News blog

University unveils collaboration funding scheme

Competition drives innovation — or so the thinking goes. Researchers traditionally compete to have grant proposals approved by a panel of expert reviewers. And more recently, scientists scramble for cash prizes awarded to the team that sequences the human genome most economically and accurately (X Prize), that discovers the most refined model to analyze molecular networks (InnoCentive), or proposes the greatest solution for diabetes (Harvard Catalyst). But today the University of Michigan announced a different mechanism for innovation: U of M faculty can receive $60,000 in research funds simply for agreeing to collaborate on an idea – any idea.

“We didn’t want to do the same things that everyone else is doing, and expect different outcomes,” says Thomas Zurbuchen, associate dean for entrepreneurial programs at the College of Engineering, and one of the three faculty who spearheaded the initiative called MCubed.

A total of $15 million will be doled out to projects continuously posted on the MCubed website, beginning with its launch in October. On the site, faculty can start their own projects by publicly describing what they want to do, why, and vow to report back on their project’s status at an MCubed symposium. Or they can sign up to be the second or third member of a project already posted. If they happen to be third, boom: within 24 hours the threesome wins $60 thousand. The competition for funds depends only on speed, and isn’t fierce. Zurbuchen estimates that some 1500 faculty will be competing for 750 so-called tokens worth $20,000 each (but only cashed out in threes).

Zurbechen and the two other professors who conceived of the initiative thought it would be a great way to stimulate interdisciplinary collaborations and encourage newborn ideas in a timely fashion. “I’ve sat on review boards for different agencies, and it’s really damn hard to judge who the best person is to execute a project,” says Zurbechen. “Instead we are allowing people to just execute their project themselves, and after the fact we’ll see how they do. So really, it will be the purist form of a review.”

Ultimately, the success of MCubed will be judged by Institute of Social Research faculty, who will measure the number and types of new collaborations formed, the number and tier of publications, and the broader impact of those research results. “We want to see if we can move the frontiers of knowledge forward and make life better for people,” says Zurbechen.

Will people cheat the system by spending their tokens on the same old independent projects? Will faculty join a group simply to be the third member and grab a piece of the action at little thought-cost? “We don’t know,” says Zurbechin. No matter the mechanism, new ideas come with risks.

Comments

  1. Report this comment

    Tsai H.Y. said:

    Personally I believe this newborn idea will definitely improve our current situation. Nowadays our society of science was greatly controlled by some big headers, minority of people possessed abundant resources and opportunities so that they can publish papers with high impact factor and then gradually become a big group. These results will led to some unfair conditions coming out such as great potential thinking will be depressed by reality situation. Actually, I think all of us realize sciences were supported by grant and cash resources. Money talks. No bread with nil publication. This idea which announced by U of M will enhance and broaden our door and provide more fair and clear chances for especially young scientists and great ideas owner. Only open the door and then the current unfairly situation will have chances to be improved. This is the original intention of science.

Comments are closed.