Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vladimir Matveev
I heard that grant-giving organizations understand the problem but they do not know how to solve it.
|
Do you? Its kind of a hard problem. There's not enough money, and ideas that have no backing have a much higher likelyhood of failure. Should we put all the money into the wacky ones because they might have a bigger payoff? If we put all the wacky ones in a bucket and say "10% for those ideas" who's to choose? If they're chosen randomly, this is what the people say who *don't* get the money:
"They're biased against new ideas."
Sound familiar?
What would you do?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vladimir Matveev
Thanks Buffy for your words: "I hate doing things the conventional way."
I thought I am alone in the Conventional World.
|
No, but don't think that because someone decides against *one* unconventional idea that there is a "vast conservative-establishment-science conspiracy"...slow progress is not necessarily a bad thing: What if Baron von Frankenstein got a huge government grant for his work? Good idea or bad?
Don't look back, someone might be gaining on you,
Buffy