Collegiality and careerism trump critical questions and bold new ideas: A student's perspective and solution

Bioessays 34 (6):448-450 (2012)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Graphical AbstractFunding agencies (and journals) seem to be discriminating against ideas that are contrary to the mainstream, leading to leading to the preferential funding of predictable and safe research over radically new ideas. To remedy this problem a restructuring of the scientific funding system is needed, e.g. by utilizing laymen - together with scientists - to evaluate grant proposals.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,932

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Peer review and innovation.Raymond Spier - 2002 - Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):99-108.

Analytics

Added to PP
2013-10-28

Downloads
16 (#905,208)

6 months
5 (#836,811)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Genesis and development of a scientific fact.Ludwik Fleck - 1979 - Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edited by T. J. Trenn & R. K. Merton.

Add more references