pith. sign in

arxiv: 1510.02385 · v1 · pith:4RCUPAMUnew · submitted 2015-09-23 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph

Innovative Science

Donald W Braben , John F Allen , William Amos , Richard Ball , Hagan Bayley , Tim Birkhead , Peter Cameron , Eleanor Campbell
show 40 more authors
Richard Cogdell David Colquhoun Steve Davies Rod Dowler Peter Edwards Irene Engle Felipe Fernandez-Armesto Desmond Fitzgerald Jon Frampton Dame Anne Glover John Hall Pat Heslop-Harrison Dudley Herschbach Sui Huang H Jeff Kimble Sir Harry Kroto James Ladyman Peter Lawrence Mark Leake Armand Leroi David Logan Angus Macintyre Julian Marchesi John Mattick Colin McInnes. Tom McLeish Graham Medley Thomas Miller Randolph Nesse Gerald Pollack Beatrice Pelloni Douglas Randall David Ray Sir Richard J Roberts Ken Seddon Colin Self Harry Swinney Chris Thomas. William Troy Robin Tucker Claudio Vita-Finzi David Wild
This is my paper
classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph
keywords fundingproposalsresearchersagenciesproblemtheywillachieve
0
0 comments X
read the original abstract

Sir, We write as senior scientists about a problem vital to the scientific enterprise and prosperity. Nowadays, funding is a lengthy and complex business. First, universities themselves must approve all proposals for submission. Funding agencies then subject those that survive to peer review, a process by which a few researchers, usually acting anonymously, assess a proposal's chances that it will achieve its goals, is the best value for money, is relevant to a national priority and will impact on a socio-economic problem. Only 25% of proposals received by the funding agencies are funded. These protracted processes force researchers to exploit existing knowledge, severely discourage open-ended studies and are hugely time-consuming. They are also new: before 1970, few researchers wrote proposals. Now they are virtually mandatory.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.