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 […]
While there are ample perspective benefits to behavioral nudges in the creation of public policy, make sure the nudges are designed for real people and not some rational superbeing.
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.
Once the cry at universities was “Dare to know!” But with speech that could make some people uncomfortable, the new cry is increasingly, “Dare to no!”
Professor David Canter comments on Britain’s downward trend in violence and examines some of the factors that may underlie it besides a more expensive pint.
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.
When governments nudge people to do healthful things it IS a little bit like 1984, says Mike Marinetto. But it’s more like a big brother than Big Brother, he adds.