Science and Inquiry discussion

I recently contributed some money to a crowd funding site to fund a study of the environmental effects of coal trains (https://www.microryza.com/projects/do...). This is a subject I'm interested in because the industry is proposing a substantial increase in coal trains in my state and there is apparently not good evidence for the environmental impacts of such trains.

Another project I've considered investing is the B612 Foundation, promoted by Astronaut Edward Lu, to obtain funding from the public for the project to investigate methods of defending the earth against asteroids.

The reasons these project seem to be proliferating recently are (1) government is cutting back on it's funding of such projects and (2) the internet provides a vehicle for the public to become involved in science funding.

What do you think about this issue? The problems with funding generally? How about crowd funding?

I like the idea of crowd funding. I think it will be very important in the future for all kinds of projects. A lot of them will result in nothing, but a few will be very important. As a people (government) we have incurred too many debts. A reduction in government funding for all projects is inevitable.

Here's an article about the crowdfunding project I mentioned in my previous post:

http://seattletimes.com/html/localnew...

The concern I have over crowdfunding is that only the most popular research would be funded. Scientists would be more encouraged to put work into advertising their research and over-exaggerating the possible benefits that could come from it. Some of the best discoveries have been made when scientists weren't specifically searching for them. It leads to the same issue as the recent snail sex study "controversy". Anyone science-literate can see the benefits of such a study, but the general public and many politicians don't. Scientists should be given as much freedom as possible to study what they think is best, not the government or the general public.

Danielle wrote: "The concern I have over crowdfunding is that only the most popular research would be funded. Scientists would be more encouraged to put work into advertising their research and over-exaggerating th..."

Good point. Unless the population that visits the crowdfunding sources are smarter and less likely to be glory hounds than our politicians. What are the chances of that?

I agree that there are problems with crowdfunding. I certainly don't feel qualified to decide which are the best research projects to fund generally. Nor am I qualified to evaluate the research that is done. But I like being able to provide support for a special project that interests me.

However, research needs funding and the sources of that funding are limited. U.S. government sources have probably done a fairly good job on the whole, as long as they can keep the politicians out of the decision process. But that's being cut so drastically lately, and the politicians are starting to want more control.

I also don't like the idea of corporations funding research. Talk about bias. Although Bell labs in the early part of last century also had a pretty good track record.

Maybe we need to encourage as many funding sources as possible, so there is competition and maybe some accountability. Transparency is also key.

Betsy wrote: "I agree that there are problems with crowdfunding. I certainly don't feel qualified to decide which are the best research projects to fund generally. Nor am I qualified to evaluate the research t..."

I agree.

"Maybe we need to encourage as many funding sources as possible." Betsy

You nailed it here, Betsy. There are many possible directions for scientific funding, we don't just have to stick with up, down, left, and right.

The problem is that investments in scientific research are relatively small, even in the United States.

I've worked on government funded research, development, and science projects since 1976 -- mostly for NASA. The NASA budgets for science and science projects add up to about one tenth of a percent of the Federal budget, and has remained at about that level over all these decades. The Department of Energy, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the National Science Foundation are roughly comparable to NASA in their funding for scientific research and technology development (NSF is somewhat larger, I expect).

There are numerous other agencies that fund some scientific research, but to the best of my knowledge, these investments are smaller in size than the 4 agencies mentioned above.

The private sector (Bell Labs, RCA, CBS, etc.) used to make significant investments in scientific research back in the 1950s and 1960s, but that is not usually the case these days. The pharmaceutical industry is an exception, however. They obtain substantial profit from proprietary research and patents to this day.

I think that something like crowdfunding is an excellent experiment. It should be encouraged. It could diversify the types of research that is conducted, and that is a good thing.

The quality of research is an issue that can be addressed if the research team is affiliated with a university or some institution that really has qualified staff, and if the research undergoes independent peer review of some sort. Otherwise, there is a real risk of getting very little accomplished with the investment.

Robert wrote: "The problem is that investments in scientific research are relatively small, even in the United States.

I've worked on government funded research, development, and science projects since 1976 -- m..."

