• Resistance from well-funded scientists.

 

The proposed Institute is not meant to replace current research-funding systems, but to complement them. Existing agencies worldwide are effective in funding incremental science, which is essential for progress. Some of these agencies are also wrestling with the funding of transformative science, and if their funding programs are effective, then many new revolutionary ideas will begin to launch. Those that mature successfully will be poised for the multiple-group support that is the heart of the proposed Institute. Thus, the IVS might be viewed as a second stage investment — expressed in venture terminology as bridging the valley of death. The Institute is thus not competitive.

 

 

• Seen as funding crackpot ideas. 

 

Grants awarded for pursuing topics that challenge current wisdom will inevitably arouse public suspicion. It has happened before. Any high-risk program cannot help but fund some topics that may seem by current standards as too far out of the box. Those most vulnerable to attack may sometimes be the ones that carry the highest potential.

 

The key counter-argument is that a system of checks and balances restricts the number of crank ideas that make it through the safety net. All proposals are as vetted as thoroughly as reasonably possible, first by scientist-administrators and then by a review system that mimics the jury system. It guarantees that the opposition will be adequately heard, and then puts judgment exclusively in the hands of qualified third parties who have no stake in the outcome. Crackpot ideas should rarely if ever make it through the door.

 

 

• Seen as too narrow. Why not diversify the types of programs offered?

 

Many other types of program could be considered — e.g., providing small grants for speculative ideas, and assisting young people with revolutionary ideas to gain career footholds. However, such programs would seem to lie more naturally within the purview of existing granting agencies, and the IVS should not compete.

 

Of the possible programs those agencies could offer, a sorely needed one would seed young people with transformative ideas into junior faculty positions. At present, such aspirants are routinely passed over because they are deemed too risky to ensure future funding. To solve this problem the Royal Society has developed their 5 + 5 year fellowships, which transition into tenured faculty positions. A program modeled after that one might invite proposals from people at the postdoctoral level. Those selected would be given a letter of assurance that if they can secure a tenure-track position at a research university, their group’s full costs including salaries and overhead would be paid for a duration of 5 + 5 years. In return, provided they win tenure, the respective university would agree to take over their support at the termination of the grant period. Programs of this sort have worked successfully in the UK and Europe, and could jump-start creative young scientists who wish to pursue non-mainstream approaches.

 

Current grant agencies might consider establishing such programs. If they show no interest, then the IVS could consider developing them in the future as supplementary to its main venture program. At present, it seems prudent to remain sharply focused.

 

 

• Won’t the Institute inevitably be subject to the whims of special interests, which would divert the system to their desired ends?

 

Achieving continuing success in any program is a delicate matter, requiring careful vetting of those chosen to guide and direct the Institute. If sufficient attention is paid to the selection of these people, then the Institute should be robust and relatively immune to those who would distort its intent for their own advantage.

 

The most critical choice is that of Board members, for they oversee the entire operation, including the selection of the Executive Director. To guard against domination by special interests, current design calls for input from the stakeholders themselves. The funded recipients will have some say in the people they feel will be most responsible in guiding the Institute according to its foundational principles. The major investors, with input from those recipients and advice and consent of the existing Board, will make the final decision. This mechanism offers at least some immunity from distortion by special interests, which is a realistic concern.

 

 

• Will the program really produce revolutionary breakthroughs?

 

Essentially, the program nurtures revolution. The proposed approach is designed to invest in serious challenges of the status quo, and to elevate the most substantive of them into competition with orthodox views — a short step from community acceptance. 

 

The open review process also nurtures revolution. This happens in two ways: First, the web-based open review format virtually guarantees that the most important challenge paradigms will be widely discussed, even among the general public; fields now moribund should come alive. The very act of being considered begins to elevate the challenge into competitive status. Second, the process facilitates the sorely needed cultural transformation — from a culture that reflexively dismisses challenges as products of misguided cranks, to a culture that is more open to fresh thinking, even radically fresh thinking when data and logic compel. It restores the respectability of paradigm-challenging approaches, which should be the mainstay of science. Such cultural change will not in itself guarantee breakthroughs, but it cannot help but facilitate their emergence.

 

Taken together, all of these factors lend optimism that revolutionary breakthroughs will emerge, perhaps in significant numbers and perhaps soon.

 

 

• Can non-experts adequately judge the sometimes-arcane scientific arguments? Won’t they be deluded into funding off-the-wall ideas that have little chance of success?

 

In this era of complicated science, it is often held that only the field’s experts can judge the merit of proposals lying within their field. This is certainly true in some cases; in sophisticated technical matters particularly, non-experts have no way of judging a priori who might be right. That is the very reason why the field’s experts will be invited to argue their defense in front of the panel. The debate should help make clear whether the orthodoxy’s defense is or is not meaningful.

 

On the other hand, for fundamental scientific issues that are clearly thought out, non-experts should be perfectly capable of understanding. As Rutherford once said, “If you really understand something, you can explain it to your grandmother.” The burden of communication is thereby placed on the proposer, who will be successful only if the arguments are presented clearly and logically. Although chosen panelists will be far enough removed from the field to avoid conflict of interest, they will be close enough to the field to appreciate arguments that are cogently presented. Indeed, the MacArthur Foundation sometimes employs artists to judge scientists, and the system seems to work just fine.

 

 

• Can a dozen groups be found that agree on the challenge of a field’s status quo?

 

If fewer groups are found, then fewer grants will be funded, and the unspent money can be used elsewhere. However, this scenario seems unlikely. Those who challenge are invariably in contact with others who support their challenge, and those supporters would require scant enticement to participate. The web-based debate will attract others; presentations at meetings still others; and additional ones from the Institute’s broad solicitation. A more likely problem is not too few but too many groups: deciding which of the many applicants are the most qualified may be more challenging an issue than attracting enough applicants.

 

 

• Won’t establishment defenders be difficult to recruit?

 

Defenders will often dismiss the challenger’s view. Here, such a dismissive approach will not succeed, for there is real turf to protect: in the absence of defense, the challenger is even more likely to obtain handsome funding directed against the very foundation on which the defender’s career is based. This threat should constitute a loud wakeup call. A further point is that the defender may be flattered by being chosen as a scientific leader; certifying his or her position in the field should facilitate recruitment. A final carrot is a meaningful honorarium offered in compensation for the goodly amount of time required to prepare a proper defense.

 

 

• Isn’t this program awfully bold and profligate in this period of economic stress?

 

The program outlined above is bold. If bold science is to be fostered, then the mechanism itself may need to be equally bold. It needs to take risks. What’s at stake is the very future of the world, for a world without scientific breakthroughs is a stagnant world.

 

In terms of return on investment, it is difficult to think of another program whose capacity for remuneration could be higher. Scientific breakthroughs almost always generate new technologies, whose economic potential can often be unexpectedly high. Think of the laser, the X-ray machine, the television, the Internet, the wonder drug, the Xerox machine, etc.  All of these technological breakthroughs were unanticipated sequels to scientific breakthroughs, breakthroughs made decades ago. The worldwide market for new technologies is practically limitless, and hence the return on investment in this program is likely to be extremely high.