Thread by @Noahpinion

After seeing a bunch of people get mad at this editorial proposing a "Progress Studies" field, I've concluded that the critics are wrong; an interdisciplinary program aimed at figuring out how to boost the rate of scientific discovery would have value.

theatlantic.com/science/archiv…

Scientists, historians, organizational behavior researchers, and researchers from other relevant disciplines could potentially come up with some interesting policy ideas if they cooperated in a DARPA-style mission-oriented research program aimed at boosting U.S. science.

The critics of the article have mostly been saying "This already exists! It's called [insert field here]!!". But there are many of these fields. And there should be a place for them to come together, share different perspectives, and develop some concrete policy recommendations.

"Progress Studies" is probably not a great name for this effort. And I think it should probably be a DARPA-style project instead of a permanent field of study (unless some universities want to make it a permanent interdisciplinary program).

But the basic idea is sound.

Don't knock interdisciplinary research. Siloing can lead to stagnation.

And don't knock mission-oriented research. It has a good track record in a lot of areas.

(end)