[birdsbirdsbirds]

Give money to brilliant scientists with no strings attached.

Let scientists among themselves figure out who is brilliant. If the system gets corrupted, a second group of scientists will emerge who claim to be the real deal. Let them battle it out and choose the smarter group for further funding.

In other words, do it the way it was done before the influx of the administrative overhead.

[throwaw4ybio]

>If the system gets corrupted, a second group of scientists will emerge who claim to be the real deal. Let them battle it out and choose the smarter group for further funding.

Would this involve an application? Perhaps a committee?

[IQunder130]

Sometimes I wonder if the people making "why don't they just ... " type comments even bother to read what they have written.

[wizzwizz4]

Why doesn't someone just make a browser extension that forces you to read the contents of your comment before you submit it? Then we just bundle it in browsers.

Edit: Hmm, seems I plagiarised https://xkcd.com/481/, but worse. I'm glad I rarely write the first thing that comes into my head.

[bernulli]

Given "Planck's Principle"of "Science progresses one funeral at a time", it does not seem that scientists within the system will be the best to figure out who should be favored over them.

That second group cannot emerge if it does not have funding. Einstein was 'lucky' in that he had his job as a patent clerk that allowed him his theoretical studies until he finally found his way into an acedemic career.

[marcinzm]

Battle it out how? Colosseum fight to the death with giant beakers for weapons? Someone makes the decisions on which group is smarter and that person is thus an administrator of the system. They will in turn hire out sub-administrators to better manage the various groups of scientists and then create a system of grants to remove the inefficiency (and slowness) of groups battling it out. And here we are.