NIEHS throws down for Early Stage Investigators!

Wow!
NIEHS has an RFA (RFA-ES-10-004) out for R01 mech grants reserved Early Stage Investigators. You know, n00bs without any NIH funding yet. They want 6 of them.
Here is what I found especially robust.

Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards. For this funding opportunity, budgets up to $ 400,000 direct costs per year in years one and two, and up to $275,000 in years 3-5 and time periods up to 5 years may be requested.

That first two years of BSD / Professor BlueHair type funding is a very strong statement. It is very clear that what NIEHS are trying to do is start up a lab with a very strong launch. A necessarily strong launch. Equipment, payed-for collaborations, staff and basically just the ability to throw money at every damn problem that gets in the way is…outstanding.
Bravo, NIEHS, bravo.
__
Actually it turns out this is an old program. I don’t know why I’m just becoming aware of it now.

NIEHS throws down for Early Stage Investigators!

Wow!
NIEHS has an RFA (RFA-ES-10-004) out for R01 mech grants reserved Early Stage Investigators. You know, n00bs without any NIH funding yet. They want 6 of them.
Here is what I found especially robust.

Funds Available and Anticipated Number of Awards. For this funding opportunity, budgets up to $ 400,000 direct costs per year in years one and two, and up to $275,000 in years 3-5 and time periods up to 5 years may be requested.

That first two years of BSD / Professor BlueHair type funding is a very strong statement. It is very clear that what NIEHS are trying to do is start up a lab with a very strong launch. A necessarily strong launch. Equipment, payed-for collaborations, staff and basically just the ability to throw money at every damn problem that gets in the way is…outstanding.
Bravo, NIEHS, bravo.
__
Actually it turns out this is an old program. I don’t know why I’m just becoming aware of it now.

Our problem is an "Avalanche of Low Quality Research"? Really?

The doyenne of all that is prof-blogging has a first rank take down of some idiocy posted on the Chronicle of Higher Education. A handful of professors of English, mechanical engineering, medicine, management, and geography have concluded that the greatest threat to our body scientifique is that:

the amount of redundant, inconsequential, and outright poor research has swelled in recent decades, filling countless pages in journals and monographs.

I mean seriously. This is a huge (HUGE!!!11!!!) problem, is it not?

Even if read, many articles that are not cited by anyone would seem to contain little useful information. The avalanche of ignored research has a profoundly damaging effect on the enterprise as a whole. Not only does the uncited work itself require years of field and library or laboratory research. It also requires colleagues to read it and provide feedback, as well as reviewers to evaluate it formally for publication. Then, once it is published, it joins the multitudes of other, related publications that researchers must read and evaluate for relevance to their own work. Reviewer time and energy requirements multiply by the year. The impact strikes at the heart of academe.

Our problem is an “Avalanche of Low Quality Research”? Really?

The doyenne of all that is prof-blogging has a first rank take down of some idiocy posted on the Chronicle of Higher Education. A handful of professors of English, mechanical engineering, medicine, management, and geography have concluded that the greatest threat to our body scientifique is that:

the amount of redundant, inconsequential, and outright poor research has swelled in recent decades, filling countless pages in journals and monographs.

I mean seriously. This is a huge (HUGE!!!11!!!) problem, is it not?

Even if read, many articles that are not cited by anyone would seem to contain little useful information. The avalanche of ignored research has a profoundly damaging effect on the enterprise as a whole. Not only does the uncited work itself require years of field and library or laboratory research. It also requires colleagues to read it and provide feedback, as well as reviewers to evaluate it formally for publication. Then, once it is published, it joins the multitudes of other, related publications that researchers must read and evaluate for relevance to their own work. Reviewer time and energy requirements multiply by the year. The impact strikes at the heart of academe.