Government funding for academic research will remain limited, and competition for grants will remain high. Broad adjustments will be needed
75More
The New Normal in Funding University Science | Issues in Science and Technology - 1 views
- ...72 more annotations...
-
systemic problems that arise from the R&D funding system and incentive structure that the federal government put in place after World War II
-
unding rates in many National Institutes of Health (NIH) and National Science Foundation (NSF) programs are now at historical lows, declining from more than 30% before 2001 to 20% or even less in 2011
-
even the most prominent scientists will find it difficult to maintain funding for their laboratories, and young scientists seeking their first grant may become so overwhelmed that individuals of great promise will be driven from the field
-
The growth of the scientific enterprise on university campuses during the past 60 years is not sustainable and has now reached a tipping point at which old models no longer work
-
ederal funding agencies must work with universities to ensure that new models of funding do not stymie the progress of science in the United States
-
The deeper sources of the problem lie in the incentive structure of the modern research university, the aspirations of scientists trained by those universities, and the aspirations of less research-intensive universities and colleges across the nation
-
if a university wants to attract a significant amount of sponsored research money, it needs doctoral programs in the relevant fields and faculty members who are dedicated to both winning grants and training students
-
Even though not all doctorate recipients become university faculty, the size of the science and engineering faculty at U.S. universities has grown substantially
-
These strategies make sense for any individual university, but will fail collectively unless federal funding for R&D grows robustly enough to keep up with demand.
-
At the very time that universities were enjoying rapidly growing budgets, and creating modes of operation that assumed such largess was the new normal, Price warned that it would all soon come to a halt
-
the human and financial resources invested in science had been increasing much faster than the populations and economies of those regions
-
growth in the scientific enterprise would have to slow down at some point, growing no more than the population or the economy.
-
studies sounded an alarm about the potential decline in U.S. global leadership in science and technology and the grave implications of that decline for economic growth and national security
-
Although we are not opposed to increasing federal funding for research, we are not optimistic that it will happen at anywhere near the rate the Academies seek, nor do we think it will have a large impact on funding rates
-
universities should not expect any radical increases in domestic R&D budgets, and most likely not in defense R&D budgets either, unless the discretionary budgets themselves grow rapidly. Those budgets are under pressure from political groups that want to shrink government spending and from the growth of spending in mandatory programs
-
The basic point is that the growth of the economy will drive increases in federal R&D spending, and any attempt to provide rapid or sustained increases beyond that growth will require taking money from other programs.
-
The demand for research money cannot grow faster than the economy forever and the growth curve for research money flattened out long ago.
-
The goal cannot be to convince the government to invest a higher proportion of its discretionary spending in research
-
Getting more is not in the cards, and some observers think the scientific community will be lucky to keep what it has
-
The potential to take advantage of the infrastructure and talent on university campuses may be a win-win situation for businesses and institutions of higher education.
-
Why should universities and colleges continue to support scientific research, knowing that the financial benefits are diminishing?
-
faculty members are committed to their scholarship and will press on with their research programs even when external dollars are scarce
-
it is critical to have active research laboratories, not only in elite public and private research institutions, but in non-flagship public universities, a diverse set of private universities, and four-year colleges
-
How then do increasingly beleaguered institutions of higher education support the research efforts of the faculty, given the reality that federal grants are going to be few and far between for the majority of faculty members? What are the practical steps institutions can take?
-
change the current model of providing large startup packages when a faculty member is hired and then leaving it up to the faculty member to obtain funding for the remainder of his or her career
-
universities invest less in new faculty members and spread their internal research dollars across faculty members at all stages of their careers, from early to late.
-
-
national conversation about changes in startup packages and by careful consultations with prospective faculty hires about long-term support of their research efforts
-
Many prospective hires may find smaller startup packages palatable, if they can be convinced that the smaller packages are coupled with an institutional commitment to ongoing research support and more reasonable expectations about winning grants.
-
Smaller startup packages mean that in many situations, new faculty members will not be able to establish a functioning stand-alone laboratory. Thus, space and equipment will need to be shared to a greater extent than has been true in the past.
