The Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) was mentioned in the comments of Mark’s post about John Barrow’s Templeton Prize. This is a new organization that is devoted to supporting innovative ideas at the frontiers of physics and cosmology. It is led by Max Tegmark of MIT and Anthony Aguirre of UCSC, two leading young cosmologists, backed up by an extremely prestigious Scientific Advisory Panel.
Sounds like a great idea, but some of us have questions, primarily concerning the source of funding for FQXi — currently the John Templeton Foundation. The Templeton Foundation is devoted to bringing together science and religion, which may or may not be your cup of tea. I’m already on the record as turning down money from them (see also this Business Week article) — and believe me, turning down money is not part of my usual repertoire. But Max and Anthony and the rest are good scientists, so we here at Cosmic Variance thought it would be good to hear the story behind FQXi in their own words. We invited Anthony to contribute a guest post about the goals and procedures of the new institute, and he was kind enough to agree. Feel free to ask questions and be politely skeptical (or for that matter enthusiastically supportive), and we can all learn more about what’s going on.
———-
I (Anthony Aguirre) have been invited by Sean to write a guest blog entry discussing an exciting new project that Max Tegmark and I have been leading: Foundational Questions in Physics and Cosmology (“FQX”). This program was publicly announced in October, and the Foundational Questions Institute (FQXi) was formally launched as a legal entity in February, as was its first call for proposals. There is a plethora of information on FQXi at www.fqxi.org, but the kind invitation by Cosmic Variance provides a good opportunity to outline informally what FQXi is, why we think it is important, to address some reservations voiced in this forum, and to generate some discussion in the physics and cosmology community.
What is FQXi all about? Its stated mission is “To catalyze, support, and disseminate research on questions at the foundations of physics and cosmology, particularly new frontiers and innovative ideas integral to a deep understanding of reality, but unlikely to be supported by conventional funding sources.” Less formally, the aim of FQXi is to allow researchers in physics, cosmology, and related fields who like to think about and do real research about really big, deep, foundational or even “ultimate” questions, to actually do so — when otherwise they could not. We boiled this type of research down into two defining terms: the research should be foundational (with potentially significant and broad implications for our understanding of the deep or “ultimate” nature of reality) and it should be unconventional (consisting of rigorous research which, because of its speculative, non-mainstream, or high-risk nature, would otherwise go unperformed due to lack of funding.) The particular types of research FQXi will support are detailed in the FQXi Charter and in the first call for proposals, which also features a handy (but by no means whatsoever comprehensive) list of example projects, and their likelihood of being suitable for FQXi funding. In addition to straightforward grants, FQXi will run various other programs — “mini”-grants, conferences, essay contests, a web forum, etc. — focused on the same sort of science.
Why is FQXi important? There are a number of foundational questions that are of deep interest to humanity at large — and are the (often hidden) passion of and inspiration for researchers — but which various financial and “social” pressures make it very difficult for researchers to actually pursue. National funding sources, for example, tend to shy aware from research that is high-risk/high- reward, or speculative, or very fundamental, or unconventional, or “too philosophical”, and instead support research using fairly proven methods with a high probability of advancing science along known routes. There is nothing wrong with this, and it creates a large amount of excellent science. But it leaves some really interesting questions on the sidelines. We go on at length about this in the FQXi Charter — but the researchers FQXi aims to support will know all too well what the problems are. Our goal is to fund the research into foundational questions in physics and cosmology that would otherwise go unfunded.
