Chapter 1: The Funding Landscape

In the public's perception, scientific inquiry is typically seen as fair and unbiased. Similarly, there's a belief that research aimed at innovative solutions for societal benefit will inherently have more positives than negatives. A research proposal often comes across as a noble endeavor, an earnest effort to grasp how the world operates. Innovations are generally viewed positively, and in most cases, they are indeed beneficial. I, like many others, subscribe to this belief, expecting that most research genuinely strives to provide real value.

Yet, I sometimes question the extent to which this collective understanding may be distorted if we ignore the counterexamples. What happens when we suppress the unconventional thinkers from the outset?

To grasp this, consider the process of applying for research funding. Applicants must craft a compelling, unbiased argument. However, funding is often limited, and the demand for resources far exceeds supply. You are pitted against numerous other proposals, and there are minimal rewards for those who finish second.

You must effectively market your idea.

To market an idea successfully, you must comprehend your audience's desires. It’s crucial to present compelling reasons for funding your proposal over a myriad of alternatives. The goal is not merely to encourage decision-makers to accelerate support but to find a compelling argument that encourages them to ease their hesitation. Initially, they may respond with a firm "no," which you must work to transform into a "yes."

When multiple stakeholders are involved, constructing an argument that persuades them all simultaneously is essential. This process tends to favor ideas that are already gaining momentum, leading to a concerning conclusion: you will likely tell the decision-makers what they want to hear, and so will everyone else.

Research often follows trends.

Given a cautious funding environment, how could it do otherwise?

Now, consider what happens if you are the unconventional thinker. What if your proposal strays far from popular topics? What if you are advocating for a disruptive innovation? What if your research contradicts widely accepted norms?

To emphasize a point, I often enjoy pushing scenarios to their most absurd extremes to evaluate their differences from current practices. For instance, imagine applying for funding for geophysical research. Suppose I am driven by a passion to investigate whether the Earth is flat.

Naturally, my application would be dismissed quickly. I could present a robust case based on thorough studies, but the prevailing scientific consensus that the Earth is round would overshadow my efforts.

Yet, if anyone claims that science is settled, they misunderstand its nature and may have ulterior motives.

Now, consider a slightly more plausible research idea that lies just outside the established norm. A proposal that challenges conventional wisdom may find itself at the bottom of the funding priority list. Even if you are not operating on the fringes, straying just slightly from current fashions can lead to neglect.

Is this truly detrimental? Over time, this cautious approach helps science and engineering to develop a collective consensus. However, it also creates significant inertia, making it difficult to shift established views without compelling evidence.

Only the most deserving, with the purest intentions, may be able to challenge this inertia.

This raises an important question. In my field, we strive to identify changes promptly. Whether it’s a shift in customer needs, problems, or available technologies, recognizing these changes early allows us to adapt. Established commercial objectives tend to evolve slowly, much like scientific principles.

However, problems can shift rapidly.

Thus, I frequently find myself advocating for disruptive ideas and unconventional proposals—not for the sake of being different, but because circumstances have changed.

I do this because the problems we face often lack the same inertia. Therefore, I not only propose innovative solutions but also strive to ensure that my predictions are well-informed. Anticipating the future is challenging, and this task is far from straightforward.

At this juncture, the innovator's dilemma emerges.

If funding mechanisms are conservative and inclined to revert to the norm, new ideas may struggle to secure support. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, but if your proposals deviate even slightly from the norm, obtaining that evidence becomes nearly impossible.

When your proposal contradicts established beliefs, you may find yourself excluded from research opportunities altogether. Disruptive ideas often attract little to no backing.

This scenario can lead to a prolonged struggle against prevailing opinions, as you must slowly shift the conversation away from its trendy inertia to give your idea a chance. This process can span a career, if not a lifetime.

Therefore, the next time someone asserts that the science is settled, reflect on the underlying mechanisms that contribute to such a situation.

Chapter 2: The Path to Innovation

In this enlightening video, "The Rise of the Woke Was the DEATH of Liberalism," Carl Benjamin discusses the evolving landscape of ideological thought and its implications for innovation.

"The Reality Crisis | Ep. 113" delves into the obstacles faced by innovators in a world that often resists change, exploring strategies for overcoming these challenges.