[unstrategic]

Sounds a lot like the effect of venture capital in the present day.

> First of all, the best scientists would be removed from their laboratories and kept busy on committees passing on applications for funds

Convince talented technical innovators that the best way they can apply themselves is to become a 'business person'"; then, talk to VCs and feel important by spending a lot of money instead of building something

> Secondly, the scientific workers in need of funds would concentrate on problems which were considered promising and were pretty certain to lead to publishable results

Do whatever VCs think is hot

> For a few years there might be a great increase in scientific output

The last 15 years?

> There would be fashions. Those who followed the fashion would get grants. Those who wouldn’t would not, and pretty soon they would learn to follow the fashion, too.

Yep.

[nverno]

Except VCs lose all their money pretty quick if they never get it right, and don't get rewarded (to the same extent) for following along with whatever is in fashion. So, there is another, more fundamental, factor there- one that drives VCs to invest in things that are thought to be under-funded but have potential.

[AussieWog93]

Honestly, it seems like trends for VCs cycle at around the same frequency as paradigms in most academic fields (on the order of around a decade). Unless the VC gets caught with their pants down right at the end of the transition, they'll probably turn a profit.

[nverno]

> Unless the VC gets caught with their pants down right at the end of the transition, they'll probably turn a profit.

Sure, it's like investing in stocks. But the incentives for VCs and academics are totally different. In academia, volume is a big part of prestige (not for everyone, of course, and to many people's dismay), whereas for VCs they're looking for that one huge disruptor, and are often willing to miss on hundreds to hit it.