Home
Mobile version
spiked plus
About spiked
What is spiked?
Support spiked
spiked shop
Contact us
Advertising
Summer school
Top issues
Abortion
Arab uprisings
British politics
Child abuse panic
Economy
Environment
For Europe, Against the EU
Free speech
Jimmy Savile scandal
Nudge
Obesity
Parents and kids
Population
USA
View all issues...
special feature
The Counter-Leveson Inquiry
other sections
 Letters
 Review of Books
 Monthly archive
selected authors
Duleep Allirajah
Daniel Ben-Ami
Tim Black
Jennie Bristow
Sean Collins
Dr Michael Fitzpatrick
Frank Furedi
Helene Guldberg
Patrick Hayes
Mick Hume
Rob Lyons
Brendan O’Neill
Nathalie Rothschild
James Woudhuysen
more authors...
RSS feed
survey
a-b c-d e-h i-l m-n o-r s-u v-z index
William Graeme Laver
former professor of biochemistry and molecular biology at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the Australian National University in Canberra

The identification and funding of productive research scientists is a pressing concern. There seems to be an increasing tendency for administrators, politicians and commercial people to require that applicants for research funds spell out in some detail what it is they hope to discover. But to say you can predict what you are going discover is so absurd that no-one in their right mind would support such a concept. Nevertheless many people who apply for research funds must fulfil this ridiculous requirement. Scientists applying for grants should be judged on what they have discovered in the past, not on what they are going to discover in the future!



Survey home
What we found
Survey responses
Feedback
RSS feed
Anjana Ahuja
Michael Baum
Peter Cochrane
Richard Feachem
Frank Furedi
Michio Kaku
Ken MacLeod
Jonathan Meades
Munira Mirza
Matthew Parris
Ingo Potrykus
Roger Scruton
Ben Shneiderman
Lionel Shriver
Raymond Tallis
Peter Whittle
Josie Appleton
David Baulcombe
Claire Fox
William Higham
Paul Lauterbur
William Graeme Laver
Ken MacLeod
Fiona McEwen
Victor Stenger