>Moreover, people track how well past research does (based on citations as well as impact more generally) to evaluate any individual researcher.
Do you not see how this could be bad? You're implicitly subsidizing a select few - then who gets to be the gatekeeper that decides what is or isn't bad? Surely not, people who are selected because of their high training, where "high training" winds up also being indirectly judged as "people who were trained by the closed society of individuals who just happen to be the selectees"?
I mean, really, that's what we're doing. As the system becomes more closed and self-interested, and dependent on extracting funds from the government, the more the danger of becoming detached from reasonableness - and then you DO have to worry about people tickling their intellectual jollies.
Now, if we had the very same system, except it were funded as, say a private non-profit entity, it will for sure have the same problems. But - it's less morally suspect, because, at least the people donating their money into it should have known that risk beforehand - and can choose to directly defund their part in the rotten enterprise when they figure out what's going on.
> Punishing risk-taking just because you're worried about somebody tickling their "intellectual jollies" is rather short-sighted.
You're absolutely right. But that choice is not one that government should be making, because of its conflict of interest (accountability). Incidentally, there are problems with transparency in government funding reviews (NSF and NIH panels are conducted in secret with 'anonymous reviewers'), too, but those are implementation details, not fundamental problems.
I'm not suggesting that the risk-taking involved in judging basic science should not be done. I am suggesting that it should not be done by government.
Do you not see how this could be bad? You're implicitly subsidizing a select few - then who gets to be the gatekeeper that decides what is or isn't bad? Surely not, people who are selected because of their high training, where "high training" winds up also being indirectly judged as "people who were trained by the closed society of individuals who just happen to be the selectees"?
I mean, really, that's what we're doing. As the system becomes more closed and self-interested, and dependent on extracting funds from the government, the more the danger of becoming detached from reasonableness - and then you DO have to worry about people tickling their intellectual jollies.
Now, if we had the very same system, except it were funded as, say a private non-profit entity, it will for sure have the same problems. But - it's less morally suspect, because, at least the people donating their money into it should have known that risk beforehand - and can choose to directly defund their part in the rotten enterprise when they figure out what's going on.
> Punishing risk-taking just because you're worried about somebody tickling their "intellectual jollies" is rather short-sighted.
You're absolutely right. But that choice is not one that government should be making, because of its conflict of interest (accountability). Incidentally, there are problems with transparency in government funding reviews (NSF and NIH panels are conducted in secret with 'anonymous reviewers'), too, but those are implementation details, not fundamental problems.
I'm not suggesting that the risk-taking involved in judging basic science should not be done. I am suggesting that it should not be done by government.