More money to support really exciting, interesting, and, yes, fun research seems like an unreservedly good thing. Nonetheless, a couple of significant reservations have been voiced to us, both by writers on this blog and others. These are:
1) Some feel research that is very speculative or “borderline philosophical” is just a waste of time and resources — if the research was worth doing, conventional agencies would fund it. We won’t accept this criticism from anyone who has worked on either time machines or the arrow of time (so Sean is out) :), but from others we acknowledge that they feel this way, we respectfully disagree, and we think that many of the giants of 20th century physics (Einstein, Bohr, Schroedinger, Pauli, etc.) would also disagree. Ultimately, those who feel this way are free not to participate in FQXi. We also note that we think it would by great if some private donors were also to support more conventional research in a way that complemented or supplemented federal funding (as they do in, e.g., the Sloan and Packard fellowships); that, however, is not the case here: the donation supporting FQXi is expressely for the purpose of supporting foundational research. Which brings us to…
2) The second major reservation concerns FQXi’s current sole source of funding: the John Templeton Foundation (JTF), an organization that espouses and supports the “constructive dialogue between science and religion.” It is understandable that some people may be suspicious of JTF’s involvement with FQXi, and in today’s political climate in which Intelligent Design and other movements seek to undermine science in order to promote a religious and political agenda, such suspicion is especially understandable. But it is as important as ever to also be open-minded and objective. The salient points, we think, regarding JTF and FQXi are:
- FQXi is a non-profit scientific grant-awarding organization fully independent from its donors (we are actively seeking other donors beyond JTF, see below) and operated in accordance with its Charter. Proposal funding is determined via a standard and rigorous peer-review process, and an expert panel appointed by FQXi. The structure of FQXi is such that donors — including JTF — have no control or influence over individual proposal selection or renewal. Specifically, scientific decisions are made (as enshrined in the FQXi corporate Bylaws) by the Scientific Directorate (Max & I), on the basis of advice from review panels and the Scientific Advisory Panel. The only condition of the JTF grant to FQXi is that FQXi’s grantmaking be consistent with the FQXi Charter, which, as stated previously, can be viewed in its entirity at fqxi.org.
- JTF’s stated interest in FQXi is captured in the FQXi Charter: the questions being tackled by researchers funded by FQXi intimately connect with and inform not just scientific fields, but also philosophy, theology and religious belief systems. Answers to these questions will have profound intellectual, practical, and spiritual implications for anyone with deep curiosity about the world’s true nature.
- While FQXi’s funding is currently all from JTF, we have been strongly encouraged by JTF to seek (and are actively working on finding) additional donors; furthermore, there is no guarantee of JTF funding beyond the first four years — though we certainly hope FQXi will go on long past the initial four-year phase.
- As for JTF benefiting “by association” with FQXi and the great research we hope that it will support, well, we feel that JTF has been extremely generous not just in giving a large sum of money to science, without strings attached, and with a great deal of support through the complex process of setting up FQXi as an independent institute of just the sort that Max & I wanted. If all this reflects well on JTF, I would submit that they deserve it.
We’ve tried hard to make FQXi’s operation and goals as transparent as possible, so those in the community can make informed decisions on whether they would like to participate in what we are hoping to do. We are very excited by the proposals that are coming in so far, and invite interested scientists to take a look at the call for proposals before it is too late (April 2). For those who are not actively researching foundational questions, we hope to have a very active public discussion and outreach program for both scientists and the interested public; we invite you to periodically check the FQXi website.
Thank you for this opportunity to discuss FQXi at Cosmic Variance.
Hi Anthony,
I personally see no harm in this initiative, and possibly very good benefits…I also have no apriori problem with JTF per se, as long as they are kept out of the decision making process (as they seem to be).
The main confusion I have is with the word “foundational”, I doubt you can find two physicists who agree on the precise meaning of this word. So to clarify let me ask a couple of related questions:
1. Is`”foundational” necessarily related to the goals of JTF, bringing together (or blurring the line between) science and religion?
2. How technical can “foundational” be? one can think about lots of high risk/high gain scenarios that have no overlap at all with philosphy, theology, literature etc., is FQXi a natural home for those subjects?