-
construction of open laboratory spaces and the strategic development of well-equipped research centers capable of efficiently servicing the needs of an array of researchers
-
Collaborative proposals and the assembly of research teams that focus on more complex problems can arise relatively naturally as interactions among researchers are facilitated by proximity and the absence of walls between laboratories.
-
The more likely trajectory of a junior faculty member will evolve from contributing team member to increasing leadership responsibilities to team leader
-
nternal evaluations of contributions and potential will become more important in tenure and promotion decisions.
-
-
-
relationships with foundations, donors, state agencies, and private business will become increasingly important in the funding game
-
-
Further complicating university collaborations with business is that past examples of such partnerships have not always been easy or free of controversy.
-
some faculty members worried about firms dictating the research priorities of the university, pulling graduate students into proprietary research (which could limit what they could publish), and generally tugging the relevant faculty in multiple directions.
-
University faculty and businesspeople often do not understand each other’s cultures, needs, and constraints, and such gaps can lead to more mundane problems in university/industry relations, not least of which are organizational demands and institutional cultures
-
-
n addition to funding for research, universities can receive indirect benefits from such relationships. High-profile partnerships with businesses will underline the important role that universities can play in the economic development of a region.
-
Universities have to see firms as more than just deep pockets, and firms need to see universities as more than sources of cheap skilled labor.
-
We do not believe that research proposed and supervised by individual principal investigators will disappear anytime soon. It is a research model that has proven to be remarkably successful and enduring
-
However, we believe that the most vibrant scientific communities on university and college campuses, and the ones most likely to thrive in the new reality of funding for the sciences, will be those that encourage the formation of research teams and are nimble with regard to funding sources, even as they leave room for traditional avenues of funding and research.
10 Ways For Startups To Survive The Valley Of Death - Forbes - 0 views
2More
'Grunt Funds' Are Trending in Startup Circles - Businessweek - 0 views
www.businessweek.com/...re-trending-in-startup-circles
grunt fund dynamic equity contributory value equations
shared by Kurt Laitner on 04 Oct 14
- No Cached
-
Moyer’s idea assigns monetary value to every tangible and intangible contribution individuals make to a startup, from intellectual property and relationships to time and cash
92More
Towards a Material Commons | Guerrilla Translation! - 0 views
-
the modes of communication we use are very tightly coupled with the modes of production that finance them
-
I’m focused on the policy formation around this transition to a new, open knowledge and commons-based economy, and that’s the research work I’m doing here
- ...88 more annotations...
-
We now have a technology which allows us to globally scale small group dynamics, and to create huge productive communities, self-organized around the collaborative production of knowledge, code, and design. But the key issue is that we are not able to live from that, right
-
A lot of co-ops have been neo-liberalizing, as it were, have become competitive enterprises competing against other companies but also against other co-ops, and they don’t share their knowledge
-
instead of having a totally open commons, which allows multinationals to use our commons and reinforce the system of capital, the idea is to keep the accumulation within the sphere of the commons.
-
The result would be a type of open cooperative-ism, a kind of synthesis or convergence between peer production and cooperative modes of production
-
then the material work, the work of working for clients and making a livelihood, would be done through co-ops
-
But it hasn’t had much of a direct connection to this emerging commons movement, which shares so many of the values and principles of the traditional cooperative movement.
-
There’s also a lot of peer-to-peer work going on, but it’s not very well versed around issues like cooperative organization, formal or legal forms of ownership, which are based on reciprocity and cooperation, and how to interpret the commons vision with a structure, an organizational structure and a legal structure that actually gives it economic power, market influence, and a means of connecting it to organizational forms that have durability over the long-term.
-
The young people, the developers in open source or free software, the people who are in co-working centers, hacker spaces, maker spaces. When they are thinking of making a living, they think startups
-
They have a kind of generic reaction, “oh, let’s do a startup”, and then they look for venture funds. But this is a very dangerous path to take
-
Typically, the venture capital will ask for a controlling stake, they have the right to close down your start up whenever they feel like it, when they feel that they’re not going to make enough money
-
Don’t forget that with venture capital, only 1 out of 10 companies will actually make it, and they may be very rich, but it’s a winner-take-all system
-
I would like John to talk about the solidarity co-ops, and how that integrates the notion of the commons or the common good in the very structure of the co-op
-
They don’t have a commons of design or code, they privatize and patent, just like private competitive enterprise, their knowledge
-
Cooperatives, which are basically a democratic and collective form of enterprise where members have control rights and democratically direct the operations of the co-op, have been the primary stakeholders in any given co-op – whether it’s a consumer co-op, or a credit union, or a worker co-op.
