If scientific papers can be publicly reviewed either pre-publication or post-publication, and if one day soon the public can have a voice on the patents, then why not also grant proposals? Now, Michael does not go that far - he only proposes a more direct communication between the researcher and the reviewer - but, why not? Some people write good proposals. Others can sell them better in a different way: by talking about them. I would certainly like to be able to try to sell my grant proposal by shooting a video and posting it on a site like Scivee.com, where both the reviewers and the public can add their commentary.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Video is taking over science communication. And why not? Now that paper is outdated, the limitations of that ancient technology should not apply to scientific publishing any more. Just because paper cannot support movies does not mean that modern scientific papers should shy away from using them…
About a week ago, my brother sent me a couple of interesting papers about funding in science, one in Canada, the other in the UK. I barely had time to skim the abstracts at the time, but thought I would put it up for discussion online and come back to it later. So I posted the link, abstract and…
Today I got several emails, each asking for my views on a proposed change to the format for National Institutes of Health grant proposals. This may seem of only parochial interest except to those of us who make our living applying for NIH grants, but how health research is funded is of interest to…
It's been a while since I came back from Boston, but the big dinosaur story kept me busy all last week so I never managed to find time and energy to write my own recap of the Harvard Conference.
Anna Kushnir, Corie Lok, Evie Brown, Kaitlin Thaney (Part 2 and Part 3) and
Alex Palazzo have written…
I like the idea of completely open research proposal reviewing. It is very much an idea that has reached its time (well almost). Also it would probably help to eliminate problems that occur when a referee has been asked to review a proposal, who know very little about the subject area. I am sorry to say that I think that happens a lot. Some reviewers will review a proposal even though they don't feel expert for a number of reasons (ego, political pressure, etc. ). This of course can be very disheartening for the person who has submitted the proposal.
Bora - Jean-Claude Bradley and you are the two science bloggers I have read and learned from the most since I started thinking about these issues a bit over a year ago. I only read blogs sporadically, so pardon the late comment to this post.
One organization that demonstrates the power of open research proposals is the Gotham Prize Foundation (http://www.gothamprize.org). They put up $1 million for proposals to treat cancer, with proposals being posted on their site for comments and collaboration.
Another idea that wouldn't necessarily need to rock the boat so much (at least initially) would be to create a centralized proposal repository (CPR). Scientists could submit proposals in a standardized format to CPR at any time (ie no time wasted on filling out different applications for different agencies at different deadlines). Funding agencies could search through CPR for proposals matching their interests. Bureaucratic and administrative details could be worked out between agencies and investigators later in the process.
To allay the fears of traditionally secretive scientists, CPR could be hosted by an independent organization, with search access granted only to funding agencies who agree to maintain privacy (unless a submitting investigator indicates willingness to share his or her idea publicly).
I've posted more details/arguments on this topic on my still-under-construction website at http://noamyharel.googlepages.com/universalproposalrepository. I've also sent a similar letter to Google.org to see if they'd be interested.
Thanks, Noam Harel