SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Submitted via IRC for SoyCow1984
How Economic Theory and the Netflix Prize Could Make Research Funding More Efficient:
In a paper published Jan. 2 in the journal PLOS Biology, co-authors Carl Bergstrom, a professor of biology at the University of Washington, and Kevin Gross, a professor of statistics at North Carolina State University, use the economic theory of contests to illustrate how this competitive system has made the pursuit of research funding inefficient and unsustainable. They show that alternative methods, such as a partial lottery to award grants, could help get professors back in the lab where they belong.
[...] "When agencies only fund the top 10 or 20 percent, they aren't just separating bad ideas from good ideas," said Bergstrom. "They're also separating good from good."
"This has two effects on the grant-application process," said Gross. "First, professors must apply for more and more grants before they're awarded one. Second, the application process becomes a contest to determine who can write the best grant proposals -- so professors spend more and more time trying to perfect each individual application."
[...] Using the economic theory of contests, Gross and Bergstrom modeled a controversial alternative: awarding grants instead by partial lottery. Under a partial lottery system, funds are awarded by random draw among a pool of high-ranking grants -- the top 40 percent, for example. Since applicants would be aiming to clear a lower bar for a smaller prize -- a shot at the lottery instead of a guaranteed payout for winning proposals -- the contest theory model predicts that applicants would spend less time trying to perfect their applications, Bergstrom said.
[...] But partial lotteries aren't the only viable solution, they say. Funding agencies could also award grants based on merit, such as a professor's past record of excellence in research. But that system also would need mechanisms to help early-career faculty and professors from underrepresented groups obtain grants, Bergstrom said. Hybrid systems are another option, such as a partial lottery for early-career faculty and merit-based grants for later-career faculty.
Journal Reference:
Kevin Gross, Carl T. Bergstrom. Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions. PLOS Biology, 2019; 17 (1): e3000065 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000065
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 04 2019, @03:24AM (1 child)
Merit? Like the National Science Foundation does (and probably dozens of other funding agencies)?
As to the original partial lottery, I wonder if there could be unintended consequences (not necessarily bad, but still reducing the expected gains). For example, in the field of math, about half of the minted PhDs drop out of academia altogether and a bunch more abandon research except to a token degree. Then we have partially retired academics on the other side who no longer have a hand in the game. How many of those might try for this money should the lottery system get enabled? Lowering the requirements may well greatly increase the number of parties willing to give it a try. That's just among the credentialed. Could also be a start up idea. Have a "face" (credentialed person) make out the application and give the lottery a shot. Sure, you still need people with appropriate research skills, but it beats flipping burgers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 04 2019, @02:21PM
The way I've heard it before is: your grant has to pass a merit threshold first, then the final funding slots are randomized.
If there is no meaningful difference in the scientific merit among the top third of scores, then there isn't much of a point in trying to differentiate them based on writing skill, reputation, if their reviewer was "easy" on them, or whether or not the reviewer liked their coffee. It has also been said that the tight funding rates pushes the funding away from more high-risk high-reward research because they lack precedent.