Big Science vs. Little Science

Arcadi Navarro me envió hace unas semanas el link a un artículo publicado en Plos One donde se analiza el impacto que en la productividad científica de los grupos de investigación tiene la cuantía de financiación. La conclusión iría en contra de los modos de asignación de recursos públicos habituales en occidente:

Impact was generally a decelerating function of funding. Impact per dollar was therefore lower for large grant-holders. This is inconsistent with the hypothesis that larger grants lead to larger discoveries. Further, the impact of researchers who received increases in funding did not predictably increase. We conclude that scientific impact (as reflected by publications) is only weakly limited by funding. We suggest that funding strategies that target diversity, rather than “excellence”, are likely to prove to be more productive.

Y me ha acordado porque Taleb dice exactamente lo mismo en algún lugar de Antifragile que ahora soy incapaz de encontrar.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Big Science vs. Little Science

  1. En el capítulo 15 (History written by suckers), en la sección ““Governments Should Spend on Nonteleological Tinkering, Not Research” (No pongo la página porque no tiene mucho sentido al ser un libro electrónico donde la paginación cambia según el formato, el tamaño de la letra, el software que usar para leerlo…) afirma Taleb:
    “Consider blue sky research, whereby research grants and funding are given to people, not projects, and spread in small amounts across many researchers. The sociologist of science Steve Shapin, who spent time in California observing venture capitalists, reports that investors tend to back entrepreneurs, not ideas. Decisions are largely a matter of opinion strengthened with “who you know” and “who said what,” as, to use the venture capitalist’s lingo, you bet on the jockey, not the horse. Why? Because innovations drift, and one needs flâneur-like abilities to keep capturing the opportunities that arise, not stay locked up in a bureaucratic mold”

  2. Si si!
    y has cortado la cita una frase demasiado pronto. La siguiente:

    “The significant venture capital decisions, Shapin showed, were made without real business plans”

    me ha venido de perlas.

    Siempre le digo a mi mujer que en el momento en que escribes un bussniness plan, has matado la idea.
    ¿Cómo distinguir al visionario del cantamañanas? Eso es el duro trabajo del venture capitalist. 🙂

  3. Pingback: Antifragile 15: History Written by the Losers | El Pla Subtil

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s