52 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2019
    1. The term first appeared in 1984 as the topic of a public debate at the annual meeting of AAAI (then called the "American Association of Artificial Intelligence"). It is a chain reaction that begins with pessimism in the AI community, followed by pessimism in the press, followed by a severe cutback in funding, followed by the end of serious research.[2] At the meeting, Roger Schank and Marvin Minsky—two leading AI researchers who had survived the "winter" of the 1970s—warned the business community that enthusiasm for AI had spiraled out of control in the 1980s and that disappointment would certainly follow. Three years later, the billion-dollar AI industry began to collapse.
  2. May 2019
    1. Funding organizations like universities and foundations can get in touch with authors to back their future work, or spot trends of where breakthroughs are being made so they can funnel resources correctly

      Essentially GoFundMe or Patreon for the science set! This is nearly laughable and unlikely to really happen.

      Maybe VC culture can invade science research and screw that up too!

  3. Apr 2019
  4. Mar 2019
  5. Jan 2019
  6. Sep 2018
  7. Jul 2018
    1. This displacement is of course operative in the de-funding of public universities, effectively transforming them into non-profits rather than state institutions. The effects of this program of neoliberal1 reform run deep, not least that the dominant motivator behind these privatized institutions becomes sustainability rather than service, leaving universities, like non-profits, in an endless cycle of fundraising and budget cuts.
    1. The reason Mr. Wonderful loves royalty based funding is because it is a big win for both businesses and investors. Investors see a return on helping businesses succeed. Experienced investors will even offer guidance to help business owners avoid the pitfalls that many entrepreneurs stumble into. On the business side, entrepreneurs get the financing they need without debt or sacrificing ownership of their companies in any way. Additionally, since repayment of royalty based financing is structured around revenue, there are no rigid payment schedule. Royalty based funding provides financing and flexibility, which gives businesses the freedom to reach their potential, while simultaneously providing healthy returns to investors.
  8. Jun 2018
    1. Further, the lack of clear development funding methods in Bitcoin is often seen as problematic. The core network software exists as open source code on Github, but it is difficult for developers to directly monetize their contributions to the codebase. Funding for Bitcoin Core developers was entirely donation driven until 2014.
  9. May 2018
    1. The Open Education Tools Symposium, hosted by Hypothes.is in January 2017—with the support of the HewlettFoundation—for the express purpose of identifying the gaps and needs in OER technical infrastructure foundthat “even with the close focus on OER technical infrastructure, the conversations over the two-day event were wide ranging and often lingered on broader questions facing the OER movement: who exactly are we building for; is it really working?....no complete picture of the gaps in OER tooling became apparent during the symposium...”.

      Referencing and linking to the 2017 Open Educational Tools Symposium convened by Hypothesis.

  10. Mar 2018
    1. Most do not contribute anything back to PKP

      Consider working with the 2.5% Commitment group. They are leading a movement to organize libraries to direct some of their funding to support open infrastructure.

  11. Oct 2017
    1. The WWARN experience suggests that truly useful data sharing platforms must be thought of as long-term, infrastructural investments; they cannot be thrown up as rapid, project-based responses to funder or journal demands.
  12. Sep 2017
    1. We spend a lot of public and private money chasing silver bullets in education. I propose we would be better served by investing that money in providing educators with the training, support, and incentives to participate in the work of advancing the sciences of learning.

      for teachers as "citizen scientists"

  13. Jul 2017
  14. Jun 2017
  15. Nov 2016
    1. YCombinator funds nonprofits and now, research. OATV launched indie.vc last year. Peter Thiel created Breakout Labs. Elon Musk created Open AI.
  16. Sep 2016
  17. Aug 2016
  18. Jul 2016
    1. to increase attainment of high-quality credentials through expanded use of the DQP and Tuning to build a learning-based credentials system.

      What role might h play in such an ecosystem?

      • facilitate communication between disparate teachers and students
      • allow teacher to monitor student independent work
    1. Instructional processes must begin and end with students ― with “learners and what they learn.” This idea—of shifting the focus away from an institution-centric construct and toward understanding and meeting the needs of students—is absolutely central.

      Very much aligns with the NGDLE movement at EDUCAUSE.

    2. Instructional Processes

      Focus on pedagogy

    1. They invest in tools, esp early stage.

    2. Direct Investments We make a limited number of grants outside of our challenge efforts to nonprofit entrepreneurs developing breakthrough tools and services that can strengthen the design and implementation of innovative school models and have the potential to achieve scale and sustainability.

      They make direct investments in innovative tools

  19. Jun 2016
    1. Of course, they will most likely all be co-authored pieces, but the significant point is that the REF rules, except in special cases, impose no penalty on genuinely co-authored work; they explicitly state that it is welcomed. In most cases, there is no disadvantage in submitting a co-authored item to the exercise (although there is some complication when co-authors submit in the same return); it is not as if it counts as half an output or less.