As an example one can think about Wilson’s long series of calculations (spanning a few years) leading to the concepts of the renormalization group: if I am not mistaken this work involved high risk to his career, certainly it was unconventional, and the gain was enormous for the way we think about physics, a true paradigm shift…
And to anticipate somewhat- I am not trying to push an opinion here, or engage in any kind of polemics (there will be enough of that I think), I am really only asking for clarifications…
one
best,
Moshe
OK, reading the charter I see that question 1 is not necessary (also it came out somewhat polemical in tone, sorry…), but I am curious about the second issue…
Moshe, they have an example page to clarify. Among the positive examples is:
* Development of methods to compute probabilities for observables in a string theory/eternal inflation multiverse; or development of a novel dynamical mechanism for picking out a unique vacuum in it
Moshe,
At this point, “Foundational” is operationally defined by the Charter and RFP (linked in the posting) in the sense that these are the documents from which the grant review panels will work and on the basis of which it will be decided whether projects are Foundational enough. From these documents I think/hope it is clear that:
a) Technical is not bad, but a *purely* technical advance that did not change the way the physics is viewed would be of much less interest.
b) High-risk/high reward is a plus, but is not sufficient in and of itself.
On Wilson, my personal feeling would be that Wilson’s work would be something FQXi would have been please to have funded, but might have been difficult to recognize in advance as being paradigm-shifting rather than a purely technical advance; this will be the real challenge, of course, in deciding what to fund.
Anthony
Thanks Anthony, this helps…also having a page of examples (linked by fh) is helpful and somewhat unusual practice.
(BTW, I brought up Wilson, or at least the cleaned-up version of this history, to create a neutral context, I am sure you don’t want to discuss anything specific)
Good luck!
Moshe
A worthy and noble effort. But it doesn’t look like the funding levels (15%-40%) will do much to offset career risks. If one’s publication output, due to effort diverted to an ultimately unfruitful FQXi project, is reduced by up to 40%, especially during the early stages of one’s career, it could well mean the end of it.
The sort of grant that would shelter academics from career risks would be one that would magically bestowed upon them an extra year or two of time, while the rest of the world remains frozen.
As it stands, the FQXi would be most useful to physics Ph.D.s outside of academia. Unfortunately, the task of finding a nonacademic “physicist” (working, for example, as a financial analyst, an engineer, or at a government lab) that is demonstrably able to conduct the research of interest would be exceedingly difficult, though probably not quite impossible.
Belizean,
Thanks for your encouraging words. Stopping time to allow foundational questions research is an excellent idea! Please submit a proposal.
Seriously, though, your point is well taken, and the question of careers for FQXy people is an important and tricky one. I don’t think we can remove the all risk from doing high-risk/high reward research. (Even if we could fund people 100% for years, that would not help them if their research is ultimately unfruitful.) But we can hope to mitigate it a bit so that more risks can actually be taken and more rewards won. Moreover, keep in mind that the recognition and validation bestowed by actually obtaining a grant for one’s research can be invaluable careerwise.
-Anthony
Hi Anthony,
Thanks so much for taking the time and care to write this post.
I tend to think that a constructive dialogue between science and religion is hard to have, since I think the fundamental structure and goals of science are antithetical to those of a system based on faith. This means that I usually would not want to lend credence to such an effort by association (as you know, lending my name to an effort is a surefire recipe for its success :)).
I do find your description of the organizational structure of FQXi reassuring, since it does seem that it is formally separate from JTF. [I should be clear that I don’t consider JTF an evil organization, it is just that I don’t agree with their goals (and their one-time funding of ID, if I understand it correctly, bothers me a lot).]
However, although FQXi is entirely separate from JTF, I do see that on the JTF website the foundation appears in the list of their projects (in the horizontally scrolling banner at the top of the page) just like any of their other projects, such as those on “spirituality” and “unlimited love”. It is associations such as these that bother me. I have seen how scientists who take grant money directly from the foundation are often celebrated on the website and held up as examples of people doing research that lends support to the foundation’s philosophy.
Of course, if it is one’s position that one should try to reconcile science and religion, and that they are not at odds, then one might quite honestly think this is fine.
