Hacker News Reader

Comment by perchance | Hacker News Reader

NIH and NSF are often criticized for slow decisions, but a major reason for that is: experimental science is difficult and slow. Software people find this hard to comprehend, e.g. why would it take 10 years to find a new treatment? That's because you find an affected family (if it's hereditary), find appropriate controls, map the mutation, make a mouse model, use the mouse model to screen for pharmacological agents, and return to humans for testing them.

Microryza needs a vetting mechanism, at the very minimum, perhaps a dedicated science advisory board. Otherwise it runs a high risk of becoming a platform for snake oil salespeople.

View on HN

Agreed...but: the NSF and NIH are sadly underfunded these days. Good research is getting left behind, because funding levels are up in the top 1% of grant applications.

I'm not sure if this is the right model for funding research -- regular people are completely unable to select scientific projects for their merit -- but combined with a legitimate peer review system, it just might work.

What I'd like to see is Microryza incorporate NIH grant scores, or some other established peer-review metric. If the public could crowd-fund interesting, legitimate scientific research, there's definitely a need for the money.

The disease foundations and other charities are possibly a better model for this kind of funding, although there may be political and efficiency problems there too.

I actually really like the kinds of science education and literacy projects featured on Microryza's homepage, and fun ecology projects involving pandas and lemurs. That kind of stuff is very underfunded, and the $20k can actually make those projects happen and make a difference, while getting the broader public excited about science in general. But it's a mistake to pretend that this is any sort of solution to problems with NIH funding.

I strongly disagree with you, in that the big potential solution we offer is to simultaneously help small foundations and eat their lunch. The whole notion of someone at a desk stamping papers to identify what research to fund, when there is just not enough funding to go around anyways, is inefficient and wasteful. The real power of crowdfunding is that it allows people to really dictate what they want to care about, and not rely on some proxy to do that for them.

There are information completeness problems, but those are technical (in my opinion) and very solvable.

>What I'd like to see is Microryza incorporate NIH grant scores, or some other established peer-review metric. If the public could crowd-fund interesting, legitimate scientific research, there's definitely a need for the money.

Working on it. :)

I'd like to help with this process. I've been funded by both NIH and NSF and have been through the process. I've also reviewed grants as have my friends/colleagues. I emailed you a few days ago (irollboozers), so you have my email address.

As for incorporating the NIH scores, I'd actually like to see the opposite. It's funny how people think that the NIH/NSF scores are actually representative of a proper review. They really aren't. They are assigned by people, typically people who don't even really read the grant well because they have 20 to read and leave them to the last minute because they are doing 100 other things. As such, many times grants (actually, any of the peer review items) are not really evaluated properly. Any federal funded scientist who has been through the review process will tell you how faulted the system is.

This isn't the place to rant/rave about this, but I'm happy that we are starting to evolve this system and change it. My YC application will be working on something similar, with the goals of getting around the stupidity behind the current system. What we need is to revolutionize the way science is performed, from the ground up.

Also, in terms of the "snake oil" statement, when you dig deep enough, you see that the entire peer review system is not immune from snake oil. Buzz words get grants funded, papers published in high tier journals, and careers sky rocketing. Doesn't even have to be good work, it just needs to include the buzz word and its getting published like crazy.

The fact is, science is broken and it's a great time to fix it with the technology, transparency, and forward thinking groups that are breaking the mold.

a peer review system is in the works.

i wouldn't underestimate regular people, these redditors are pretty smart: http://www.reddit.com/r/science

Um. There are certainly smart people in the Reddit crowd, but the average is decidedly sub-par. For that matter, HN is a pretty good site as far as scientific discussion goes, but it's still total garbage compared to a grant review panel.

If you want to be viewed as a source of legitimate scientific funding, you need to solve the credibility problem. If you get tagged as the funding source for crackpots, you'll never shake the rep.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com