4 ms·

> What actually happens is you provide a research question and the way you intend to approach it. Which is what I described. Except that I'm comparing two iden

> What actually happens is you provide a research question and the way you intend to approach it. Which is what I described. Except that I'm comparing two identical candidates except that the one has better science than the other, which is the genesis of my thesis: Bad science should not get funded. All of the things you mention come into play at one degree or another depending on field. I think with some experience can agree to this, but even with this, I don't see how an alternative approach would make it better than what we currently have. Evolution is really what's happening, and from my perspective for the better. > Age Advancing one funeral at a time... > Gender. The effect of this is field specific. Biology for instance skews female and I've met some fiercely competitive female biologists who are very successful, but besides my anecdote, females are preferred in biology overall. > Race. My sample size is a little small but does not skew Caucasian. > History. Which I don't see as a bad thing. Except if a PI makes the mistake of hiring an incompetent (but very aggressive) postdoc that can't tell a nude mouse from a barbering one... I've seen this happen and yes, the person carries clout from the lab with them. > Funded before. I don't see this as a bad thing either. As there as numerous (though not nearly as large) sources of funding only for young scientists to help alleviate this issue. But this + history = track record. So bad for some, but good if controlled for bad science. But this too can be overcome through aggression and politicking. > Reviewer preference. From my experience a lot of established scientists outsource this to younger scientists so that they can get experience judging good science. But yes, this is all over the place. But for all the shortcomings like the randomness you mention, this is a good tool especially if the reviewer pool is somewhat diverse, but also experts, a hard combination for sure. > Worth doing Or competes with things they're working on in secret... > it's hardly a meritocracy You meant to say Utopia right? If you don't expect it to be a meritocracy then you'll be happier in the long run. As long as the system is evolving in a good direction, which from my perspective it is, we can ignore that it is not a perfect meritocracy. But creating perfect markets is pretty hard to do in general.

