research funding

>>8333754
I have very good concept about research in my field but i have no idea who to talk to since everything is about knowing the right people which I dont.
I dont even know who to pander to lmao

>>8333758

Assuming you have graduated you should know how this works.

When I say pandering I'm talking about institutions, not individual people.

Do you not understand how funding works in STEM

>>8333766
>Do you not understand how funding works in STEM
No not really.
I know im retarded

>>8333832
whats your idea anon

I know a lot of things get funded by USDA grants that don't have a whole lot to do with USDA activities but incorporate some form of agrucultural related practices in it just so they qualify.

It sucks, but whatever you need to do to get funded.

>>8333754
There are upsides and there are downsides. Mostly there are downsides, in my opinion. I spend about one to one and a half days a week on writing grant proposals, when I could be doing research. I 'make' my research more applicable, simply because that is what gets funding. I do neuroscientific research, so throwing in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's isn't too difficult. Really though, I want to do fundamental research. It's not that I don't care about applied research, but fundamental research simply appeals to me more, and theory is desperately needed. But governmental funding agencies (at least where I live) don't see that.

They're starting up an experiment next year where every participating researcher gets a base sum of 10,000 Euro's (which is not enough to do any serious research, but it'll keep you going by yourself for a little while). In addition, every researcher gets another 10,000 Euro's, which they have to give away to another participating researcher they think is worthy. The idea behind it is that people who do good / valuable research will automatically attract funding that way, without the need to apply for funds all the time. Let's see if it works.

>>8333873
Sounds like a pyramid scheme that might devolve into a popularity contest if it doesn't get managed the right way.

>>8333754
Writing a grant on stuff that could help with climate change, we didn't say anything about it, but we said a whole bunch of other shit that's gonna change but will make the NSF happy. IE certain methodologies and what not.

Fuck we couldn't even say climate change if we wanted to, because what we're working on would just seem too amazing. this stuff already got rejected before for that.

It's so competitive it doesn't even matter anymore.

>>8333881
>pyramid scheme
No one's putting in their own money.

>might devolve into a popularity contest if it doesn't get managed the right way
That's a fair point. Which is why it's starting up small scale. Still, I hope it works and we can get rid of the system we have now.

>>8333754
Biology definitely has a "charismatic species" problem, even in endangered animals. Getting people to care about an endangered mouse, the fact that invasive earthworms are destroying the soil, wide scale poaching of antelope species, and collapsing fisheries seems like an impossible task when you're up against "look at these adorable pandas!"

>>8333873

OP here, this is exactly what I meant

I find myself focusing on things i know are going to get funded, or tweaking things which might not otherwise be funded to suit what i know funding bodies want to hear; i.e. hitting 'the big 4'

Some scientists think this is wrong.

In turn, I think they are idealists who happen to be working in fields (which shall remain nameless) which happen to be receiving a shitload of funding in the biological sciences already

I think fields like these are less likely to see the bigger picture, because they have less difficulty getting grants in general

So to me, its an ends to a means

>>8333950
>So to me, its an ends to a means
Yup. And in the end I still spend my grant money on doing what I want. If it's even vaguely related to the original proposal, it's usually fine.

>>8333754
It's a necessary evil