> But mRNA was precisely the topic that required a multi-decade commitment. It all comes down to this ^ for me. Advances take decades from start to finish. In

> But mRNA was precisely the topic that required a multi-decade commitment. It all comes down to this ^ for me. Advances take decades from start to finish. Institutions/organziations (including funders) need to start not just funding innovation (1-5 year cycles), but investing, really committing, to 20-100 year plans, at minimum. My biggest fear is that hands are thrown up in the air, and science turns into yet another "content" producer (there are signs, to me, that this is exactly where we are headed). Can't produce science^D content fast enough? Skip peer-review. Community of experts getting in your way? Ignore them. We need to get science into tik-tok, because think of the reach for STEM! Really, do we need science to equate to 15-second dopamine hits? None of this to say that there aren't problems with peer review, but, at least in the field I'm in, peer review is critical, useful, and an important aspect of becoming a scientist. If anything, learning to peer-review teaches one how to critically evaluate others work. Are there people who aren't taught how to Peer review? Sure. Does this mean that we should stop peer-review? The logic doesn't follow.