3 ms·
Why not both? It's astonishing that we have, essentially, a single "one-size-fits-all"[0] mechanism for funding biomedical research. We should have a bunch, ra
by mattkrause 5y ago
Why not both?
It's astonishing that we have, essentially, a single "one-size-fits-all"[0] mechanism for funding biomedical research. We should have a bunch, ranging from "trust me, I'm a genius" to "you've never heard of me, but the data suggest this will work." There should be mechanisms where tons of preliminary data are required, but also mechanisms to generate that prelim data. There should be mechanisms for trainees, but also to keep experienced people in the field.
[0] Essentially, the NIH's R01. Even that needs work because inflation has chipped away at what one modular budget can support.
- epistasis 5y agoYes, I think I'm suggesting both! I also agree with how R01 has changed as they become more and more competitive with lower funding rates. There's also been a rise in "but science" projects in bio, starting with the human genome project, that mirrors some of the big science that happens in physics. So adding in that track of funding there are kind of three funding tracks that are necessary.