Government funding goes to incumbent researchers, e.g. professors who have already made it. They're deeply incentivised to replicate the destructive system that they evolved themselves to thrive in. Peter Thiel quipped in his reddit AmA: "we have a Gresham's law in science", or briefly, "bad science drives out good"... I don't often find myself agreeing with Thiel but this perspective resonated with me.
Disclaimer: I am running a science kickstarter of sorts (pledge.indysci.org). Why do you think this is bad? Do you think that paternalistically people don't value science as much as they should? And why should we expect our elected officials that squabble over stupid partisan issues be any more enlightened in allocating science funding?
Would love your opinion on The Winnower (thewinnower.com), a new science publishing platform I launched this year (I am also cancer researcher at Virgina Tech). We'd be happy to publish any of your blogs or writings on your experiences with Indysci.
Disclaimer: I am running a science kickstarter of sorts (pledge.indysci.org). Why do you think this is bad? Do you think that paternalistically people don't value science as much as they should? And why should we expect our elected officials that squabble over stupid partisan issues be any more enlightened in allocating science funding?