Two visions for fixing how we fund science

This week, there were two very different pieces on reforming how we fund science. In City Journal, Michael Gibson (former VP of Grants at the Thiel Foundation) argues that Jim O’Neill’s nomination as NSF director is a chance to shake up the agency’s approach to talent identification and grant design. His specific proposals will be familiar to anyone who follows metascience, and include partial lotteries, scout programs, open access, and indirect cost caps. Meanwhile, in PNAS, Harvey Fineberg (former president of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation) echoes the need to reinvigorate the U.S. scientific ecosystem, but presents a more macro vision for getting there: sustained increases in federal science funding, networked innovation clusters, state-level funding programs, and a focus on domestic and global talent. Notably, both emphasize the need for increased support of younger scientists, but otherwise their priorities diverge.