I was happy to see this but it was difficult to discern what the underlying arguments were, and I think the author maybe overreaches a bit. It took me reading t

I was happy to see this but it was difficult to discern what the underlying arguments were, and I think the author maybe overreaches a bit. It took me reading through a lot of what they wrote to understand they seem to be arguing for more researcher-based (as opposed to project-based funding). I although I completely agree, I think a lot of what's cited is a little misleading or one-sided. I also think in general, focusing too much on any single funding mechanism could backfire. In one of the pieces, for example, they discuss the frequently cited Dutch (?) study showing that people just above and below the cutoff in grant scores (presumably the same in actual proposal quality) end up differing in subsequent funding and probability of attaining full professorship. They argue that citation rates don't differ, though, claiming this is a more important metric, and using it as an example of again, how the individual researcher is paramount. However, doesn't that pattern just sort of point out problems with the funding effects? That is, it seems to be saying that those with slightly lower scores were more likely to give up trying at all, and were less likely to obtain material resources and recognition, even though they were just as impactful scientifically speaking, at least as far as citations are concerned. It's also the case that this grant funding mechanism is just one way in which structural factors can affect the career trajectories of talented scientists -- there are many others. I've grown very suspicious of many of the sorts of studies the author cites, mostly because most of the problems I've seen in biomedical academics game the system so subtly but pervasively. That is, many of the hypothetical patterns they point to could just as easily be explained by any number of causal explanations once you start to include corruption and deceit in your models. The models they discuss are largely predicated on different hypotheses about talent, and ignore manipulation of the system metrics dishonestly. The whole "funding of individual investigators" model seems promising but also should be setting off alarm bells everywhere. Isn't this the point of tenure? If we are talking about funding models like this seriously, what does that say about the actual state of tenured positions and what's going on? It has this comical quality, like "if only there were some system of funding people without strings attached so they could pursue their own intellectual interests..." You could make the argument that there aren't enough tenured positions, which is fair. But what about how those tenured positions are funded? They are seen now as largely dependent on obtaining funding through typical means, which then means you're selecting based on ability to bring in income through traditional grant projects. But then why not just do that? It's obvious something is broken.