Comments on: Yet another commentary on the NIH funding problem http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/yet-another-commentary-on-the-nih-funding-problem/ biomedical research, just another job... Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:20:54 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: Piled Higher, Deeper http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/yet-another-commentary-on-the-nih-funding-problem/#comment-720 Piled Higher, Deeper Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:17:50 +0000 http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/yet-another-commentary-on-the-nih-funding-problem/#comment-720 I noticed from one of the comments in Nature on this that there were apparently only 2,000 comments received. That seems unbelievably low to me. Everybody I talk to is complaining about either funding or lack of jobs for young scientists. Only 2,000 scientists managed to dash off a quick note to the NIH? Kinda like voter turnout, you get what you deserve. I noticed from one of the comments in Nature on this that there were apparently only 2,000 comments received. That seems unbelievably low to me. Everybody I talk to is complaining about either funding or lack of jobs for young scientists. Only 2,000 scientists managed to dash off a quick note to the NIH?

Kinda like voter turnout, you get what you deserve.

]]> By: drugmonkey http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/yet-another-commentary-on-the-nih-funding-problem/#comment-715 drugmonkey Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:30:36 +0000 http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/yet-another-commentary-on-the-nih-funding-problem/#comment-715 thanks for chiming in and indeed your experiment would be fascinating to see. i think the way to do this would be to piggyback onto their online-reviewing pilots, much as I disagree with that direction. but in the practical of getting a study done relatively inexpensively... <i>"Did you notice the lead editorial in the same issue mentioned the getting more senior scientists onto study section as a major priority, yet again."</i> oh, I saw that all right. I do try not to repeat myself too often you know :-/ <i>"It is also important to ensure that senior, accomplished scientists serve on study sections. There is simply no replacement for the brains, experience, insight and judgement [sic; is this UK spelling or typo? DM] that they bring to bear on applications."</i> Once again, completely data-free and in the case of "brains" clearly false allegations. good god they don't even try, do they? thanks for chiming in and indeed your experiment would be fascinating to see. i think the way to do this would be to piggyback onto their online-reviewing pilots, much as I disagree with that direction. but in the practical of getting a study done relatively inexpensively…

“Did you notice the lead editorial in the same issue mentioned the getting more senior scientists onto study section as a major priority, yet again.”

oh, I saw that all right. I do try not to repeat myself too often you know :-/

“It is also important to ensure that senior, accomplished scientists serve on study sections. There is simply no replacement for the brains, experience, insight and judgement [sic; is this UK spelling or typo? DM] that they bring to bear on applications.”

Once again, completely data-free and in the case of “brains” clearly false allegations. good god they don’t even try, do they?

]]> By: Theodore Price http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/yet-another-commentary-on-the-nih-funding-problem/#comment-713 Theodore Price Wed, 12 Sep 2007 20:07:45 +0000 http://drugmonkey.wordpress.com/2007/09/12/yet-another-commentary-on-the-nih-funding-problem/#comment-713 First post from a long-time reader. First off, as a youngster who just got his first asst prof position (at 32) your blog and the commentors here are an invaluable resource for me, thanks to all of you. Onto the issue, I think that Martinson raised some very good points about the young vs. old(er) investigators and his proposition for universities taking over the full salary of very well established investigators would certainly reduce a bit of burden (at least it seems like it could if handled administratively in the appropriate manner). I agree with him that NIH-dependency (or percieved dependency even) is a major problem that must be handled and universities should face it head on and with transparency. Did you notice the lead editorial in the same issue mentioned the getting more senior scientists onto study section as a major priority, yet again. Why not have NIH run an experiment. Establish a study section of asst profs and postdocs to run at the same time as an established study section but keep them completely independent (with the established one not even knowing the other exists). Leave all the actual scoring and summary statements to the established group but compare the summaries for the grants and scores between the groups over a few cycles and see what happens. To make it even more interesting, track the progress of the proposed projects over a couple years (without attention to what is funded or not) and see which groups were able to best identify projects that would make a contribution. A seperate independent panel could judge this comprised of senior and junior researchers in the same field. Would something of that sort give us a better picture of what is actually important in peer review of grants rather than just the same old dogma? I'm not sure but it would be a step in that direction. First post from a long-time reader.
First off, as a youngster who just got his first asst prof position (at 32) your blog and the commentors here are an invaluable resource for me, thanks to all of you.

Onto the issue, I think that Martinson raised some very good points about the young vs. old(er) investigators and his proposition for universities taking over the full salary of very well established investigators would certainly reduce a bit of burden (at least it seems like it could if handled administratively in the appropriate manner). I agree with him that NIH-dependency (or percieved dependency even) is a major problem that must be handled and universities should face it head on and with transparency.

Did you notice the lead editorial in the same issue mentioned the getting more senior scientists onto study section as a major priority, yet again. Why not have NIH run an experiment. Establish a study section of asst profs and postdocs to run at the same time as an established study section but keep them completely independent (with the established one not even knowing the other exists). Leave all the actual scoring and summary statements to the established group but compare the summaries for the grants and scores between the groups over a few cycles and see what happens. To make it even more interesting, track the progress of the proposed projects over a couple years (without attention to what is funded or not) and see which groups were able to best identify projects that would make a contribution. A seperate independent panel could judge this comprised of senior and junior researchers in the same field. Would something of that sort give us a better picture of what is actually important in peer review of grants rather than just the same old dogma? I’m not sure but it would be a step in that direction.

]]>