A taxonomy would be really useful. Where you started (discovery, platform, validation, translational, mission goal) is right: begin with purpose. Then the rest of the defining attributes can be added to draw out additional distinctions. How they are funded, located, timeframe, etc.
Absent a taxonomy, everything has to be described through a combination of what something is, what something seems to be, and what it isn't. So for example our funding/support model is FRO-like, but for community-defined problems, agnostic on structure (so, not an independent and time-bound FRO, but FRO-like in its active coordination model), and BBN-like in the mix of contractor, non-profit and R&D shop.
I expect that if you can prod a discussion around taxonomy -- and we start fitting the various models that exist to support research into it -- that we'd find a lot of convergent evolution. After all, we are all facing similar environmental pressures.
This rules, obviously. Have y’all created like a “taxonomy of organizational forms” for the distribution of kinds of science? Such a thing I think would be insanely compelling, both because of the generative potential and by implication to visualize how big a slice of the status quo is mechanically suboptimal for engendering the outcomes we want to enact.
Lovely article! May I dare to say that Alison Gopnic in her book "Τhe Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016) uses a similar metaphor about the gardener to describe how parents should perceive their relationship with the child.
very cool! i borrowed the metaphor from Alex Komoroske whose essay “the magic of acorns” introduced the gardener vs. builder mindset to me a few years ago
A taxonomy would be really useful. Where you started (discovery, platform, validation, translational, mission goal) is right: begin with purpose. Then the rest of the defining attributes can be added to draw out additional distinctions. How they are funded, located, timeframe, etc.
Absent a taxonomy, everything has to be described through a combination of what something is, what something seems to be, and what it isn't. So for example our funding/support model is FRO-like, but for community-defined problems, agnostic on structure (so, not an independent and time-bound FRO, but FRO-like in its active coordination model), and BBN-like in the mix of contractor, non-profit and R&D shop.
I expect that if you can prod a discussion around taxonomy -- and we start fitting the various models that exist to support research into it -- that we'd find a lot of convergent evolution. After all, we are all facing similar environmental pressures.
See above -- we are currently working on a much longer piece on a taxonomy of potential R&D organizations!
This rules, obviously. Have y’all created like a “taxonomy of organizational forms” for the distribution of kinds of science? Such a thing I think would be insanely compelling, both because of the generative potential and by implication to visualize how big a slice of the status quo is mechanically suboptimal for engendering the outcomes we want to enact.
"A taxonomy of organizational forms" -- believe it or not, the next piece in line (it is already written) is on EXACTLY this point! :)
Great minds *obviously* ;)
holy shit this comment is like god telling us right time right place
I welcome any and all comparisons to "God" ;)
Lovely article! May I dare to say that Alison Gopnic in her book "Τhe Gardener and the Carpenter: What the New Science of Child Development Tells Us About the Relationship Between Parents and Children (Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2016) uses a similar metaphor about the gardener to describe how parents should perceive their relationship with the child.
very cool! i borrowed the metaphor from Alex Komoroske whose essay “the magic of acorns” introduced the gardener vs. builder mindset to me a few years ago