tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post7083660553135495275..comments2024-03-29T02:45:10.096-05:00Comments on nanoscale views: How should philanthropists and foundations fund science?Douglas Natelsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-7283416089053157562014-03-22T17:27:07.393-05:002014-03-22T17:27:07.393-05:00Thanks, Don. I like the people-not-projects idea,...Thanks, Don. I like the people-not-projects idea, but there is the usual risk of the rich getting richer, as people who are already stars with tons of resources get even more. The MacArthur folks seem to be very good at avoiding that potential pitfall.Douglas Natelsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13340091255404229559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-38544279545817828642014-03-22T14:45:39.672-05:002014-03-22T14:45:39.672-05:00Beyond the large scale of HHMI's investment, t...Beyond the large scale of HHMI's investment, they also make a point of giving grants to <i>investigators</i>, not to <i>projects.</i> There is a strong case that this sidesteps risk averse grants better than the NIH and NSF processes.<br /><br />One thing that the NYT article lacked, in spite of its enormous length, was the historical record of <i>past</i> philanthropic support of science. Like, for example, HHMI.Don Monroehttp://www.donmonroe.infonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13869903.post-27810722506855980342014-03-22T08:17:52.452-05:002014-03-22T08:17:52.452-05:00Aren't you aware that the correct answer for a...Aren't you aware that the correct answer for any headline ending in a question mark is "No"? (Betteridge's Law -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines). Yours doesn't even parse! Sloppy, sloppy. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com