We certainly can and should think about different ways to allocate resources, and their strengths and weaknesses. But of course this is a high-dimensionality problem that cannot be reduced to an "efficiency" parameter.
An analogous idea is return on investment, where the NIH already does staggeringly well. But taken alone that is an incomplete and potentially misleading metric.
Agree. Use of the term “inefficiency” implies there is no cost or tradeoff save for “waste”. But there is most often a cost in a restructure plan, and we should be clear about what that is. Where are we inflicting a loss.
I recall a book on the discovery of the HER-2 gene that my mom read and felt was a strong example of how the “inefficiency” of science led to big discovery, and similarly a book on efforts to find effective TB treatments in the ‘30s which was circuitous but more effective than directed research.
I think you could argue more broadly, a trade off between being efficient and creative. If we want to use creativity to make scientific breakthroughs, we have to let go of some efficiency.
Perhaps it is a good thing to periodically find and eliminate waste. To streamline old ways of doing things. But that is more of a systems level than a research/science level issue.
Once we reach the engineering phase of a particular end goal, yes perhaps there are more and less efficient ways to advance specific markers of success. But this phase invariably relies on advances from prior “inefficient” research efforts.
Blue-sky research is false inefficiency, but there can be true inefficiency in research. For instance, unstable funding creates inefficiency because personnel have to leave projects mid-stream, wasting effort. Excessive person-hours spent on compliance and some aspects of grantsmanship create
inefficiency through the opportunity cost of pulling people from scientific thought & practice. Procurement issues and poor structuring of central resources create economic inefficiency because it costs more to test a hypothesis.
Cancelling study sections is a great example of research inefficiency.
From what I can tell Bhattachary is experienced as a PI struggling to get research grants, like everyone. His solutions will be the usual- his preferences get an easier ride, others get a rockier ride.
Comments
Cancelling study sections is a great example of research inefficiency.