Randomize NIH grant giving

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

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.

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.

It appears the study section is as good as a coin flip. Aka. Percentile of 1 is little different than 4 or 11 It's nearly entirely arbitrary. We don't know if percentile 60 is as good bc we don't have enough data

ou might wonder if study section leaders are the best scientists. Rest assured. They aren't. They are typically mid career, mediocre scientists. (This is not just a joke, data support this claim see www.drvinayprasad.com). They rarely have written extremely influential papers.