54:04 – Is there any empirical evidence for the alternative ideas you have for funding systems?
57:42 – Why should society care about how science is funded?