Skip to main content
Back to Discussions

New Matt Faherty study of the NSF

Education
United States
Started October 17, 2026

From the Executive Summary: Therefore, the NSF, NIH, and the federal government should put far more resources and effort into developing metascience. With proper metascience efforts, the NSF could run experiments on science funding reform proposals, such as shifting to a people-over-projects funding model or directly funding replication efforts, and determine which reforms will most […] The post New Matt Faherty study of the NSF appeared first on Marginal REVOLUTION. Comments“Therefore, the N...

Source Articles

Add Statement Analysis 0/5
Looking for a particular claim? Search all statements
🗳️ Join the conversation
10 statements to vote on • Your perspective shapes the analysis
📊 Progress to consensus analysis Needs 7+ participants and 20+ votes. Each statement joins once it has 3+ votes.
Participants 0/7
Statements (10+ recommended) 10/10
Total Votes 0/20
💡 Progress updates live here. Analysis can run once all three requirements are met.

Your votes count

No account needed. Your votes are saved and included in the consensus analysis. Create an account to keep a record of your votes.

CLAIM Posted by admin • Oct 17, 2026
Federal science agencies should measure and learn from their own funding decisions, regardless of which funding model they ultimately adopt.
Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 View Discussion
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM Posted by admin • Oct 17, 2026
The NSF should prioritize funding for metascience to improve the effectiveness of federal science funding.
Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 View Discussion
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM Posted by admin • Oct 17, 2026
The NSF should not divert resources from existing projects to metascience initiatives.
Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 View Discussion
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM Posted by admin • Oct 17, 2026
The benefits of metascience research should be clearly demonstrated before allocating additional federal resources.
Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 View Discussion
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM Posted by admin • Oct 17, 2026
Shifting to a people-over-projects funding model would undermine the accountability and focus of scientific research.
Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 View Discussion
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM Posted by admin • Oct 17, 2026
Increased funding for metascience could lead to unnecessary bureaucratic expansion within the NSF.
Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 View Discussion
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM Posted by admin • Oct 17, 2026
Increased investment in metascience will lead to more reliable and reproducible research outcomes.
Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 View Discussion
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM Posted by admin • Oct 17, 2026
All federal science agencies should collaborate on metascience initiatives to enhance research quality.
Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 View Discussion
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM Posted by admin • Oct 17, 2026
Funding reforms in scientific research should be evidence-based and grounded in metascience findings.
Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 View Discussion
Be first to respond
Vote to see results
CLAIM Posted by admin • Oct 17, 2026
The NSF should explore a range of funding models, including people-over-projects, to enhance research impact.
Vote options for this statement: agree, disagree, or unsure
💬 View Discussion
Be first to respond
Vote to see results

💡 How this works

  • • Add statements: Post claims or questions (10 to 500 characters).
  • • Vote: Agree, disagree or unsure on each statement.
  • • Respond: Add detailed arguments for or against, with evidence.
  • • Consensus: Once enough people take part, analysis shows opinion groups and where they agree.

Society Speaks is open and independent. Your support keeps civic discussion free from advertising and commercial influence.

Support us