NIH grant applications are not competing with the reviewers!

@SavrajGrewal Hypocrites who unrealistically hold the bar for others above their own should be kicked off panels (using steel toed boots).

— Brent Derry (@wbderry) August 18, 2015

So misguided. Understandable frustration…but misguided.

Think of it this way- do you dismiss Olympic judging of diving or figure skating because the judges can’t do that themselves? What about the scoring of boxing?

Your competition is not the judge. It is the other participants in the event that stand between you and glory.

In NIH grant review, that means the other applications that have been submitted.

Brief thought on GenX scientists

I detailed some of the ways that my generation of scientist had been screwed in a well received prior post.

Today I thought about another factor. Scientific impact of a scientist is captured by paper citations, which is related to the number of people working within a sphere of investigation. A given scientist’s reputation can be burnished by the number of publishing scientists that he or she is respected by and viewed by as a thought leader. 
Scientific progeny are a key factor. The trainees that exit out labs, gain faculty positions and start up vigorous publication trains very frequently boost our own reputations.
When the odds of trainees becoming traditional, independent, academic research scientists are lower for a generation of mentoring scientists, this will cripple the apparent importance and influence of that generation. 
How convenient for the Boomers.

Runts of the Litter

Sometimes, I page back through my Web of Science list of pubs to the minimal citations range. 

I love all of my papers of course, and feel a little sorry for the ones that never garnered much appreciation.