Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?
The landscape of academic grant funding is notoriously competitive and plagued by lengthy, bureaucratic processes, exacerbated by difficulties in finding willing reviewers. Distributed […]
The National Science Foundation, which funds the majority of university-based social science research in the United States, will see two different ideas of how its research budget should be overseen in play this week in the U.S. House of Representatives.
When Tony Abbott took office as Australia’s prime minister and didn’t name a science minister, he asked that his government be judged by action, not titles.
UPDATED, While the FY2015 funding bill for science includes a record budget for the NSF, two paragraphs in the document are raising red flags in the social and behavioral science community.
With no controversy and the only discussion about how best to honor the retiring chairman of the panel, the subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee that oversees the unlikely bedfellows of justice, commerce and scientific agencies has approved a $7.4 billion budget for the National Science Foundation.
Australian research into gambling ultimately is highly dependent on the success of gambling itself (even when it’s funded by the state). Is there any surprise that much of the research is rarely critical of the industry?
The eternal hunt for funding is the bane of modern research, especially when your research subject is politically sensitive. Garen Wintemute found a way–sadly not one that the average academic can copy–around that: He paid for his gun research himself.
National Science Board steps beyond its usual comfort zone to lodge a criticism of NSF re-authorization bill that would establish role for Congress in picking research funding winners and losers.
‘It’s not what you know but who you know’ is a trope that’s common in many careers but which the academy often claims to avoid. Except that in many cases it doesn’t.