There are several alternatives to the current funding giants, and I think they'll offer superior returns. If they do, NIH and others will change. My favorite e

There are several alternatives to the current funding giants, and I think they'll offer superior returns. If they do, NIH and others will change. My favorite example: Janelia Farm - I believe they expect 50% of their projects to fail. A Janelia recruitment excerpt is illustrative (and you don't have to have done a post-doc even to lead a lab): "We invite applications from biochemists, biologists, chemists, computer scientists, engineers, mathematicians, neurobiologists and physicists who are passionate in their pursuit of important problems in basic scientific and technical research. All laboratories are internally funded without extramural grants. Scientists at Janelia have no formal teaching duties and minimal administrative responsibilities. Janelia labs are small groups of postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and technicians tackling challenging research problems that are expected to have transformative impact. Group leaders are expected to engage in the direct conduct of research in a highly interactive and collaborative environment." It's not the only way - and I doubt Janelia thinks it should be - but this style could be good for science in general. Even if funding levels return, I think they should probably return in a different form. Janelia might offer a blueprint for that. http://www.janelia.org/ http://www.janelia.org/