The author presents a compelling outline for a "science-ideas" futures market. This paper was presented at the Eighth Intl. Conf. on Risk and Gambling, London, July 1990. zg
---------------------
Could Gambling Save Science?
Encouraging an Honest Consensus
by Robin Hanson
Visiting Researcher, The Foresight Institute
[email protected]
The pace of scientific progress may be hindered by the tendency of our academic institutions to reward being popular, rather than being right. A market-based alternative, where scientists more formally "stake their reputation", is presented here. It offers clear incentives to be careful and honest while contributing to a visible, self-consistent consensus on controversial (or routine) scientific questions. In addition, it allows funders to choose questions to be researched without choosing people or methods. The bulk of this paper is spent examining potential problems with the proposed approach. After this examination, the idea still seems plausible and worth further study.
Introduction
After reviewing the discrepancy between what we want from academic institutions and what we get from current institutions, a market-based alternative called "idea futures" is suggested. It is described through both a set of specific scenarios and a set of detailed procedures. Over thirty possible problems and objections are examined in detail. Finally, a development strategy is outlined and the possible advantages are summarized.
... continued here - http://hanson.gmu.edu/gamble.html
---------------------
Could Gambling Save Science?
Encouraging an Honest Consensus
by Robin Hanson
Visiting Researcher, The Foresight Institute
[email protected]
The pace of scientific progress may be hindered by the tendency of our academic institutions to reward being popular, rather than being right. A market-based alternative, where scientists more formally "stake their reputation", is presented here. It offers clear incentives to be careful and honest while contributing to a visible, self-consistent consensus on controversial (or routine) scientific questions. In addition, it allows funders to choose questions to be researched without choosing people or methods. The bulk of this paper is spent examining potential problems with the proposed approach. After this examination, the idea still seems plausible and worth further study.
Introduction
After reviewing the discrepancy between what we want from academic institutions and what we get from current institutions, a market-based alternative called "idea futures" is suggested. It is described through both a set of specific scenarios and a set of detailed procedures. Over thirty possible problems and objections are examined in detail. Finally, a development strategy is outlined and the possible advantages are summarized.
... continued here - http://hanson.gmu.edu/gamble.html