Anirudh Wodeyar @awodeyar@qoto.org

@NicoleCRust @adredish @jpeelle @ct_bergstrom Yeah, those are good points.

With a lottery (% funding levels set) scientists would know how many submissions it would take to have a reasonable expectancy of success and plan accordingly.

If a lab has not been funded but consistently recieving “meritorious” ratings, other funding sources could make reasoned choices on providing smaller temporary investments (eg universities and foundations).

A lottery, by definition, would also fund an unbiased diversity of scientific projects to match the diversity of proposals over the long run. This is a huge for plus.

1. “Imagine we land a space probe on one of Jupiters’ moons, take up a sample of material, and find it is full of organic molecules. How can we tell whether those molecules are just randomly assembled goo or the outcome of some evolutionary process taking place on the planet?”

#science #scicomm #assemblytheory

Suck it, Lewis Hine.

#photography, #crows, #corvids

📑 "healthwashing": verb [ I or T ]
to make people believe that your computer-science grant or paper is about trying to improve health, while it really is an excuse to do maths and maybe you have a few biomedical signals on a thumb drive
⚕️💻