[apl]

Examples of this type are not a good guideline for policy decisions, almost by definition. For every Marshall, there's a million cranks whose ideas are rejected by the establishment and rightfully so. At the outset, all these ideas appear equally wild. But resources are scarce -- we can't just fund everything.

So what to do with a billion Euros? Obviously, we shouldn't put everything in a single pot. Particularly not in one crazy pot. That's why people complain about Markram's ego trip and enabling politicians. If you got a certain amount of funding, diversify: fund a couple of cranks, sure, but 90% should go toward what's often called normal science where small steps add up to comparatively predictable progress.

(In Markram's/the HBP's defence: Ultimately, the project will yield a metric tonne of normal science, especially in terms of infrastructure etc. However, everybody will be disappointed at the end...)

[wpietri]

I think examples like Marshall can't be the only guideline for policy. But they are excellent examples for policy. Marshall made lives better for millions of people.

Anybody responsible for science funding should be keenly aware that the machine they steer is much better at responding to obvious failures like Markram than silent failures that ulcer treatment was for decades.