I worry a bit that it would just become self-reinforcing, although I'm largely agreement with you. Some former NIH directors suggested grant funding should basi

I worry a bit that it would just become self-reinforcing, although I'm largely agreement with you. Some former NIH directors suggested grant funding should basically be a lottery outcome; maybe grants should be funded in proportion to market predicted risk or something? You'd probably want to be funding some high risk studies. Or maybe you want to fund those more? Seems like there's some issues there, in that if the market is really strongly predicting some outcome, maybe the study is unnecessary? In any event, I've often thought that grant decisions should somehow be opened up more somehow. Obviously it could get out of hand, but the idiosyncratic decisions of grant review panels seems to lead to a lot of navel gazing-type processes.