Reviewing and evaluating scientific proposals is a delicate art and an ongoing concern of the Government Science Agency. We begin with asking for an expert opinion, through the system of panels of experts, meandering through randomized selections relying on measuring of the alignment of stars and planets, insect and rodent fights and toward reading tea leaves and cow's intestines. We try it all and we are still not satisfied!
So it comes as as no surprise that the Mathematics Unit of the GSA decided to use modern scientific tools and to infuse the reviewing process with a novel and creative method. The new scheme is called the Parrondo Method after Juan Parrondo who in 1996 discovered the following paradox:
There exist pairs of games, each with a higher probability of losing than winning, for which it is possible to construct a winning strategy by playing the games alternately. (see here)
In a hindsight, it is no surprise that the Government Science Agency is a fertile ground for mining such an idea. GSA has a considerable number of proposal calls of dubious value, and many questionable reviewing mechanisms, while most of the projects originate from the best scientific minds that the country has to offer. Consequently, the Parrondo Method - marrying a misguided solicitation with an inferior funding mechanism might be a winning strategy, and a way to identify hidden scientific gems. Rather than to drown in idle speculations the Mathematics Unit decided to test the Parrondo Method in practice. After some deliberations mathematicians chose one of their weaker proposal calls as the first ingredient. Substandard funding mechanism was harder to identify but eventually the Mathematics Unit settled on the following scheme called Double Negation: rather than to support the top proposals identified by the reviewers, they would provide funding to the investigators of the lowest ranked proposals in return for a promise to abandon their projects.
Several months later the proposals arrived and the panel was formed to evaluate them. The selected solicitation was called "What Were You Thinking?" (WWYT?) and its principal objective was to:
"strengthen the nation's scientific competitiveness by increasing the number of well-prepared citizens, nationals, and permanent residents who pursue careers in the mathematical sciences. WWYT? program will enrich the training of the above mentioned individuals by infusing it with a number of tangential and time consuming topics while reinforcing their doubts in the original career choice."
Most mathematicians felt that "What Were You Thinking?" program recognizes pressing societal need of escaping from dead-end training situation yet they felt that as a program for developing mathematical workforce it is a loosing proposition in comparison with strengthening of the mathematics curriculum. "Double Negation" was also seen to be inferior to simply supporting the best projects.
After the panel, we sat down to apply the Parrondo Method and we found out that the results were nothing short of miraculous. Rather than a disaster and train wreck that was widely anticipated if standard procedures were followed, the Mathematics Unit came up with a clear and powerful message to the community. It planted seeds of hope and relevance to a few who labored on the border of oblivion and paid respects to those who bask in glory of social acceptance. As a result of the application of the Parrondo Method the top mathematics departments of the country will get a generous dollop of funding to abandon futile pursuits and to re-focus their training on mathematics, to remind their faculty of their responsibilities regarding their own discipline, to keep students attentive and occupied and to make sure that the next generation of mathematicians actually become mathematicians. At the same time the departments that heavily invest in multidisciplinary training, dwell on the societal challenges, spectacular applications and important contributions to the domain sciences will get a generous pat on the back for sticking to their mission and getting the work done. The Mathematics Unit will send them a strong signal of appreciation for understanding that mathematics is everywhere, and if well tended for, it can grow and blossom even in the most inhospitable environment.
So it comes as as no surprise that the Mathematics Unit of the GSA decided to use modern scientific tools and to infuse the reviewing process with a novel and creative method. The new scheme is called the Parrondo Method after Juan Parrondo who in 1996 discovered the following paradox:
There exist pairs of games, each with a higher probability of losing than winning, for which it is possible to construct a winning strategy by playing the games alternately. (see here)
In a hindsight, it is no surprise that the Government Science Agency is a fertile ground for mining such an idea. GSA has a considerable number of proposal calls of dubious value, and many questionable reviewing mechanisms, while most of the projects originate from the best scientific minds that the country has to offer. Consequently, the Parrondo Method - marrying a misguided solicitation with an inferior funding mechanism might be a winning strategy, and a way to identify hidden scientific gems. Rather than to drown in idle speculations the Mathematics Unit decided to test the Parrondo Method in practice. After some deliberations mathematicians chose one of their weaker proposal calls as the first ingredient. Substandard funding mechanism was harder to identify but eventually the Mathematics Unit settled on the following scheme called Double Negation: rather than to support the top proposals identified by the reviewers, they would provide funding to the investigators of the lowest ranked proposals in return for a promise to abandon their projects.
Several months later the proposals arrived and the panel was formed to evaluate them. The selected solicitation was called "What Were You Thinking?" (WWYT?) and its principal objective was to:
"strengthen the nation's scientific competitiveness by increasing the number of well-prepared citizens, nationals, and permanent residents who pursue careers in the mathematical sciences. WWYT? program will enrich the training of the above mentioned individuals by infusing it with a number of tangential and time consuming topics while reinforcing their doubts in the original career choice."
Most mathematicians felt that "What Were You Thinking?" program recognizes pressing societal need of escaping from dead-end training situation yet they felt that as a program for developing mathematical workforce it is a loosing proposition in comparison with strengthening of the mathematics curriculum. "Double Negation" was also seen to be inferior to simply supporting the best projects.
After the panel, we sat down to apply the Parrondo Method and we found out that the results were nothing short of miraculous. Rather than a disaster and train wreck that was widely anticipated if standard procedures were followed, the Mathematics Unit came up with a clear and powerful message to the community. It planted seeds of hope and relevance to a few who labored on the border of oblivion and paid respects to those who bask in glory of social acceptance. As a result of the application of the Parrondo Method the top mathematics departments of the country will get a generous dollop of funding to abandon futile pursuits and to re-focus their training on mathematics, to remind their faculty of their responsibilities regarding their own discipline, to keep students attentive and occupied and to make sure that the next generation of mathematicians actually become mathematicians. At the same time the departments that heavily invest in multidisciplinary training, dwell on the societal challenges, spectacular applications and important contributions to the domain sciences will get a generous pat on the back for sticking to their mission and getting the work done. The Mathematics Unit will send them a strong signal of appreciation for understanding that mathematics is everywhere, and if well tended for, it can grow and blossom even in the most inhospitable environment.
No comments:
Post a Comment