      The REF does not discount coauthorship

    1. In some domains, path-breaking work is nec-essarily the outcome of collaborative activity rather thanindividualistic scholarship, a fact reflected in the modestproportion of federal research funds which is allocated toindividual investigators rather than teams. Collaborationsare a necessary feature of much, though by no means all,contemporary scientific research.

      in some domains, collaboration is necessary. Hence the preference for team grants

  20. Apr 2016
    1. . Referees ofgrant proposals agree much more about what is unworthy of support than about what does have scientific value. In

      Grant referees are better at agreeing on inadequate work than adequate

    Tags

    Annotators

    1. A system that assumes a "quite good" institution is unable to get better, and thus denies them the funds that would enable them to get better, is probably not an optimal system for promoting merit. A system that rewards in proportion to merit would at least be able to recognise and reflect the dynamism of university research; research groups wax and wane as people come, go, get disheartened, get re-invigorated.

      On the importance of funding middle-ground

    2. it could be argued that we don’t just need an elite: we need a reasonable number of institutions in which there is a strong research environment, where more senior researchers feel valued and their graduate students and postdocs are encouraged to aim high. Our best strategy for retaining international competitiveness might be by fostering those who are doing well but have potential to do even better

      capacity requires top and middle.

  21. Mar 2016
    1. Marsh, H. W., Bornmann, L., Mutz, R., Daniel, H. D., & O’Mara, A. (2009). Gender effects in the peerreviews of grant proposals: A comprehensive meta-analysis comparing traditional and multilevelapproaches.Review of Educational Research, 79, 1290–1326
    1. You submit the first grant, youpropose the novel thing. You know damn well any study section that’s evenmildly conservative is going give you, ‘‘Well, it sounds promising.’’ Theymight give you a good score, you hope for a good score, but it’s not going toget funded, because it’s too novel, it’s too risky, it’s too blah blah. But youalready have the damn data. You know on the second resubmit, you’re goingto say, ‘‘Good point! We took that to heart. Oh, what a wonderful suggestion!We will worry about this too. Guess what? Here’s the data!’’ Shove it downtheir throat. And then it’s funded. Because, wow, you flagged them, yousucker-punched them. They said, ‘‘This is really novel, blah, blah. Boy if youcould only do that, that would be a great grant.’’ Well, you alreadydiddo it,and that’s the point. And you basically sucker-punch the study section intogiving you the money by default. They have to at that point. They don’t havea choice.

      On the need to have results before funding is given.

    2. Analysts differ as to the reasons why competition has intensified. Some see thesituation in terms of money. Tempering the effects of competition is not a primeimpetus behind calls by the National Science Board [26] and by a recent coalition of140 college presidents and other leaders [27] for more federal funding for scientificresearch; however, some scientists see such advocacy movements in terms of easingcertain aspects of competition that are worsened by tight dollars. More money, morepositions, and overall expansion of the research enterprise would improve thesituation

      role of funding

    3. here are indications, however, that the natureof competition has changed in recent years. Goodstein [25] argues that this shift islinked to negative outcomes:Throughout most of its history, science was constrained only by the limits ofits participants’ imagination and creativity. In the past few decades, however,that state of affairs has changed dramatically. Science is now held back mainlyby the number of research posts and the amount of research funds available.What had been a purely intellectual competition has become an intensestruggle for scarce resources. In the long run, this change, which is permanentand irreversible, will probably have an undesirable effect on ethical behavioramong scientists. Instances of scientific fraud will almost surely become morecommon, as will other forms of scientific misconduct (p. 31)

      relationship of negative aspects of competition to change in funding model that promotes scarcity. See Goodstein, D. (2002). Scientific misconduct.Academe, 88, 28–31

    1. The role of external influences on the scientific enterprise must not be ignored. With funding success rates at historically low levels, scientists are under enormous pressure to produce high-impact publications and obtain research grants. The importance of these influences is reflected in the burgeoning literature on research misconduct, including surveys that suggest that approximately 2% of scientists admit to having fabricated, falsified, or inappropriately modified results at least once (24). A substantial proportion of instances of faculty misconduct involve misrepresentation of data in publications (61%) and grant applications (72%); only 3% of faculty misconduct involved neither publications nor grant applications.

      Importance of low funding rates as incitement to fraud

  22. Nov 2015
  23. Jul 2015
    1. Applicants will be a sustainable entity with an ongoing and operational commitment to improve community health and/or wellbeing.

      I'm not sure we fit this description.

  24. Jun 2015
    1. Extrapolating from 2012 data, an estimated US$114.8B in the United States [18] is spent annually on life sciences research, with the pharmaceutical industry being the largest funder at 61.8%, followed by the federal government (31.5%), nonprofits (3.8%), and academia (3.0%) [20].

      I think this would surprise most people, although when one thinks of the cost of developing a drug, it is always stated in the billions. So give that NIH's budget is around 30 billion, it would make sense that pharma would dwarf that number.

  25. Feb 2014
    1. As long as the income was incoming, we were happy to trade funding our institutions with our money (tuition and endowment) for funding it with other people’s money (loans and grants.) And so long as college remained a source of cheap and effective job credentials, our new sources of support—students with loans, governments with research agendas—were happy to let us regard ourselves as priests instead of service workers.
  26. Aug 2013
    1. Please donate to keep the law free.

      Good pitch. Make larger, don't hide in the footer