> They want to get as much research done as possible I agree, but it certainly does not feel like the NIH has thought about this carefully either. My impressi

> They want to get as much research done as possible I agree, but it certainly does not feel like the NIH has thought about this carefully either. My impression is that the NIH does what does because this is how it has always been done (and that worked well enough for the PIs they consult). I would love to see data suggesting that the current arrangement is optimal--or even close to it. The only thing that comes to mind is a recent paper arguing that peer review scores for grants were mildly predictive of the number of number of resulting publications. As for staff scientists, one good staff scientist could certainly be more productive than a gaggle of newbie masters' students on their own. Right now, everyone is incentivized to do just enough to get the next paper. Permanent employees could build up infrastructure (protocols, code, etc.) that is actually reusable and ultimately more efficient.