0 karmaJoined


Thank you for sharing. I agree with adding a somewhat commercial dimension to research (possibly not all research). It can inspire a better balanced incentive structure, accelerate the process and possibly attract private funding (without corroding one’s research integrity, process and outcome). I have only regained interest in STEM (enthusiast)  this year  and seem to come across recurring issues with the process and dearth of funding. Ones that I feel pertinent difficulty in funding research (in general and in such a capital abundant period) outside the generally expected area of a field, some corrosive politics and the desire to succeed in each research like it is your last (but for the wrong reasons). 
I think we can and should do better. I am working on something. 

But more immediately: 

  1. New Science (https://newscience.org/about) just got their 501c3 research nonprofit incorporation status (they are starting with life sciences), I really like idea and wish them all the success.
  2. Also, IMHO research should be published in earlier stages to capture network effects and make it a more frequently iterative process. Perhaps they have different mission, but I think Octopus (https://science-octopus.org/about) is a thoughtful approach
  3. I really appreciate the list of ideas GovAI put together for further research, I suspect it was not meant to be final and encourage you to update as and when you can. I think this necessary for all fields, very helpful in understanding better the lay of the land.
  4. I think there is definitely a critical mass that will be interested in your research (vs. Your Problem 2). Best of luck.