Now, about your proposal… interesting, but would it work? I think fear of having ideas stolen might be a deal breaker. People share their ideas with confidential review board. Would they share as freely if they knew anyone can tap into their ideas? However, how about this: maybe a different system proposing research you are NOT going to undertake. You know how you have 10,000 ideas and only time for 5? Post the rest of them, let someone pick it up, and (maybe) get some credit!

Your post made me think of something else: it would be great if *everyone* could benefit from seeing research proposals. Not only would ideas circulate, but people would learn more about what does and what doesn’t get funded, learn about potential collaborators, etc. What are the barriers to an open, transparent research grant system? Obviously fear of having ideas stolen is one. What else?

There’s another paragraph from Siva that can be taken as reflecting on this scenario:

Given the passions and promotion of such computational models for science of all types, we run the risk of diverting precious research funding and initiatives away from the hard, expensive, plodding laboratory science that has worked so brilliantly for three centuries. Already, major university administrations are pushing to shift resources away from lab space and toward server space. The knowledge generated by massive servers and powerful computers will certainly be significant and valuable – potentially revolutionary. But it should not come at the expense of tried-and-true methods of discovery that lack the sexiness of support from Google and an endorsement from Wired.

I guess generally that would be the risk of Google thwarting scientific research to address its own research agenda. And indeed, I am sure that is part of their motivation (although they seem to fund efforts that might not be directly related to their products). But my post was not meant to be critical of the use of public goods or services — that is difficult question, whether society benefits, overall, from Google funding academic research. My point is that just like the NSF process has benefits to the private sector (an NSF goal if I understand their mission correctly) that exceed the obvious, the Google funding model is a great idea for Google (and works well for the funded academics).

Makes sense?

In contrast to a “market failure,” a “public failure” is the phenomenon in which an erosion or retreat of state commitment and resources to a public good or need reveals an opportunity for an ambitious firm to assume control of a service and fold it into a market advantage.

- Siva Vaidhyanathan