You didn't mention the National Institutes of Health (NIH) which supports most health related research in the US. Their budget also has taken a big hit after years of being stagnant.

Roger - Good catch. I looked up NIH and their research budget is much larger than I thought. It is proposed to be $31 billion in the President's budget for 2014, or nearly 1% of the total Federal budget. Thanks for the tip.

For comparison, the National Science Foundation proposal for 2014 is $7.6 billion; the NASA science budget is $5.0 billion, plus $0.7 billion for space technology development (these numbers do not include money for astronauts, exploration, etc. which are really not science or technology development). DOE research budgets include $5.1 billion for nuclear and fusion related science plus $3.0 billion for energy efficiency and renewable energy research.

So health, national defense, and space-related science and energy-related science are addressed by the Federal government.

The crowdfunding approach to research funding would be most valuable if it produces a more diversified set of investments in science and technology.

Heard about The Einsteinium Foundation?

http://einsteinium.org/

It's an organization devoted to help fund scientific education and research. As part of that goal, they have established a new cryptocurrency -- the "einsteinium".

I haven't gotten caught up in the cryptocurrency mania; I don't really understand how it works. But I thought this was an interesting development.

First off, I think crowd funding is the best shot some causes have. Therefore it's awesome. As to the other issues........

'm thinking......the real problem is funding being intertwined too closely with bias, regardless of who is doing the funding (corporate or crowd, etc.) Also, a popularity bias in crowd funding could easily be shaped by a corporation or two (and thus be corporate bias funded by someone else. the common folk no less. ha. funny!)

I mean, it's already done. Create and popularize a bias that directly or indirectly affects Giant Corporations A and B's profits. This, then directs crowd funding flow towards the cause being popularized. Which then ricochets as it is supposed to, by affecting the sales of the aforementioned corporations that decided to popularize Cause C.

I mean, I think cancer is VERY important. I care about that cause just as much as the next person with a soul. But I know popularization when I see it, and I rarely trust it. You really think the cause spotlight is moving itself?

On the other hand, if you tried to be all bias-protecting and made donations blind LOL (this is going to a cause, and we won't tell you which one)--oh wait, we already do that, never mind LOL

So yeah, the best shot as of now, is for each person to try to think for themselves, and participate in crowd funding accordingly! And yeah, biases from all kinds of power will always be weighing down, but I guess we just have to keep trying *shrugs*

I think crowd funding is a great attempt to boost research. I also very much like BOINC, which is more donation of computer processing power, rather than outright dollars.

I agree crowdsourcing will provide another avenue for research funding, but I'm less worried about it only funding popular research. Honestly, all funding sources are biased by those who control the purse strings. For example, government funding is as much about who you know as it is the quality of your research.

Kevin wrote: "Honestly, all funding sources are biased by those who control the purse strings."

Trivially true, no doubt. But biases come in all shapes in sizes. Many funding agencies are famously conservative (not politically... just meaning they like to fund things that build on existing research, and don't reach overly far.) Is this a bias... yes. Is it a bad one... ehhh... kinda-no-sometimes-yeah-sorta-kinda-no.

"For example, government funding is as much about who you know as it is the quality of your research."

Really? Seniority matters a lot, true. And a publication history. Politics can be brutal, though that is often one-on-one or between cliques. But those are more about position, tenure, etc. A lot of proposals are submitted blinded (the reviewers don't know who's they are reading; realistically the submitter will know who is in the pool of reviewers, and the people who have ultimate authority.) I'm no expert here, but I do know some about this. I'm curious if you are able to substantiate your claim.

"...but I'm less worried about it only funding popular research."

I really have got to disagree here. But, that is perhaps of no matter.

If crowdfunding is just icing on the cake, if it is just additional money and is not meant to -in any way, shape, form, or amount- replace public (government) funding: great. More of it. Wonderful.