Fomite 9y ago
> Advancing one funeral at a time... This is not a good thing. > The effect of this is field specific. Biology for instance skews female and I've met some fiercely competitive female biologists who are very successful, but besides my anecdote, females are preferred in biology overall. Biology skews female. Success in biology grant applications does not. https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/29/women-in-science/ https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/29/women-in-science/ > My sample size is a little small but does not skew Caucasian. NIH funding does. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-commissioned-study-identifies-gaps-nih-funding-success-rates-black-researchers https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-commission... > Which I don't see as a bad thing. Except if a PI makes the mistake of hiring an incompetent (but very aggressive) postdoc that can't tell a nude mouse from a barbering one... I've seen this happen and yes, the person carries clout from the lab with them. But this entirely undermines your concept of this being a meritocracy. The name behind your former job doesn't mean your idea is any good, but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. > I don't see this as a bad thing either. As there as numerous (though not nearly as large) sources of funding only for young scientists to help alleviate this issue. They are manifestly failing. > But this + history = track record. So bad for some, but good if controlled for bad science. But this too can be overcome through aggression and politicking. This isn't necessarily good for science. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239 > From my experience a lot of established scientists outsource this to younger scientists so that they can get experience judging good science. Not on study panels they don't. > If you don't expect it to be a meritocracy then you'll be happier in the long run. As long as the system is evolving in a good direction, which from my perspective it is, we can ignore that it is not a perfect meritocracy. But creating perfect markets is pretty hard to do in general. It's not evolving in a good direction. Science funding is accumulating in a smaller number of "long tail" well funded labs. Science is hemorrhaging young investigators, and especially women and PoCs. The average age of a first major independent award is climbing. Paylines are going down. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/03/06/mid-career-investigators-shifting-demographics-nih-grant-recipients/ https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/03/06/mid-career-investiga... I really can't see how you can possibly look at this and go "Oh yeah, this is going good places."
- tertius 9y ago
  > Advancing one funeral at a time... > This is not a good thing. That's my point, but it's not as big of a problem as blog posts make it out to be. Not small by any means though. > Biology skews female. Success in biology grant applications does not. I'd like to see proof of this. Let me quote some dubious lines. > "women are underrepresented in high-ranking positions." This is to be studied, but the statement in itself means little. Without analysis we could compare with fields where women are over represented. Analysis required. > "The exact reasons for this attrition are debated" Attrition? As far as I'm concerned the rates of females in higher positions, while low, has not gone down. If we mean women in science in general then that also has to be analyzed. > “People are more likely to study issues relevant to their own health,” she said. Nonsense. People study where there's funding. Breast cancer is studied more than prostate cancer? Give me a break. Is there no bias? No. What affect does it currently have in funding. Your article points out, we can't tell. > "The discordance between written feedback and scores suggests subconscious gender bias bleeds into the review process — influencing both male and female reviewers." So because we tend to praise women more than men and accept failure in women more than men that means what exactly? We should also fund them more easily than men? > “These findings confirm that it influences us.” Yes, but this doesn't, by itself, mean anything negative. Which the paper admits. > "Subconscious gender bias may lead reviewers to hold women to higher standards than men" It doesn't seem to be possible to get this from the data. I can claim that society is much more tolerant of failure in women but I can't claim this purely from the data in this research, the converse is also true. > "The authors' analyses suggest that subtle gender bias may continue" The authors of the study can't even make the claim that you want them to make. Back to your claim: > "Success in biology grant applications does not." The study claimed nothing about success. > "NIH funding does." ... skew Caucasian. Not if you're American. Read the link you left here. I would personally highly agree with this line from your link: "While further examination is needed to identify causes for the differences in NIH R01 grant success, one possibility the authors cite is that the quality of educational and mentoring experience" But that gets political. If we're talking about immigrants then again African and West Indies education is sub par (I'm African.) which is a major confounding factor. > The name behind your former job doesn't mean your idea is any good, but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. No, but it means that you likely got better training than someone from an underfunded non-competitive environment. This is one way to judge (even though it is not a perfect test) someone's likelihood of being a good scientist. I think you would agree that good training plays a monumental role in developing a good scientist. > They are manifestly failing. (Funding for young scientists.) How so? > Not on study panels they don't. Not really relevant to what I was saying about reviews. > This isn't necessarily good for science. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239 (in response to track record being important). I didn't claim it was perfect. Nor did I claim that it will lead to discovering and funding scientists that will have great impact and letting those sometimes fall through the cracks. What would better? If random selection is better then we can start having an argument. Not that we could really test this. > Science is hemorrhaging young investigators * mid career. And this should follow with a question (that isn't answered by the research you cite): why? > , and especially women and Do we have any proof of this? If you were to say "attract" instead of "hemorrhage" I may more easily agree. But in some fields which females seem to prefer this is overwhelmingly false, see health. > PoCs. This does not seem to be the fault of the funding institutions. > I really can't see how you can possibly look at this and go "Oh yeah, this is going good places." Because institutions like the NIH are making evolutionary strides at allocating money to good science, slowly removing the benefit of unethical behaviour among other things. Most of the problems you cite though are not related to the funding institutions but to externalities. Bias, education, governmental funding etc.

Fomite 9y ago

> Advancing one funeral at a time... This is not a good thing. > The effect of this is field specific. Biology for instance skews female and I've met some fiercely competitive female biologists who are very successful, but besides my anecdote, females are preferred in biology overall. Biology skews female. Success in biology grant applications does not. https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/29/women-in-science/ https://www.statnews.com/2016/07/29/women-in-science/ > My sample size is a little small but does not skew Caucasian. NIH funding does. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-commissioned-study-identifies-gaps-nih-funding-success-rates-black-researchers https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-commission... > Which I don't see as a bad thing. Except if a PI makes the mistake of hiring an incompetent (but very aggressive) postdoc that can't tell a nude mouse from a barbering one... I've seen this happen and yes, the person carries clout from the lab with them. But this entirely undermines your concept of this being a meritocracy. The name behind your former job doesn't mean your idea is any good, but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. > I don't see this as a bad thing either. As there as numerous (though not nearly as large) sources of funding only for young scientists to help alleviate this issue. They are manifestly failing. > But this + history = track record. So bad for some, but good if controlled for bad science. But this too can be overcome through aggression and politicking. This isn't necessarily good for science. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239 > From my experience a lot of established scientists outsource this to younger scientists so that they can get experience judging good science. Not on study panels they don't. > If you don't expect it to be a meritocracy then you'll be happier in the long run. As long as the system is evolving in a good direction, which from my perspective it is, we can ignore that it is not a perfect meritocracy. But creating perfect markets is pretty hard to do in general. It's not evolving in a good direction. Science funding is accumulating in a smaller number of "long tail" well funded labs. Science is hemorrhaging young investigators, and especially women and PoCs. The average age of a first major independent award is climbing. Paylines are going down. https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/03/06/mid-career-investigators-shifting-demographics-nih-grant-recipients/ https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2017/03/06/mid-career-investiga... I really can't see how you can possibly look at this and go "Oh yeah, this is going good places."

