Agreed, a lot of grant funding now has an open access rider on it, so research doesn't get stuck behind a paywall.
> Research in the various Sciences have to be clearly identified as "Critical" or Not. The former is funded and managed completely differently than the latter.
How do you ensure that this classification of critical/non-critical happens accurately? How do you hire for this team, and what metrics would you use to judge their performance? How do you ensure that this 'non critical' funding isn't simply a waste of money? This solution seems to just push the same problem further down the road.
>For example, research in vaccines/cancer is considered critical while research in "battery chemistry"(currently a hot area of research) is not.
I work in vaccines, and I don't agree with this blanket assertion. How do you deal with vaccine technology that is junk and will never produce a safe and efficacious product?
>In the former case, all we keep tabs on is "some progress" and not necessarily an external deadline i.e. researchers are given the freedom to keep working on it with self-imposed and self-defined milestones.
So unlimited funding for unlimited projects as long as they are critical according to some review committee? We might have a tiny problem doing that.. :)
>* Finally, No "Research" project should ever be overseen by purely "Administrative/Finance/MBA" types. Only Core Domain Experts should be granted oversight with the above mentioned helping as needed.
We should have a large tent. Financial management is a critical component of any successful project. "Core Domain Experts" will likely have limited time, given their other commitments and own personal research to work on. Also, there needs to be a thorough vetting and oversight to make sure that these experts aren't just funding projects that their buddies are working on.
I think you have some good ideas, but as you can probably imagine too, its no easy task proposing a working model, and getting it adopted world-wide :)