If Einstein would apply for a research grant
Science was never a matter of committee. And even less a matter of agreement. Scientists worth their salt challenge the accepted, negate the comfortable, the acceptable answers. Science is creation: it brings about something that never existed before. When institutions are set up with the noble goal of stimulating research, an impossible situation is established. […]
Science was never a matter of committee. And even less a matter of agreement. Scientists worth their salt challenge the accepted, negate the comfortable, the acceptable answers. Science is creation: it brings about something that never existed before.
When institutions are set up with the noble goal of stimulating research, an impossible situation is established. In order for such institutions to function, they need rules and procedures. In other words, they are structurally nothing but machines programmed to consistently confirm what is perceived as worthy of public support: “We know what deserves to be funded even before anyone researched it.” When they initiate research programs—in order to justify their existence—they masquerade as originators of science.
Einstein, Newton, Leibniz, C.S. Peirce, would never get a grant from the National Science Foundation. Given the revolutionary nature of their work, it would never have fit the criteria for being funded. In the panel reviews, they would not get enough support from mediocre “peers,” known to be more interested in the game of reciprocating favors than in science. Plus: they committed the fatal sin of carrying out fundamental research. Let’s face it: the current obsession with instant return on investment disqualifies any long-term project from public support. The result is sad. The billions dispensed by bureaucrats posing as arbiters of science is money often thrown away. Wasted. Why? Because we can afford it. In 2007 the country is spending $135 billion for research. The highest number of researchers ever employed (close to 700,000) produces exactly what one can expect from committee-regulated scientific research: mediocrity (and less).
Take to heart Einstein’s words: “No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” If to you this means that self-perpetuating institutions, like the NSF, NIH, NEA or any other agency (federal or state) are at best clueless in respect to fundamental aspects of science, you are right. But if we stop at criticism, we are stopping a bit too short. Let us free science from self-styled managers of research funds. Dynamic systems are self-organizing systems. Let us make possible the transparent competitive environment that encourages innovation. Make the peer review process as public as applying for public money. Just to start with.
The opportunistic writing of volumes of instructions, based on which even more volumes, of grant applications, are produced, all loaded with politically and legally correct language, is waste of time and energy. Science should not be at the mercy of politics and bureaucracy, and even less of lawyers.
If anyone feels offended by these thoughts, take a deep breath and answer the following question: For all the money spent over these years of prosperity, what are the accomplishments that can compare to Newton’s science, to Leibniz’s, or to Einsteins’s fundamental work. (Feynman comes close!) None of them, very much like Einstein, would have gotten past the reviewing committees. Applicants are asked for evidence of prior work (of other scientists), as though lack of precedent is a capital sin. What about novel research for which there is no prior work? Applicants are supposed to generate data in advance of the research. If we know the results before we start, why bother? Bureaucrats cannot imagine that science is creation. For them, science is what will make headlines. Yes, of you have a Nobel Prize, as relative as even this prize is becoming, your odds of winning the grant lottery (and a reserved parking spot) increase by many orders of magnitude.
To praise the private sector, for being better than the government in stimulating scientific progress, would be nice for a change. In reality, the profit motive, is as good a guide as committees in the selection of science worthy of private support. The fast-buck expectation never recognized fundamental questions worth the support of the insanely rich. (If you have a billion, why do you crave the next billion?) From all forms of research, fundamental research has the highest return. If you do not understand that, you are ignoring what Newton’s physics afforded us, what Einstein’s theory made possible, how Leibniz envisioned the digital age., Mind you, no patents involved.
Give up hope? By no means! Science, not unlike education, is by its nature an optimistic endeavor. It is driven by idealism, and a lot of faith in one’s vision. As we, scientists, continue to practice integrity and full transparency, we might finally be invited, indeed commissioned, to think past the immediate, because the obsession with immediacy is too expensive in the long run. Sooner or later, we will recover from the atmosphere of confused means and methods. Not because someone loves the uncomfortable creative scientist, but because without fundamental research, the bubble of science as immediate remedy for everything will burst (as all bubbles do).
Posted in Blog
October 1st, 2007 at 4:34 pm
Brother Einstein would never get a research grant today. I agree.. A focused guy who just thought THROUGH to the soltion.
It’s also why Burt Rutan doesn’t get the next Space Transport Vehicle contract from the US Govt. It’s why our transport program ends in 2010 & “maybe” some day – a long ways off – we will again have reliable spacecraft.
There is a penalty to pay for bogus admin of research.
The only consolation at times is DO IT YOURSELF and PO the grant givers.
In the world of Wal-Mart, there is no resource free for research….
March 12th, 2010 at 6:28 pm
You are so right. And this applies like a terrible rule in all other things.
I am loosing faith in this “experiment” called humanity …. where are we going ? When will we people finally “grow” ?
— I’m too impatient.
April 27th, 2014 at 11:18 am
Wonderful goods from you, man. I’ve understand
your stuff previous to and you are just extremely wonderful.
I really like what you’ve acquired here, really like what you’re stating and the way in which you say it.
You make it entertaining and you still care for
to keep it smart. I can not wait to read far more from you.
This is really a terrific web site.
October 11th, 2014 at 12:02 am
It’s fantastic that you are getting thoughts fdom
this article as well as from our discussion made here.
October 20th, 2014 at 2:27 am
La verdad es que Google no para de hacer cambios en el algoritmo y en su polÃtica de penalizaciones, en ciertas ocasiones es para progresar la experiencia de uso en el buscador y sÃ³lo persiguen mostrar los resultados de aquello que
realmente buscaba el usuario, mas tambiÃ©n vemos directrices
de compaÃ±Ãa y ponderaciones de los resultados de ciertas webs
frente a otros, que responden exclusivamenteÂ a motivos econÃ³micos, por mucho que lo quieran justificar.
December 5th, 2014 at 5:13 am
Avalanche hoods will add a new feel and style to your vehicle.
You can check the total wattage of all your burners, boilers,
and other cooking appliances. Ignited by the success of such stories as Harry Potter and Twilight,
the genre’s popularity only continues to grow.
December 5th, 2014 at 5:16 am
North London Van Hire undoubtedly works on the simple principle of fulfilling the customer’s needs in the best possible way at the least expensive and
notably reasonable possible costs. Often, it is when you are moving to a new
building that you would realize that intentionally or
not you have stored quite a lot of items during your period of stay in your
old building. Well this article will help you to get the perfect one.
June 18th, 2015 at 2:09 am
If you operate with the same principles, then Google is more likely to see
your website as a good fit for more users’ experiences.
The advantage of paid traffic is that it is immediate. This could be in the simple format of a view inside or could be content that your book currently doesn’t contain, obviously this
route will take more time, but will pay dividends for your website.
Many people ask me is their website search engine optimised.
The bait builds interest to your website and you can easily
and quickly gain many referrals with a content bait.
November 27th, 2015 at 4:15 am