-
What was really fascinating about the social co-ops was that, although they had members, their mission was not only to serve the members but also to provide service to the broader community
-
In the city of Bologna, for example, over 87% of the social services provided in that city are provided through contract with social co-ops
-
The difference, however, is that the structure of social co-ops is still very much around control rights, in other words, members have rights of control and decision-making within how that organization operates
-
And it is an incorporated legal structure that has formal recognition by the legislation of government of the state, and it has the power, through this incorporated power, to negotiate with and contract with government for the provision of these public services
-
So, the social economy, meaning organizations that have a mutual aim in their purpose, based on the principles of reciprocity, collective benefit, social benefit, is emerging as an important player for the design and delivery of public services
-
This, too, is in reaction to the failure of the public market for provision of services like affordable housing or health care or education services
-
This is a crisis in the role of the state as a provider of public services. So the question has emerged: what happens when the state fails to provide or fulfill its mandate as a provider or steward of public goods and services, and what’s the role of civil society and the social economy in response?
-
we have commonses of knowledge, code and design. They’re more easily created, because as a knowledge worker, if you have access to the network and some means, however meager, of subsistence, through effort and connection you can actually create knowledge. However, this is not the case if you move to direct physical production, like the open hardware movement
-
I originally encountered Michel after seeing some talks by Benkler and Lessig at the Wizard of OS 4, in 2006, and I wrote an essay criticizing that from a materialist perspective, it was called “The creative anti-commons and the poverty of networks”, playing on the terms that both those people used.
-
Some people have called the open hardware community a “candy” economy, because if you’re not part of these open hardware startups, you’re basically not getting anything for your efforts
-
They conceive of peer production, especially Benkler, as being something inherently immaterial, a form of production that can only exist in the production of immaterial wealth
-
From my materialist point of view, that’s not a mode of production, because a mode of production must, in the first place, reproduce its productive inputs, its capital, its labor, and whatever natural wealth it consumes
-
From a materialist point of view, it becomes obvious that the entire exchange value produced in these immaterial forms would be captured by the same old owners of materialist wealth
-
I wanted to create something like a protocol for the formation and allocation of physical goods, the same way we have TCP/IP and so forth, as a way to allocate immaterial goods
-
share and distribute and collectively create immaterial wealth, and become independent producers based on this collective commons.
-
One was the Georgist idea of using rent, economic rent, as a fundamental mutualizing source of wealth
-
So, the unearned income, the portion of income derived from ownership of productive assets is evenly distributed
-
typical statist communist reaction to the cooperative movement is saying that cooperatives can exclude and exploit one another
-
But then, as we’ve seen in history, there’s something that develops called an administrative class, which governs over the collective of cooperatives or the socialist state, and can become just as counterproductive and often exploitive as capitalist class
-
So, how do we create cooperation among cooperatives, and distribution of wealth among cooperatives, without creating this administrative class?
-
This is why I borrowed from the work of Henry George and Silvio Gesell in created this idea of rent sharing.
-
The idea is that if a cooperative wants an asset, like, an example is if one of the communes would like to have a tractor, then essentially the central commune is like a bond market. They float a bond, they say I want a tractor, I am willing to pay $200 a month for this tractor in rent, and other members of the cooperative can say, hey, yeah, that’s a good idea,we think that’s a really good allocation of these productive assets, so we are going to buy these bonds. The bond sale clears, the person gets the tractor, the money from the rent of the tractor goes back to clear the bonds, and after that, whatever further money is collected through the rent on this tractor – and I don’t only mean tractors, same would be applied to buildings, to land, to any other productive assets – all this rent that’s collected is then distributed equally among all of the workers.
