Skip to main content

mastodon - Link to source

Apparently this Lovelace disruption labs idea is in the air again. I like the idea of labs with junior researchers given more independence and resources for longer time periods, but I don't think it'll be as disruptive as hoped for if they do this. 👇

jameswphillips.substack.com/p/…

The proposal is for 15 year fellowships, and junior researchers will be "mentored, but not controlled, by groups of senior custodians who ... will also contribute to recruitment, renewal decisions and resource allocation". If resources and jobs are in control of seniors, then they are in control whether you call it that or not.

I think these things if they're created will give some really great jobs for a hand selected few, but those few will be selected based on ideological alignment with those who already control the majority of funding in science. The 15 year timescales will help, but it'll be a missed opportunity to do something better and actually disruptive.

#science #academicchatter


Lovelace vision document: ARIA's proposed twin - a network of new research laboratories using different organisational principles

‘You will not concede me Philosophical poetry. Invert the order! Will you give me poetical philosophy, poetical science?’ Ada Lovelace
James W. Phillips (James W. Phillips' Newsletter)
#science #academicchatter
in reply to Dan Goodman

Leonardo Uieda
mastodon - Link to source
Leonardo Uieda
• •
every funding call is like "We want something disruptive but we need guaranteed positive results in X years and you must have a traditional track record". 15 years is nice but zero chance this will lead to anything that breaks current paradigms. I'd love to see a call for "here's a small amount every year for 15 years, the stranger the better, negative results are fine, you do you, we just want someone really smart and passionate".
⇧