Cool, let's destroy our tourism industry completely!

Yes, absolutely. Very frustrating for those of us who criticize because we care and want the institution to be as strong and fair as possible.

I think the main takeaway is that the process is too complex to be completely beholden to a single set of numerical scores. But also needs to be transparent and the leaders carefully selected.

Yes, absolutely. And applicants have the opportunity to read strategic priorities for the ICs they apply to. Peer review takes none of this into account when apps are evaluated so apps could be scored incongruently with these priorities.

disputes & this is usually done in good faith. Nobody agrees on every decision but on the whole it's acceptable.

What scares me is having this process led by cronies, antivaxxers, people who disapprove of all animal research, people who don't care about ethics, eugenicists. And that is a real risk.

affected by a less well-studied disease you might appreciate the NIH dipping into the 16% range for the best scoring app on that topic, but if you score in the 14% of a commonly studied field and your app was unfunded you would feel this to be unfair. The second stage of review deals w these

differently than one from NIAAA? Of course not, but it happens. Then within the ICs there are different strategic priorities which are outlined in the IC plans. So certain diseases, models, mechanisms may be prioritized. And some topics may have fewer applicants competing for them. If you are

The NIH decision process has never been "fair" per se. Congress appropriates funding by IC, for one, so some ICe have more money to give out (and therefore give to research deemed less 'impactful" by study sections than other ICs). Is it fair for an addiction grant held by NIDA to be evaluated

But within the scientific community, consensus is a very powerful word that conveys just how strong a phenomenon is. Like "don't just take my word for it. All of the people I collaborate AND compete with agree!). So it makes sense why a journalist speaking with scientists would use the term.

I think the article was mostly good, but I do agree with you on this point. Enough of the public already thinks scientists are part of a conspiracy (in cahoots with big pharma, or our own secret cabals), consensus kind of reinforced this.

JD took Vought to a midnight event at Pottery Barn because the Crate and Barrel crew were too spicy