A science-funding overhaul would test grants like experiments and use more than peer review
_akpiper · x · 2026-07-22
The post argues that the current science-funding system is unlikely to be optimal and points to a set of reform ideas quoted from Seth Bannon, including:
- applying the scientific method to funding itself by tracking applications, reviewers, decisions, and outcomes;
- testing multiple grantmaking mechanisms instead of treating peer review as universal;
- creating intermediate organizations such as Focused Research Organizations and X-Labs for time-bounded, engineering-heavy missions.
The overall message is that science funding should be treated as an empirical optimization problem, not a fixed process.
More from AGI Musings
- Podcast maps the open-model race across Kimi, Qwen, GLM and Chinese labs — natolambert · 2026-07-22
- The New Yorker links the AI gender gap to the parenting gender gap — newyorker · 2026-07-22
- Alignment trade-off: doing good and obeying users may not both maximize — ctjlewis · 2026-07-22
- Africa AI Workshop: Building Agentic AI Without Frontier Model Dependency — ChinasaTOkolo · 2026-07-22
- Self-evolving Lean proof agents reach 45.1% on miniF2F with coevolving benchmarks — omarsar0 · 2026-07-22
- AI benchmark-maxing ignores speed, cost and compute power — DevToD4 · 2026-07-22