Nevertheless, your post has certainly provided food for thought, and thanks once again for doing it.
Anthony,
I visited the site and it appears there is a predisposition towards those affiliated with academic institutions. Should I assume that people outside the academic sphere would be precluded from being awarded a grant, or is it possible that the merits of a proposed project may outweigh the lack of academic pedigree?
Thanks,
Elliot
I must say that I’m pretty amazed — and a bit disturbed — to hear that
“A study of the arrow of time or boundary conditions in inflationary cosmology”
and
“Development of methods to compute probabilities for observables in a string theory/eternal inflation multiverse; or development of a novel dynamical mechanism for picking out a unique vacuum in it”
are considered to be “unconventional” topics! I would have thought that nearly everybody would regard these as very mainstream topics, and that the dearth of papers about them is due entirely to the fact that we don’t know how to write them….
Mark,
Thanks again for providing a nice forum to discuss these issues. I understand your concerns, and you should not participate in anything that troubles your conscience. I’d enjoy discussing this with you in more depth at some point. For now suffice it to say that while I am (obviously) pro science and vehemently against the IDers, creationists, etc., and their political/religious agenda, after a quite a lot of dealing by now with JTF I personally feel very comfortable in the program we are pursuing. But everyone in the community needs to, with as much real information as possible, make up their own mind on such issues.
Elliot,
The predisposition you sense is partly a legality: our tax status as a public charity requires us to grant only to other public charities (such as universities, nonprofit research establishments, etc.) In general, I think it is also true that, with some notable exceptions, most really strong researchers do have *some* sort of academic or nonprofit affiliation to which they can have grant money sent. In truly exceptional cases of unaffiliated researchers we would probably try to find a workaround.
Lambchop,
I would say that you may be right, in the sense that these are subjects that would have been very unconventional (and somewhat undfunded) a few years ago (they certainly were when I started thinking about them), but are much more mainstream now. And indeed there is a long history of this steady expansion of science into hitherto “philosophical” or “metaphysical” territory. Part of the goal of FQXi is, in fact, to be at the forefront of this expansion. The review committee might, indeed decide that they want to fund things that are less staid and dull than the multiverse 😉
Hi Anthony,
Thanks for the reply. We should definitely chat sometime. Beer/wine/cocktails should definitely be present also 🙂 Hope to see you soon. Cheers,
What an interesting post; this blog has really been picking up lately. I don’t have a problem with the funding structure here, but I don’t think this new money solves anything anyway. The leading cause of the lack of “fundamental questions research” is not lack of money but fear of tenure denial. Pleanty of professors turn to philosophical and speculative topics after tenure (and money is not an obstacle to this…), but only the most courageous, like Sean and his arrow of time, will do it before. And, though I certainly don’t know any details of his tenure decision, I’m not encouraged by the results. I want very much to tackle foundational questions, but I also want tenure someday. The way I’m feeling right now, you couldn’t pay me any amount of money to do this sort of research during any pre-tenure stage of my career.
If we want young people working on foundational or high-risk topics, we need to change the system, not offer money. At least that’s how it appears to this young, philosophically-leaning graduate student.
Any idea, yet, when the discussion forum on your site might be up?
Sam,
fundamental research is supported, though this is sort of getting philosophical, by Man’s curiosity. It is a slow, not-so-visible (to many people, I guess), yet steady process that has existed throughout the history of the humanity. It is true that few people are fortunate enough to have both talent and funding to work on ‘fundamental’ problems (whatever this word means). But the system of funding (or any cultural system people have constructed) is dictated by the psychology of the humanity, (and of couse, more locally speaking, of a society / a culture). China, for example, is a lot less likely to invest on fundamental research than the U.S. does. You say, “why not change the system of funding?” But that is ultimately equivalent to saying (or at least will lead you to the question of) “why not increase genuine curiosity toward Nature among people in the society?” which is also a slow, not-so-visible process. INCREASE PUBLIC OUTREACH PROGRAMS, you scientists!
