4 ms·
HHMI is crazy, it has definitely had a positive impact on my girlfriends PhD experience and allowed her to take on a 'post doc killer' project. It's taken her a
by obmelvin 6y ago
HHMI is crazy, it has definitely had a positive impact on my girlfriends PhD experience and allowed her to take on a 'post doc killer' project. It's taken her almost 3 years, but she's gotten great quality data, and just got a great review back from Nature Chem with proposed experiments as expected.
Also, the period can increase as time goes on. Her lab doesn't have to renew for 9 years I think (they renewed last summer), if not 7.
Just my 2c, it seems to me like these funding structures do have a positive impact on the research environment. That said, it's obviously a model that really requires them to select the best of the best labs as you mention, because one org (or even the gov) quite simply can't give blank checks to every lab.
- jrochkind1 6y ago> That said, it's obviously a model that really requires them to select the best of the best labs as you mention... It seems like it's also a model that makes labs better. What labs will be the "best of the best labs" is not independent from the way their funding sources provide pressure/rewards/punishments to do work in certain ways or do certain kinds of work.
- obmelvin 6y agoYes, you are very much correct. Unfortunately, if HHMI and the like are unwilling* to do these sorts of funding experiments, I'm not really sure who will. * I can't claim to be up-to-date on the distribution of labs funded so for all I know someone is already doing this.
- etrautmann 6y agoHHMI is not the only one - certainly DARPA is willing to provide large funds for specific areas of interest (though a VERY different funding model). Wellcome trust, the Allen Institute, Broad institute, and others also work with slightly different models that can complement the NIH funding lines.