Wellcome says No

When I came home last night, I had a letter which explained why the Committee that evaluates grant applications said No.

Fortunately, every member in my team remains behind me and asserts how I interpret their findings:

  • scientists can’t appreciate the principles underlying software
  • software users cannot imagine the possibility of ‘going deeper’ on the design level
  • PowerPoint cannot simulate the results of turning high-level concepts into code.

And thus I believe that the Wellcome funding goes to ‘more of the same’ kind of recipients rather than out of the box (r)evolutionary innovation. The Committee needs it all done, i.e. coded. They cannot imagine what I know will be the outcome of coding. It’s a shame. But they are only familiar with the INTERPRETATION of the data, not its PROCESSING.

The next deadline is August 15 for a Committee meeting in September. Instead of proposing our new ‘instrument of investigation’, we will focus on investigating biomedical materials with the 17 microscopes that Prof. Vadgama has at his disposal.

Advertisements

About Sabine Kurjo McNeill

I'm a mathematician and system analyst formerly at CERN in Geneva and became an event organiser, software designer, independent web publisher and online promoter of Open Justice. My most significant scientific contribution is www.smartknowledge.space
This entry was posted in Feedback and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s