4 ms·

Peer review is not about funding the best science, it is about funding the best connected and ensuring those that have climbed to the top keep their position ev

Peer review is not about funding the best science, it is about funding the best connected and ensuring those that have climbed to the top keep their position even if they are out of ideas. More seriously, the problem with approaches like this is the people who are chosen would be mad to actually work on the idea they put up. At most the funding is for 18 month and what happens if at the end of that time you have nothing? If you want this idea to work the funding has to be for at least 10 years so that people can afford to take real risk and have enough time to build a track record if the idea doesn't pan out.

cassowary37 9y ago
not sure this is entirely fair. While there's certainly some cronyism (see my earlier comment), study sections are mostly about funding the safest science - i.e., the project with the least chance of failure and the fewest flaws. But they don't have to be. Many of the 'big idea'-focused mechanisms at NIH are 4 or 5 years - plenty of time to make real headway. These would work if we supported enough of them. Parenthetically, high-risk science does not mean shooting the moon - a well-designed project, even if it's high risk, will still yield /something/ valuable both for the field, and for the investigator's career development. That's why reviewers tend to look closely at the alternatives/pitfalls section of grants - what will you do if the experiment blows up?
- danieltillett 9y ago
  I am somewhat biased by having been through the Australian system where cronyism is alive and well. If you have 4 or 5 years you really only have 2 years before you have to switch to low risk if things aren't working out to give yourself time to get enough papers out before you need to apply for the next grant. What I did when I was an academic was spend 70% of my and my students/postdocs time on low risk activities and 30% on high risk. This keeps the risk down and still allow for some dreams.

cassowary37 9y ago

not sure this is entirely fair. While there's certainly some cronyism (see my earlier comment), study sections are mostly about funding the safest science - i.e., the project with the least chance of failure and the fewest flaws. But they don't have to be. Many of the 'big idea'-focused mechanisms at NIH are 4 or 5 years - plenty of time to make real headway. These would work if we supported enough of them. Parenthetically, high-risk science does not mean shooting the moon - a well-designed project, even if it's high risk, will still yield /something/ valuable both for the field, and for the investigator's career development. That's why reviewers tend to look closely at the alternatives/pitfalls section of grants - what will you do if the experiment blows up?

danieltillett 9y ago
I am somewhat biased by having been through the Australian system where cronyism is alive and well. If you have 4 or 5 years you really only have 2 years before you have to switch to low risk if things aren't working out to give yourself time to get enough papers out before you need to apply for the next grant. What I did when I was an academic was spend 70% of my and my students/postdocs time on low risk activities and 30% on high risk. This keeps the risk down and still allow for some dreams.