Thank you for this very important information -- I was unaware of the existence of the IFP. Based on their website, there are no actual scientists involved in this think tank dedicated to shaping the policy of science funding. I also find it strange that there is no mention of (now disbanded) NSF Science advisory board. That does not bode well for the future of science funding.
I was quite puzzled by the bizarre XLab funding call and now I understand its provenance...
I agree that we need to make our voice heard and communicate our concerns to the IFP -- even if chances of a meaningful engagement with them are small... Thank you again for your post.
I'm glad I was able to provide some context. Jim O'Neill, whose confirmation as NSF's new director is pending, was a co-founder (with Peter Thiel) of Breakout Labs (per Wikipedia). See https://breakout.vc/. Convergentresearch.org is another organization whose name keeps coming up as I learn about XLabs.
These are all great. However, my impression is that these are all strongly biased towards a certain venture-capital based model. I am not sure that venture capital has done us many favors in recent years.
I would prefer something that has deeper roots in actual STEM, not so much the "rape and pillage machine" that Silicon Valley has turned into. But what do I know? I come from a different era with different values. My team and I are offspring of Bell Labs, which hails from a very different time and mindset.
I like Peter Thiel. He is not really a STEM person, but an investor. I might very well spin off startups in variety of directions, including Thiel's Founders Institute. But I might also consider working with the Weizmann Institute and IST, which are a bit more science-based. And some other organizations.
My intuition is that we need a LOT of approaches, from different angles, to try to get us out of this current rut. I have my own views on how we got to this place. Others have different ideas.
This is an interesting idea. Other government funding agencies are considering similar approaches.
I am working towards a completely different funding model myself. It is so different that it shocks people who are accustomed to the current state of affairs.
Business as usual is no longer possible. The current academic, industrial and government bureaucracies are so bloated that basically nothing can be accomplished. We need parallel organizations that will embarrass the current models, encouraging them to be dissolved. They are consummate failures and would horrify Vannevar Bush and his colleagues who laid out the roots of the current system in the 40s and 50s.
I was a PI for 10 years. The system has deteriorated over the last 40+ years and is in much worse shape now. I doubt that I would have survived or been able to tolerate the system as it currently exists.
Thank you for this very important information -- I was unaware of the existence of the IFP. Based on their website, there are no actual scientists involved in this think tank dedicated to shaping the policy of science funding. I also find it strange that there is no mention of (now disbanded) NSF Science advisory board. That does not bode well for the future of science funding.
I was quite puzzled by the bizarre XLab funding call and now I understand its provenance...
I agree that we need to make our voice heard and communicate our concerns to the IFP -- even if chances of a meaningful engagement with them are small... Thank you again for your post.
I'm glad I was able to provide some context. Jim O'Neill, whose confirmation as NSF's new director is pending, was a co-founder (with Peter Thiel) of Breakout Labs (per Wikipedia). See https://breakout.vc/. Convergentresearch.org is another organization whose name keeps coming up as I learn about XLabs.
These are all great. However, my impression is that these are all strongly biased towards a certain venture-capital based model. I am not sure that venture capital has done us many favors in recent years.
I would prefer something that has deeper roots in actual STEM, not so much the "rape and pillage machine" that Silicon Valley has turned into. But what do I know? I come from a different era with different values. My team and I are offspring of Bell Labs, which hails from a very different time and mindset.
I like Peter Thiel. He is not really a STEM person, but an investor. I might very well spin off startups in variety of directions, including Thiel's Founders Institute. But I might also consider working with the Weizmann Institute and IST, which are a bit more science-based. And some other organizations.
My intuition is that we need a LOT of approaches, from different angles, to try to get us out of this current rut. I have my own views on how we got to this place. Others have different ideas.
So let's explore in various directions.
This is an interesting idea. Other government funding agencies are considering similar approaches.
I am working towards a completely different funding model myself. It is so different that it shocks people who are accustomed to the current state of affairs.
Business as usual is no longer possible. The current academic, industrial and government bureaucracies are so bloated that basically nothing can be accomplished. We need parallel organizations that will embarrass the current models, encouraging them to be dissolved. They are consummate failures and would horrify Vannevar Bush and his colleagues who laid out the roots of the current system in the 40s and 50s.
I was a PI for 10 years. The system has deteriorated over the last 40+ years and is in much worse shape now. I doubt that I would have survived or been able to tolerate the system as it currently exists.