You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Perverse Incentives and Hyper-competition in Academia
This reminds me a conversation I already have on steemit some time ago :)
The problem in having ordinary people deciding what is important and what is not is that one may end up refusing to fund research that looks boring and useless, but that is necessary as a potential building block for future applications. This is why reports written by each scientific community where the needs are clearly indicated (and why they are important) are necessary. The question being, will these reports be read and used?
I admit that at the end, it is a matter of replacing the governments taking decision by another entity (the general audience). But with the governments, we have clearly designed people to speak with and shout if necessary.
Oh, for the well connected centralised decision making is certainly better. The question is whether it's a good deal for the ordinary folks who actually pay for it, through taxes and inflation.
Your statements reminded me of this character from Animal Farm:
"Comrades," he said, "I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be? " ---Comrade Napoleon
Hehe.... Comrade Napoleon :)
As I said, at the end of the day replacing some entity that sometimes makes crazy decisions by another entity that could sometimes make crazy decisions too (possibly differently crazy).
I however think that we owe something to tax payers. Explaining what we do is the minimum.