> there's effectively no accountability, it's ripe to be gamed with fraud and cronyism
Are you talking about NIH funding here, or crowdfunding? The accountability for government funds is vigilant (some may even say restrictive), as anyone who's applied for a grant or sat on a study section will tell you.
I disagree with the accountability aspect from experience, but I concur about cronyism, which is a major bias that the system is not set up to handle. It takes time to get good at winning grants, thus older applicants (tenured professors) have a much greater advantage over new ones (postdocs). There is a cultural sentiment that the best years of one's research career are near the end after amassing knowledge (or influence). This leads to many PIs shunning retirement and dampening enthusiasm for any new recruits.
I don't see how you can make claims about accountability.
The government is somewhat vigilant about fraud, but incredibly not-vigilant about bad ideas (Arsenic life comes to mind). But the accountability I refer to pretty clearly in my screed is long-term, 50-200 year accountability. You don't go back in time and rescind the grant of some scientist whose work was less than marginally relevant. And there is plenty of that stuff (Nanoputians come to mind).
Are you talking about NIH funding here, or crowdfunding? The accountability for government funds is vigilant (some may even say restrictive), as anyone who's applied for a grant or sat on a study section will tell you.
I disagree with the accountability aspect from experience, but I concur about cronyism, which is a major bias that the system is not set up to handle. It takes time to get good at winning grants, thus older applicants (tenured professors) have a much greater advantage over new ones (postdocs). There is a cultural sentiment that the best years of one's research career are near the end after amassing knowledge (or influence). This leads to many PIs shunning retirement and dampening enthusiasm for any new recruits.