The Newton hypothesis: Is science done by a small elite?
I don&#x27;t find the dismissal of the Matthew Effect (&#x27;the rich get richer&#x27;) even vaguely convincing here.<p>The Bol (2018) paper shows that scientists that are just <i>above</i> the cut-off to receive an early career grant tend to do much better in their subsequent career than those just below it. Both the paper and blogpost explain this away as a &quot;participation effect&quot;: the winners end up applying for many more grants, while the non-winners &quot;cease&quot; doing so.<p>However, it seems disingenuous to frame this as an issue of motivation or encouragement without thinking about why else this could happen.  In many cases, a scientist needs to bring in grant money to keep their job. There&#x27;s a very clear causal chain between &lt;no grant&gt; -&gt; &lt;no money&gt; -&gt; &lt;no job&gt;. Less severely, it also takes (grant) money to make (grant) money. Most funding agencies want to see preliminary data, which takes money (and staff) to collect. They also want to see evidence of productivity and &#x27;excellence&#x27;, which is again dependent on money; in some cases, bringing in money is even taken as prima face evidence of those qualities!<p>In the previous section, the author also discusses how the &quot;top scientists train future top scientists.&quot; Some of this may be due to their ability to select the most talented future researchers from a pool of 22 year olds, but it beggars belief that there aren&#x27;t network effects here too on top of any improvement in training.<p>For example, big well-funded labs have access to better equipment and technical support, which allows their members to fully express their scientific abilities. There are more opportunities for synergy and collaboration than in a small group. Since top scientists are frequently invited to give talks, their work is better advertised, with knock-on effects on citations. Recommendations and letters of support are vital for hinting, grants, and tenure too.