

Grant System Leads Cancer Researchers to Play It Safe - tokenadult
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/health/research/28cancer.html

======
reasonattlm
A great deal of government research funding is of the "full employment act for
scientists" variety. Inevitable when accountability for actual real-world
results - as opposed to accountability for completing the project you said you
were going to complete - goes out the window.

For more in that vein:

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2007/10/a-few-thoughts-
on...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2007/10/a-few-thoughts-on-the-
funding-of-aging-research.php)

"This might as well be language lifted from a mythical government release on
the Full Employment Act for Gerontologists. It's all so grey and tired -
rescue the scientists, pay the scientists, help the scientists. Note the utter
absence of any sort of discussion of goals or results. What are these
scientists actually doing? What is the value of it? Where are they going? When
will they get there? What does it mean to me?

"This sort of thing is exactly why there is little public support for or
understanding of mainstream aging research. I've long said that basic research
is no different from any other human endeavor. It isn't magic, immune to
planning - you can set goals, plans and schedules. You can invest in research
in exactly the same way as commercial companies invest in research day in and
day out. Those who claim that you can't set goals, timelines, explain matters
to the public, create excitement and make real fireworks fly in an area of
fundamental research are generally much more interested in the steady flow of
dollars or their own particular hobby than in actually getting something
meaningful accomplished."

~~~
msie
I'm not sure whether you are in agreement with the article or just commenting
on the issue of government research. The article seems to say that a lot of
grants are rejected because the projects aren't safe bets. In a way, they're
rejected because they can't guarantee real-world results. So, according to
your comment, isn't the system working?

------
umjames
It seems to me that the main problem is CYA. A scientist shouldn't have to
worry about maintaining their positions when trying something new or
unorthodox.

It seems to mirror what hackers experience when working for large or
traditionally-minded companies. The hacker wants to do things unorthodoxically
(use a non-Java programming language, a non-Windows OS, a non-Oracle database,
less enterprisey software, etc.), but the company resists due to the managers'
concerns that approving such "risky" things could harm their employment or
advancement.

In the end, both scientists and hackers have to seek alternative methods to
pursue what we want. And even though that often can result in what looks like
failure, both groups know that's where they trully learn new things and break
new ground. And that usually means that the next time around, we're more
likely to succeed in ways that advance technology and scientific knowledge.

------
aswanson
Seems like there needs to be a DARPA with a cancer focus, funding only high-
risk, high-payoff projects with people routinely replaced on a 5-year or so
basis to mitigate bureaucracy formation.

~~~
herdrick
_with people routinely replaced on a 5-year or so basis to mitigate
bureaucracy formation_

Is that how DARPA works?

~~~
aswanson
From the wikipedia entry on DARPA:

 _Although individual projects typically last three to five years, major
technological challenges may be addressed over longer time periods, ensuring
patient investment on a series of focused steps and keeping teams together for
ongoing collaboration. Continued funding for DARPA projects is based on
passing specific milestones, sometimes called “go/no-go’s._

From the DARPA website:

 _To maintain an entrepreneurial atmosphere and the flow of new ideas, DARPA
hires Program Managers for only four to six years because the best way to
foster new ideas is to bring in new people with fresh outlooks. New people
also ensure that DARPA has very few institutional interests beyond innovation,
because new Program Managers are willing to redirect the work of their
predecessors – and even undo it, if necessary._

------
herdrick
“These grants are not silly, but they are only likely to produce incremental
progress”

"but" -> "therefore"

