Cutting NIH Indirects is Sensible Medicine

nstead, I would rather see us conduct studies, repeatedly, to learn of our processes are efficient. I would like to see us incentivize reproducibility. And then, if we are able to deliver, I would like to see the percent of funding going to science increase. I believe that in a working society, 10% of health care spending should be on medical resea... See more

Given that the current system is onerous and likely flawed, you would imagine that NIH leadership has repeatedly tested whether the current method is superior than say a modified lottery, aka having an initial screen and then randomly giving out the money.

Projects like ResearchHub and Molecule/VitaDAO also offer ways to revive thousands of shelved patents and forgotten data across academia and industry. Samo Burja refers to this knowledge as intellectual dark matter. Transferring IP or creating open-source frameworks, with early patient community involvement, could lead to breakthroughs in screening... See more

Funding agencies need to stop funding under-powered studies using sloppy statistical methods and small group sizes. This will mean that fewer groups will receive funding. However, without some pain there will be no improvement. Labs should be forced to adapt to a harsh new reality that they will only get funding if they conduct high powered, pre-re... See more

Of course not. Self important people giving out someone else's money rarely study their own processes. If study sections are no better than lottery, that would mean a lot of NIH study section officers would no longer need to work hard from home half the day, freeing up money for one more grant.