This is mostly about altruistic goals, right? For self-interested goals I expect decision makers are already paying researchers the correct price for literature reviews, and it’s just low. Or do we have evidence that it’s irrationally low?
Can you give an example of self-interested goals in the sense that you mean here?
To me thinking about this in those terms makes me assume that “self-interested goals = caring about things that help you get re-elected”, which would put the correct price for literature reviews around zero. And while “self-interested decision-makers rationally ignore scientific information as useless for them, except when cherry-picking results that fit their agenda” would fit your formulation of “the correct price for literature reviews is low”, I’m not sure if that’s the thing you had in mind.
I’m not sure if it’s what cousin_it had in mind, but here’s an example: Rather than visiting a doctor again for the same bad advice on how to treat my plantar fasciitis, I paid this guy for (what is essentially) a literature review of the current state of the scientific evidence as to the relative effectiveness of available treatments.
(I feel likely to make a mistake in my reasoning here, but #BetterTriedAndFailedThatNotTriedAtAll)
Given the model where scientists are not trained in synthesis but generation, it doesn’t seem clear (to me) that there’s a standard training programme for this sort of work, nor qualifications, so I don’t know that e.g. businesses would be in a good position to hire for it.
The model probably also predicts that solving it would require moving from the current Nash equilibria of not having good professors in this nor having good students trying to learn it, to a situation where you simultaneously have both (because a training programme will not grow/sustain without both).
Politicians seem to overvalue the services that political consultants provide to them when the academic research literature suggests that spending money that way has far less impact than politicians and the general public belief.
As a result the Democratic party under Obama focused their resources very badly, lost a lot of seats and then Hillary lost the election to Trump.
The Republican’s did invest resources into the Tea Party which seems to work better than TV ads over longer timeframes but that also not because of literature reviews that suggest they should put the money there.
This is mostly about altruistic goals, right? For self-interested goals I expect decision makers are already paying researchers the correct price for literature reviews, and it’s just low. Or do we have evidence that it’s irrationally low?
Can you give an example of self-interested goals in the sense that you mean here?
To me thinking about this in those terms makes me assume that “self-interested goals = caring about things that help you get re-elected”, which would put the correct price for literature reviews around zero. And while “self-interested decision-makers rationally ignore scientific information as useless for them, except when cherry-picking results that fit their agenda” would fit your formulation of “the correct price for literature reviews is low”, I’m not sure if that’s the thing you had in mind.
I’m not sure if it’s what cousin_it had in mind, but here’s an example: Rather than visiting a doctor again for the same bad advice on how to treat my plantar fasciitis, I paid this guy for (what is essentially) a literature review of the current state of the scientific evidence as to the relative effectiveness of available treatments.
(I feel likely to make a mistake in my reasoning here, but #BetterTriedAndFailedThatNotTriedAtAll)
Given the model where scientists are not trained in synthesis but generation, it doesn’t seem clear (to me) that there’s a standard training programme for this sort of work, nor qualifications, so I don’t know that e.g. businesses would be in a good position to hire for it.
The model probably also predicts that solving it would require moving from the current Nash equilibria of not having good professors in this nor having good students trying to learn it, to a situation where you simultaneously have both (because a training programme will not grow/sustain without both).
I thought anyone with a PhD in the field should already be pretty good at reviewing literature, but maybe I’m wrong?
Politicians seem to overvalue the services that political consultants provide to them when the academic research literature suggests that spending money that way has far less impact than politicians and the general public belief.
As a result the Democratic party under Obama focused their resources very badly, lost a lot of seats and then Hillary lost the election to Trump.
The Republican’s did invest resources into the Tea Party which seems to work better than TV ads over longer timeframes but that also not because of literature reviews that suggest they should put the money there.