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: 3, Insightful) by deimtee on Friday January 04 2019, @01:03PM (2 children)
The problem is that climate alarmists see everything in black and white. They conflate several different questions, and attack as evil anyone who questions any of it.
Are humans currently increasing the amount of CO2 in the air? - Undeniably.
Is the climate changing? - Almost certainly, it always has, and no-one seriously expects that to change.
Is the increased CO2 solely responsible for the climate change. - Probably not, it's changed in the past without CO2 levels changing.
Is the climate change solely a bad thing? - No. Some things will be bad. Some will be good.
Will the bad outweigh the good? - Don't know.
Is it even possible that we can make a meaningful change to the climate change that is occurring? - Probably, but we probably don't know what.
What should we do ? - No idea, let's do some real research.
The tone of the first line of this will have the hackles rising of any true believer. I am implying that one can question the Holy Writ. By question 3 they will be certain I am an evil, heretic puppet of the bad oil companies. Question four and its answer will have them frothing at the mouth and demanding my head. Any pretense at thought will stop there, which is a shame because 5, 6, and 7 are actually the important ones.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Friday January 04 2019, @06:42PM (1 child)
I think it's more the fact that you're miss-stating the science in order to build a strawman you can defeat that's going to get the science-minded hackles up.
(Score: 2) by deimtee on Friday January 04 2019, @11:19PM
Consensus is not science. Suppressing inconvenient data is not science, Silently adjusting historical data to fit your model is not science. Deleting the original data after you have adjusted it is not science. Organizing suppression of scientists who disagree with you is not science. Political advocacy is not science. "The science is settled" is not science.
It is currently career suicide for a scientist to question any of the climate change dogma. You can get back to me when the 'climate scientists' clean house and start doing science instead of religion.
If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.