I do worry it won't be icing... I do worry it is just a matter of time until you start hearing (tea party... or anti-vaxxer... or god only knows) calls for *more* science funding cuts because "real research":

1.) Can be funded by the people who care about it so much, if they want to study sea slugs or whatever those damn hippies are studying.
2.) Is best funded by corporations because... you know, corporations. Best. What can't they do?
3.) I best carried out by sympathetic researchers who understand that kids are precious, which is why we should expose them to debilitating and deadly diseases. !!!And anyone who disagrees is owned by the man! because it's all the corporations!!! they want autistic kids... because... uh... profit... something... uh, because... something.
4.) Is best carried out by small, local, community funded and controlled labs that can solve the local community's science and research needs while upholding community values. Keep the research in the bible, and the bible in the research!

But I am cynical, and at times pessimistic.

I'm not certain how to "substantiate my claim" since it's based entirely on personal experience, but I guess I can at least establish that I've played the academic game so here's a link to an article that I published a few years back (selected because it's freely available):

http://www.insectscience.org/8.10/

Kevin wrote: "I'm not certain how to "substantiate my claim" since it's based entirely on personal experience, but I guess I can at least establish that I've played the academic game so here's a link to an artic..."

I didn't mean my comment to sound quite as dismissive or abrasive at I think it may have. My apologies for that. However, I suppose I did kind of mean I wanted some evidence that you knew of what you spoke, as I do in fact feel better with your response. I've become (perhaps over) vigilant in the last couple months to people saying that "they" are responsible for X. That bled over into this a bit, fairly or not.

I think.... here's a different approach.

Two points:
1.) Is it really fair to say that "Government research is as much..."? It sounds like you are really only claiming your personal experience in one area, for a limited time. What I initially read sounded like a much grander claim, which set my alarms off.

2.) As a person with experience in the academic world, who's gone through the rigmarole of getting government funding for research, can you think of a less-worse way of doing it? (I'm thinking in the vein of Churchill's comment re: democracy.)

My 2 cents: It is important that public money, in particular, be handed out only after a proposal has been reviewed by some competent group. But given the size of some specialties, the pool of peers able to judge your proposal can easily become very small, even vanishingly so. How do you keep personal feelings, reputation, grudges, etc. out of something like that? What would you replace it with?

No worries. Vigilance is good. :)

1) Most academics I have spoken with agree that politicking is an important part of the funding process, regardless of the source, but I cannot claim to have experienced it firsthand from all agencies.

2) I think we need to be open to experimenting with other funding mechanisms. Intellectually, the need for a review committee makes sense, but I'm uncertain that we know exactly how beneficial it is.

After all, there's a financial cost to the agency to review the proposals, a temporal and financial cost to the researcher to write and submit them, an intellectual cost of lost innovation due to an inablity to get a grant, and probably additional costs as well.

When summed, these costs may outweigh the cost of other grant award mechanisms, e.g. simply giving smaller amounts of money through a much less rigorous review process.

Kevin wrote: "Intellectually, the need for a review committee makes sense, but I'm uncertain that we know exactly how beneficial it is.

After all, there's a financial cost to the agency to review the proposals, a temporal and financial cost..."

This is a very good point. I guess if you approach it as a potential wholesale replacement of the current mechanisms, including all the current costs, it could make sense. That is something to chew over.

I do have my doubts about whether "pleading to the public" would be easier or better than pleading to a basket of public agencies (and private e.g. endowments as well.) I suspect you would end up replacing the burdens of proposal writing with the burdens of marketing, the fickleness of reviewers with the fickleness of the marketplace. Of course, there are a lot of new options here, as well; I can see the possibility of organizations that, for a nominal fee of course, would take care of some of the marketing for you... how successful that would be, I don't know. Again, I have some reservations, thinking that you would then be competing for project funding along with all the other charities, political advocacy groups, environmental groups, and so on.

I suppose it depends on your money needs too. I keep thinking like a physicist, e.g. you can't do anything for less than 50 million dollars. :) If you "just" want to outfit a smallish field survey or setup a... I dunno... auquponics experiment, it would be expensive out-of-pocket, but far less than "millions and millions".

Kevin wrote: "When summed, these costs may outweigh the cost of other grant award mechanisms, e.g. simply giving smaller amounts of money through a much less rigorous review process."

Which is what you may have already been getting at :)

Russian scientists want to build Tesla's Wardenclyffe Tower:

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/07/r...