Podcasts about accelerating science

Link to original articleWelcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Making every researcher seek grants is a broken model, published by jasoncrawford on January 26, 2024 on LessWrong. When Galileo wanted to study the heavens through his telescope, he got money from those legendary patrons of the Renaissance, the Medici. To win their favor, when he discovered the moons of Jupiter, he named them the Medicean Stars. Other scientists and inventors offered flashy gifts, such as Cornelis Drebbel's perpetuum mobile (a sort of astronomical clock) given to King James, who made Drebbel court engineer in return. The other way to do research in those days was to be independently wealthy: the Victorian model of the gentleman scientist. Eventually we decided that requiring researchers to seek wealthy patrons or have independent means was not the best way to do science. Today, researchers, in their role as "principal investigators" (PIs), apply to science funders for grants. In the US, the NIH spends nearly $48B annually, and the NSF over $11B, mainly to give such grants. Compared to the Renaissance, it is a rational, objective, democratic system. However, I have come to believe that this principal investigator model is deeply broken and needs to be replaced. That was the thought at the top of my mind coming out of a working group on "Accelerating Science" hosted by the Santa Fe Institute a few months ago. (The thoughts in this essay were inspired by many of the participants, but I take responsibility for any opinions expressed here. My thinking on this was also influenced by a talk given by James Phillips at a previous metascience conference. My own talk at the workshop was written up here earlier.) What should we do instead of the PI model? Funding should go in a single block to a relatively large research organization of, say, hundreds of scientists. This is how some of the most effective, transformative labs in the world have been organized, from Bell Labs to the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology. It has been referred to as the "block funding" model. Here's why I think this model works: Specialization A principal investigator has to play multiple roles. They have to do science (researcher), recruit and manage grad students or research assistants (manager), maintain a lab budget (administrator), and write grants (fundraiser). These are different roles, and not everyone has the skill or inclination to do them all. The university model adds teaching, a fifth role. The block organization allows for specialization: researchers can focus on research, managers can manage, and one leader can fundraise for the whole org. This allows each person to do what they are best at and enjoy, and it frees researchers from spending 30-50% of their time writing grants, as is typical for PIs. I suspect it also creates more of an opportunity for leadership in research. Research leadership involves having a vision for an area to explore that will be highly fruitful - semiconductors, molecular biology, etc. - and then recruiting talent and resources to the cause. This seems more effective when done at the block level. Side note: the distinction I'm talking about here, between block funding and PI funding, doesn't say anything about where the funding comes from or how those decisions are made. But today, researchers are often asked to serve on committees that evaluate grants. Making funding decisions is yet another role we add to researchers, and one that also deserves to be its own specialty (especially since having researchers evaluate their own competitors sets up an inherent conflict of interest). Research freedom and time horizons There's nothing inherent to the PI grant model that dictates the size of the grant, the scope of activities it covers, the length of time it is for, or the degree of freedom it allows the researcher. But in practice, PI funding has evol...

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Making every researcher seek grants is a broken model, published by jasoncrawford on January 26, 2024 on LessWrong. When Galileo wanted to study the heavens through his telescope, he got money from those legendary patrons of the Renaissance, the Medici. To win their favor, when he discovered the moons of Jupiter, he named them the Medicean Stars. Other scientists and inventors offered flashy gifts, such as Cornelis Drebbel's perpetuum mobile (a sort of astronomical clock) given to King James, who made Drebbel court engineer in return. The other way to do research in those days was to be independently wealthy: the Victorian model of the gentleman scientist. Eventually we decided that requiring researchers to seek wealthy patrons or have independent means was not the best way to do science. Today, researchers, in their role as "principal investigators" (PIs), apply to science funders for grants. In the US, the NIH spends nearly $48B annually, and the NSF over $11B, mainly to give such grants. Compared to the Renaissance, it is a rational, objective, democratic system. However, I have come to believe that this principal investigator model is deeply broken and needs to be replaced. That was the thought at the top of my mind coming out of a working group on "Accelerating Science" hosted by the Santa Fe Institute a few months ago. (The thoughts in this essay were inspired by many of the participants, but I take responsibility for any opinions expressed here. My thinking on this was also influenced by a talk given by James Phillips at a previous metascience conference. My own talk at the workshop was written up here earlier.) What should we do instead of the PI model? Funding should go in a single block to a relatively large research organization of, say, hundreds of scientists. This is how some of the most effective, transformative labs in the world have been organized, from Bell Labs to the MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology. It has been referred to as the "block funding" model. Here's why I think this model works: Specialization A principal investigator has to play multiple roles. They have to do science (researcher), recruit and manage grad students or research assistants (manager), maintain a lab budget (administrator), and write grants (fundraiser). These are different roles, and not everyone has the skill or inclination to do them all. The university model adds teaching, a fifth role. The block organization allows for specialization: researchers can focus on research, managers can manage, and one leader can fundraise for the whole org. This allows each person to do what they are best at and enjoy, and it frees researchers from spending 30-50% of their time writing grants, as is typical for PIs. I suspect it also creates more of an opportunity for leadership in research. Research leadership involves having a vision for an area to explore that will be highly fruitful - semiconductors, molecular biology, etc. - and then recruiting talent and resources to the cause. This seems more effective when done at the block level. Side note: the distinction I'm talking about here, between block funding and PI funding, doesn't say anything about where the funding comes from or how those decisions are made. But today, researchers are often asked to serve on committees that evaluate grants. Making funding decisions is yet another role we add to researchers, and one that also deserves to be its own specialty (especially since having researchers evaluate their own competitors sets up an inherent conflict of interest). Research freedom and time horizons There's nothing inherent to the PI grant model that dictates the size of the grant, the scope of activities it covers, the length of time it is for, or the degree of freedom it allows the researcher. But in practice, PI funding has evol...