A philosophically-leaning graduate student such as yourself is encouraged to become more curious about the interrelations / psychological dynamics between culture and scientific enterprise, and how difficult or slow it is to change the psychology of a people / a culture. So, don’t be hasty. Arousing more curiosity toward Nature among the humanity is a long process.
My opinion of JTF is that if it helps increase the curiosity toward science among the religiously inclined, it is good. Its motives might initially sound nonsensical (or funny?) to some or perhaps many scientists, but mutual understanding among different types of people is in general not achieved for a short period of time. It takes hundreds of years and it is still worth an effort!
by ‘system of funding’ I meant not just money but, with a more broader sense, whatever structures supporting academic research, including the tenure system. Sorry for the ambiguity.
Anthony,
Thank you for your clarifying response. It makes perfect sense.
Elliot
acs, I think that beyond everything you say, which I agree with wholeheartedly, there is another problem internal to physics. This has nothing to do with the overall funding of science but how science internally distributes the funds available to it. The method/system we currently have certainly could be changed, or amended without having to change society on the whole. I think it is more along this lines that these kind of efforts work, and are worth it.
Anthony, your post has cleared up a lot of my own questions, especially concerning the connection with the Templeton Foundation. Like Mark, I don’t think they are evil or anti-science, but I do disagree with their basic aims. So it’s good to know that FQXi is formally separate, although troubling that Templeton is currently the only source of funding. I do hope you are successful at branching out.
Here is a potential test case. From the description of potentially fundable ideas, it seems clear that public outreach and media projects would make viable proposals, as well as pure-research ideas. So let’s imagine that I wanted to take the idea behind my Why Cosmologists Are Atheists essay — a fairly straightforward defense of atheistic materialism in the context of modern physics and cosmology — and expand it into a book or a TV series, complete with careful examinations of the relevant physics issues. Do you think that would be potentially eligible for funding? I’m guessing from your description that the answer would be “yes” (although obviously one couldn’t say that it would actually get funding without first going through the process).
Anthony,
Your answers to Belizean’s and Elliot’s concerns indicate the basic dilemma such an effort as your’s inevitably faces: Foundational research implies challenging the current system of physical theory, which is established on the currently accepted foundations, while the funding process can only realistically consider funding those trained, approved, and supported by the institutions that have a vested interest in training, approving and supporting these same researchers. How likely is it then that such an organization will be able to even recognize, let alone support, a legitimate challenge to the foundations upon which it rests?
For instance, the foundation of Newton’s program of research, which continues today as the practice of modern physics research, is the definition of motion; that is, it is founded on the belief that the structure of the physical universe may be described in terms of a few interactions among a few particles, provided that the function, x(t), holds as the basis for expressing the existence of a particle over time. In the last century, this idea was modified somewhat by the realization that certain rules of transformation replace the continuous existence of particles in the program, but still the definition of motion, upon which the program is based, remains its firm foundation.
If one were to submit a proposal for a project in which this definition of motion was not the foundation of the system to be employed in constructing physical theory, what would a panel of scientists use as the basis for judging the merits of the proposal, since all of their knowledge and understanding of what constitutes physics is based on the accepted definition of motion? Moreover, what if the principal investigator were associated with a nonprofit research establishment, but had no academic credentials? In other words, he or she was not trained, approved and supported by the institutions of normal science? On what basis could the panel possible judge the merits of the proposal?
Obviously, the answer is that they cannot do so. Hence, the proverbial wisdom to the contrary notwithstanding, those whose thinking is inside the box are in no better position to support those whose thinking is outside the box, than a man is who tries to lift himself up by his own bootstraps.
Geez Sean, give it up! The position on religion of non-believers has nothing to do with the foundations of science, just as the position on science of believers has nothing to do with the foundations of religion.
