3 Comments

Agree completely - funders have been slow off the mark to realise that the current system incentivises showy science with quick results. The ALS story is heart-breaking.

I have 2 additional thoughts:

1. I'd like to see funders support collaborative projects - even adversarial collaborations - where different groups tackle the same question. Could use same or different methods. So replication/generalisability built in from the get-go, rather than as afterthought.

2. Would be great if a University set up a MSc course that trained people in how to detect fraud/questionable research. Alas, idea came too late for me to push for it here in Oxford. Might be feasible to bolt it on to a course in a topic like Evidence-based medicine.

Expand full comment

I do grant writing for nonprofits, public agencies, and some research-based businesses; the barriers and challenges the NIH and NSF put up never cease to amaze me: https://seliger.com/2018/04/11/no-rush-nsf-accelerating-discovery-educating-future-stem-workforce-program/.

And then there is the NSF's general application guide, versus the specific RFP in question, each of which recursively and maddeningly refer back to each other.

Expand full comment

1/10th of 1%?!

It should be 10-20%! Probably even more.

Expand full comment