tertius 9y ago
> Advancing one funeral at a time... > This is not a good thing. That's my point, but it's not as big of a problem as blog posts make it out to be. Not small by any means though. > Biology skews female. Success in biology grant applications does not. I'd like to see proof of this. Let me quote some dubious lines. > "women are underrepresented in high-ranking positions." This is to be studied, but the statement in itself means little. Without analysis we could compare with fields where women are over represented. Analysis required. > "The exact reasons for this attrition are debated" Attrition? As far as I'm concerned the rates of females in higher positions, while low, has not gone down. If we mean women in science in general then that also has to be analyzed. > “People are more likely to study issues relevant to their own health,” she said. Nonsense. People study where there's funding. Breast cancer is studied more than prostate cancer? Give me a break. Is there no bias? No. What affect does it currently have in funding. Your article points out, we can't tell. > "The discordance between written feedback and scores suggests subconscious gender bias bleeds into the review process — influencing both male and female reviewers." So because we tend to praise women more than men and accept failure in women more than men that means what exactly? We should also fund them more easily than men? > “These findings confirm that it influences us.” Yes, but this doesn't, by itself, mean anything negative. Which the paper admits. > "Subconscious gender bias may lead reviewers to hold women to higher standards than men" It doesn't seem to be possible to get this from the data. I can claim that society is much more tolerant of failure in women but I can't claim this purely from the data in this research, the converse is also true. > "The authors' analyses suggest that subtle gender bias may continue" The authors of the study can't even make the claim that you want them to make. Back to your claim: > "Success in biology grant applications does not." The study claimed nothing about success. > "NIH funding does." ... skew Caucasian. Not if you're American. Read the link you left here. I would personally highly agree with this line from your link: "While further examination is needed to identify causes for the differences in NIH R01 grant success, one possibility the authors cite is that the quality of educational and mentoring experience" But that gets political. If we're talking about immigrants then again African and West Indies education is sub par (I'm African.) which is a major confounding factor. > The name behind your former job doesn't mean your idea is any good, but we'll give you the benefit of the doubt. No, but it means that you likely got better training than someone from an underfunded non-competitive environment. This is one way to judge (even though it is not a perfect test) someone's likelihood of being a good scientist. I think you would agree that good training plays a monumental role in developing a good scientist. > They are manifestly failing. (Funding for young scientists.) How so? > Not on study panels they don't. Not really relevant to what I was saying about reviews. > This isn't necessarily good for science. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6312/aaf5239 (in response to track record being important). I didn't claim it was perfect. Nor did I claim that it will lead to discovering and funding scientists that will have great impact and letting those sometimes fall through the cracks. What would better? If random selection is better then we can start having an argument. Not that we could really test this. > Science is hemorrhaging young investigators * mid career. And this should follow with a question (that isn't answered by the research you cite): why? > , and especially women and Do we have any proof of this? If you were to say "attract" instead of "hemorrhage" I may more easily agree. But in some fields which females seem to prefer this is overwhelmingly false, see health. > PoCs. This does not seem to be the fault of the funding institutions. > I really can't see how you can possibly look at this and go "Oh yeah, this is going good places." Because institutions like the NIH are making evolutionary strides at allocating money to good science, slowly removing the benefit of unethical behaviour among other things. Most of the problems you cite though are not related to the funding institutions but to externalities. Bias, education, governmental funding etc.