Sean,
I’m glad my post has clarified things. We also will be very happy to get additional funding sources for FQXi, as will JTF. So we’re all in agreement, all we need is the right donor 😉
In terms of your test case, which is an interesting one, in the RFP FAQ we write:
We mean that. (Note that we put it first.) It would be up to the review panel to decide on the merits of the proposal on the basis of that and the other contents of the RFP and FQXi Charter. In terms of any possible displeasure by JTF at the funding of such a proposal, the pertinent question is whether it would be inconsistent with the FQXi Scientific Charter and as such be grounds to terminate future funding for FQXi. Funding the grant would include a tacit decision by the review panel that it is not. If JTF felt otherwise, that is a situation we would have to deal with.
Note that everything I just said applies as well to any other proposal.
cheers,
Anthony
Sean,
(Full disclosure – I have submitted an application for funding. Admittedly a very very long shot due to no current academic affiliation but not done lightly.)
I think it would be wise to draw a careful distinction between philosophically disagreeing with the source of money and concerns that that difference in philosophy may lead to pressure on results or criteria for selection. For example lets say someone proposed a project entitled “A Scientifically falsifiable test for a Supreme Being” that was well thought out scientific experiment that would provide evidence for or against the existence of God. It would certainly meet the criteria perhaps get funded. Now suppose the result was evidence that there was no God. I see no evidence that these results would be suppressed or restricted.
Lets take another example. Should all the scientists at Fermilab, Argonne, Los Alamos etc. quit their jobs because they disagree with Bush adminstration policies.
Now again I will refer to the distinction above. Its one thing to take money. Its another to tak money with strings attached to the outcomes. In my view there is a huge difference.
Elliot
I am glad this posting was put up. Thanks Sean and Anthony. I am wondering.
That one is given further information to think about and not signing out with a conclusive statement about the aims and goals, hidden in agendas, as to the reasons why a new proposal like Seans might be accepted or not based on?
This would have revealled it’s intention/hidden agenda would it not, if you had refused Sean’s proposal? :)What would the criteria be for acceptance?
How many times could one “refuse funding/speaking for” and not be happy with the decision because of that possible criteria, while standing on a principle? 🙂
Sam:
At every stage of an academic career challenges loom: 1) getting a postdoc, 2) getting a faculty job, 3) getting tenure, 4) actually finding time to do some research. The support FQXi can provide for foundational researchers at different levels varies but certainly we are thinking about all these steps (both in terms of helping, and in terms of not doing harm) and interested in creative ideas concerning them. As for step 3, I would not underestimate the usefulness of a) having a grant in hand regarding the “Foundational” work, and b) having senior people in the community also encouraged and supported in doing foundational work.
Chinese student:
Indeed such changes take time. I should say (and perhaps we are in agreement here) that I actually do not think the current system is really broken: in many cases the national funding system we have (at least in the US) works and does a good job — it mainly needs more money pumped into it (overall, and especially, I would say, in fundamental research). And the fact that, at least to some level, fundamental and even foundational scientific research is supported in our society is a marvelous thing, when viewed in the sweep of human history. FQXi is really meant as a complement to public and other more conventional funding, for a more narrow (though I think extremely exciting and even noble) purpose that is often missed by conventional funding sources.
Doug:
Indeed, the sort of researcher who is a) completely outside the traditional research establishment and b) completely outside the known and understood way of doing physics and c) actually doing something worthwhile would be extraordinarily difficult to distinguish from someone that is a) and b) but not c). Under the hypothesis that such people really exist, I don’t really know of a solution to this — if you have ideas please let us know.
All:
I should make a disclaimer here that the comments posted by me on this blog should be construed as my personal take on various issues, consistent with my knowledge, but not as fully official FQXi positions; that is, other FQXi people (and Max Tegmark in particular) may disagree in detail with some things I have said, and opinions I have stated. Detailed and individual-case questions should be make through our most wonderful Project Manager, Kirsten Hubbard, via our official channels. We are, however, working on an “official” FQXi FAQ that will address many of these same questions; look for it on the website soon.