-
The idea is that people earn income not only by producing things, but by owning the means of production, owning productive assets, and our society is unequal because the distribution of productive assets is unequal
-
This means that if you use your exact per capita share of property, no more no less than what you pay in rent and what you received in social dividend, will be equal
-
But if you’re not working at that time, because you’re old, or otherwise unemployed, then obviously the the productive assets that you will be using will be much less than the mean and the median, so what you’ll receive as dividend will be much more than what you pay in rent, essentially providing a basic income
-
It doesn’t seek to limit, control, or even tell them how they should distribute it, or under what means; what they produce is entirely theirs, it’s only the collective management of the commons of productive assets
-
On paper this would seem to work, but the problem is that this assumes that we have capital to allocate in this way, and that is not the case for most of the world workers
-
do we express our activism through the state, or do we try to achieve our goals by creating the alternative society outside
-
My materialist background tells me that when you sell your labor on the market, you have nothing more than your subsistence costs at the end of it, so where is this wealth meant to come from
-
I believe that the only reason that we have any extra wealth beyond subsistence is because of organized social political struggle; because we have organized in labor movements, in the co-op movement, and in other social forms
-
To create the space for prefiguring presupposes engagement with the state, and struggle within parliaments, and struggle within the public social forum
-
Instead, we should think that no, we must engage in the state in order to protect our ability to have alternative societies
-
We can only get rid of the state in these areas once we have alternative, distributed, cooperative means to provide those same functions
-
We can only eliminate the state from these areas once they actually exist, which means we actually have to build them
-
What I mean by insurrectionary finance is that we have to acknowledge that it’s not only forming capital and distributing capital, it’s also important how intensively we use capital
-
I’m not proposing that the cooperative movement needs to engage in the kind of derivative speculative madness that led to the financial crisis, but at the same time we can’t… it can’t be earn a dollar, spend a dollar
-
they did things the organized left hasn’t been able to do, which is takeover industrial means of production
-
if they can take over these industrial facilities, just in order to shut them down and asset strip them, why can’t we take them over and mutualize them?
-
more ironic once you understand that the source of investment that Milken and his colleagues were working with were largely workers pension funds
-
in Québec, there is a particular form of co-op that’s been developed that allows small or medium producers to pool their capital to purchase machinery and to use it jointly
-
much more lean and accountable because they are accountable to boards of directors that represent the interests of the members
-
I’ve run into this repeatedly among social change activists who immediately recoil at the notion of thinking about markets and capital, as part of their change agenda
-
I had thought previously, like so many, that economics is basically a bought discipline, and that it serves the interests of existing elites. I really had a kind of reaction against that
-
advocating for a vision of social change that isn’t just about politics, and isn’t just about protest, it has to be around how do we reimagine and reclaim economics
-
I think what we’re potentially talking about here is to make the social economy hyper-productive, hyper-competitive, hyper-cooperative
-
The paradox is that capital already knows this. Capital is investing in these peer production projects
-
Part of the proposal of the FLOK society project in Ecuador will be to get that strategic reorganization to make the social economy strategic
1More
Canadian high-tech startups: New report highlights secrets to their success - MaRS - 0 views
-
"Over the past five years, approximately 183 Canadian high-tech companies have been acquired by other companies. On average, it took these companies eight years to reach this milestone, reaching an average valuation of US$100 million during that time period. Nothing surprising here, right? But know this: Of those 183 companies, 75% were acquired by companies outside of Canada, the majority of which were based in the United States."
6More
What Dollar Shave Club can Teach You About Making a Video for Your Startup - Techvibes.com - 0 views
-
Too often people are so caught up in their product that they want to jump right into talking about features before clearly articulating the customer need they are addressing. Don't start making a video until you have your value proposition nailed down.
- ...2 more annotations...
Startup Canada | Entrepreneurship Empowers Everyone - 0 views
2More
Why This Startup Made Their Salaries Radically Transparent | Fast Company | Business + ... - 0 views
Startup Kijenzi using 3D printing to deliver medical equipment to Kenya | Penn State Un... - 2 views
40More
Welcome to the new reputation economy (Wired UK) - 1 views
-
banks take into account your online reputation alongside traditional credit ratings to determine your loan
-
reputation data becomes the window into how we behave, what motivates us, how our peers view us and ultimately whether we can or can't be trusted.
