Re:Bias Against Novelty in Science
by untilHellbanned on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @06:21PM
(#11866144)
In biological sciences it's a well known secret that most of what you write your grants on is for work that you've already done. This is not about being "boring" vs interesting. It's pragmatism to survive and get funding.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Is it not that way in other sciences? It's funny that I just assumed all sciences did the same thing. In fact, my wife works in a museum, and I was stunned to find out that they write grants for work that isn't even started yet.
> Is it not that way in other sciences?
I can speak to the fact that this is absolutely the case in the physical sciences.
Re:Bias Against Novelty in Science
by throwawaysocks on Wednesday June 08, 2016 @06:51PM
(#11866324)
CS is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. You write grants for things you haven't done yet but also you typically have some initial work (maybe a minor publication, maybe not) to prove the direction is promising enough to fund.