The CZ Biohub's inspiring story began when Priscilla Chan asked Stephen Quake a seemingly impossible question: “Is it possible to cure, prevent, and manage disease in our children's lifetime?”. In 2016, the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, founded by Priscilla and Mark Zuckerberg, set out to answer that question with a bold new mission. On the final installment of our CZ Biohub series, Priscilla and Stephen join Nate to talk about the work being done at Biohub, and how understanding human biology is the key to unlocking powerful medical treatments and cures. Through their commitment to the cause, they are showing that anything is possible. Priscilla Chan is co-founder and co-CEO of the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI). Stephen Quake is Head of Science at the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, where he oversees CZI's science grant programs, technology development, and the CZ Biohub Network. Stephen is also a professor at Stanford University. Learn more about CZ Biohub: https://www.czbiohub.org/about/#history-amp-mission Listen to more episodes from our CZ Biohub series: https://theshowaboutscience.com/2023/02/12/099-accelerating-science-to-eradicate-disease-with-priscilla-chan-and-stephen-quake/ Connect with The Show About Science:  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/showaboutscience Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/theshowaboutscience YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/showaboutscience Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/natepodcasts LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/ Loved this episode? Leave us a review and rating wherever you listen to podcasts!

George Banks, Ph.D., is a professor of Management and department chair at UNC Charlotte. He is the incoming Editor-in-Chief at The Leadership Quarterly. His research interests focus on leadership and inclusion, ethics, and research methods and statistics. His work has received several recognitions and awards, and in 2022 he received the Charlotte Business Journal's 40 under 40 award.Articles by Dr. George BanksGoogle ScholarResources Mentioned in This EpisodeBook: Invisible Women: Data Bias in a World Designed for Men by Caroline Criado Perez  Book: Seven and a Half Lessons About the Brain by Lisa Feldman BarrettBook: Principles for Dealing With the Changing World Order by Ray DalioBook: 21 Lessons for the 21st Century by HarariA Quote From This Episode"It's a nice time to be a leadership scholar right now...there's so much support and exchanging of ideas...it feels like a really collegial, fun, and safe space."About The International Leadership Association (ILA)The ILA was created in 1999 to bring together professionals interested in the study, practice, and teaching of leadership. My Approach to HostingThe views of my guests do not constitute "truth." Nor do they reflect my personal views in some instances. However, they are important views to be aware of. Nothing can replace your own research and exploration.Connect with Scott AllenWebsite

Jim Joyce and I decided to skip our usual season wrap-up episode and jump right into Season 6!! Thanks to all of the amazing guests of season 5 and getting Jim and I through another 10 weeks :) We thoroughly enjoyed #TheShot of #DigitalHealth Season 6 kick off with Sridhar Iyengar who has been building #digitalhealth businesses before it was #digitalhealth from AgaMatrix, Misfit Wearables and now Elemental Machines | Your connected platform for Accelerating Science!:

Artificial intelligence has been proven to fast track technical breakthroughs and human progress by sifting through millions of scientific papers, finding connections that humans may have missed. But the need for explainability is vital yet not always available from AI analysis.

Twenty years ago, astronomers were astonished to learn from observations of exploding stars that cosmic expansion is speeding up. We attribute this to a mysterious “dark energy” that pervades the universe and makes up 70 percent of it. Scientists are working in many ways to learn more about the nature of dark energy, but our reservoir of ignorance is deep.On Oct. 24, astronomer Bob Kirshner gave the 2018 Distinguished Lecture in Astronomy, “From the Accelerating Universe to Accelerating Science,” for which he summarizes the present state of knowledge and looks ahead to new ways to use infrared observations of supernovae to improve our grip on dark energy.Kirshner leads the science program at the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, which makes over $100 million in grants for basic science each year, and served on the astronomy faculty at Harvard for 30 years.The Distinguished Lecture in Astronomy is an annual public lecture sponsored by the Department of Astronomy at UC Berkeley.Listen and read the transcript on Berkeley News. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Berkeley Lab's Greg Bell discusses how big data is changing science, and how the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) is playing a big role. Series: "Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory " [Science] [Show ID: 25466]

Berkeley Lab's Greg Bell discusses how big data is changing science, and how the Energy Sciences Network (ESnet) is playing a big role. Series: "Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory " [Science] [Show ID: 25466]