- ...37 more annotations...
-
The difference today is our ability to capture data from across an array of digital services. With every trade we make, comment we leave, person we "friend", spammer we flag or badge we earn, we leave a trail of how well we can or can't be trusted.
-
peer-to-peer marketplaces, where a high degree of trust is required between strangers; and where a traditional approach based on disjointed information sources is currently inefficient, such as recruiting.
-
But this wealth of data raises an important question -- who owns our reputation? Shouldn't our hard-earned online status be portable? If you're a SuperHost on Airbnb, shouldn't you be able to use that reputation to, say, get a loan, or start selling on Etsy?
-
"People are currently underusing their networks and reputation," King says. "I want to help people to understand and build their influence and reputation, and think of it as capital they can put to good use."
-
"The implication of our study is that different types of reward are coded by the same currency system." In other words, our brains neurologically compute personal reputation to be as valuable as money.
-
Personal reputation has been a means of making socioeconomic decisions for thousands of years. The difference today is that network technologies are digitally enabling the trust we used to experience face-to-face -- meaning that interactions and exchanges are taking place between total strangers.
-
Trust and reputation become acutely important in peer-to-peer marketplaces such as WhipCar and Airbnb, where members are taking a risk renting out their cars or their homes.
-
When you are trading peer-to-peer, you can't count on traditional credit scores. A different measurement is needed. Reputation fills this gap because it's the ultimate output of how much a community trusts you.
-
Welcome to the reputation economy, where your online history becomes more powerful than your credit history.
-
A wave of startups, including Connect.Me, TrustCloud, TrustRank, Legit and WhyTrusted, are trying to solve this problem by designing systems that correlate reputation data. By building a system based on "reputation API" -- a combination of a user's activity, ratings and reviews across sites -- Legit is working to build a service that gives users a score from zero to 100. In trying to create a universal metric for a person's trustworthiness, they are trying to "become the credit system of the sharing economy", says Jeremy Barton, the 27-year-old San Francisco-based cofounder of Legit.
-
His company, and other reputation ventures, face some big challenges if they are to become, effectively, the PayPal of trust. The most obvious is coming up with algorithms that can't be easily gamed or polluted by trolls. And then there's the critical hurdle of convincing online marketplaces not just to open up their reputation vaults, but create a standardised format for how they frame and collect reputation data. "We think companies will share reputation data for the same reasons banks give credit data to credit bureaux," says Rob Boyle, Legit cofounder and CTO. "It is beneficial for one company to give up their slice of reputation data if in return they get access to the bigger picture: aggregated data from other companies."
-
are measuring social influence, not reputation. "Influence measures your ability to drag someone into action,"
-
"Reputation is an indicator of whether a person is good or bad and, ultimately, are they trustworthy?"
-
Early influence and reputation aggregators will undoubtedly learn by trial and error -- but they will also face the significant challenge of pioneering the use of reputation data in a responsible way. And there's a challenge beyond that: reputation is largely contextual, so it's tricky to transport it to other situations.
-
Many of the ventures starting to make strides in the reputation economy are measuring different dimensions of reputation.
-
Reputation capital is not about combining a selection of different measures into a single number -- people are too nuanced and complex to be distilled into single digits or binary ratings.
-
It's the culmination of many layers of reputation you build in different places that genuinely reflect who you are as a person and figuring out exactly how that carries value in a variety of contexts.
-
we will be able to perform a Google- or Facebook-like search and see a picture of a person's behaviour in many different contexts, over a length of time. Slivers of data that have until now lived in secluded isolation online will be available in one place. Answers on Quora, reviews on TripAdvisor, comments on Amazon, feedback on Airbnb, videos posted on YouTube, social groups joined, or presentations on SlideShare; as well as a history and real-time stream of who has trusted you, when, where and why. The whole package will come together in your personal reputation dashboard, painting a comprehensive, definitive picture of your intentions, capabilities and values.
-
By the end of the decade, a good online reputation could be the most valuable currency in your possession.
Guy Kawasaki: The Top 10 Mistakes of Entrepreneurs - YouTube - 1 views
Des dollars cruciaux pour Emovi | André Dubuc | PME - 0 views
1More