Howard Crawford
@hccvpdac.bsky.social
Scientific Director of the Henry Ford Pancreatic Cancer Center. Cellular Plasticity is my jam.
Always. Demonstrating that your own work reveals a gap in knowledge, with support from your colleagues’ work that those gaps were never filled, is a reasonable (and probably true) strategy
November 26, 2025 at 1:13 AM
Always. Demonstrating that your own work reveals a gap in knowledge, with support from your colleagues’ work that those gaps were never filled, is a reasonable (and probably true) strategy
I hear you. Happy to move this discussion offline. I should have known when you hadn’t heard the term “grant mafia” before whereas with others they nod knowingly and move on.
November 25, 2025 at 12:11 AM
I hear you. Happy to move this discussion offline. I should have known when you hadn’t heard the term “grant mafia” before whereas with others they nod knowingly and move on.
So either study sections connected to cancer are particularly devious (again limited to the last 5 years only), so that I’m privy to the only 3 examples orrrr…
November 24, 2025 at 11:26 PM
So either study sections connected to cancer are particularly devious (again limited to the last 5 years only), so that I’m privy to the only 3 examples orrrr…
The environment I’m specifically talking about is the 4% (or whatever we call it now) funding level. It inspires bad gamespersonship when these things I’m talking about were already in play in better times.
November 24, 2025 at 11:18 PM
The environment I’m specifically talking about is the 4% (or whatever we call it now) funding level. It inspires bad gamespersonship when these things I’m talking about were already in play in better times.
Nothing “supposed” about it. You’re not concerned, that’s cool. I am, particularly in this environment that incentivizes bad behavior.
November 24, 2025 at 11:00 PM
Nothing “supposed” about it. You’re not concerned, that’s cool. I am, particularly in this environment that incentivizes bad behavior.
Knowing people on some of these study sections in some cases, knowing people with grants reviewed by these study sections in others. In the first case, the SS was disbanded. In the second, all reviews were thrown out. Have a 3rd example, but I don’t know what eventually happened.
November 24, 2025 at 10:03 PM
Knowing people on some of these study sections in some cases, knowing people with grants reviewed by these study sections in others. In the first case, the SS was disbanded. In the second, all reviews were thrown out. Have a 3rd example, but I don’t know what eventually happened.
Some have been uncovered in the last 5 years. Don’t know what’s going on now.
November 24, 2025 at 9:46 PM
Some have been uncovered in the last 5 years. Don’t know what’s going on now.
Of course! But it often takes a while starting with expressing a suspicion, followed by investigation. Sometimes I think the SROs are too timid. They have the most consistent interactions with the panel. They should see it first.
November 24, 2025 at 9:43 PM
Of course! But it often takes a while starting with expressing a suspicion, followed by investigation. Sometimes I think the SROs are too timid. They have the most consistent interactions with the panel. They should see it first.
I’m talking about a group with an explicit agreement
November 24, 2025 at 9:30 PM
I’m talking about a group with an explicit agreement
That’s why it’s called “a mafia” and not “a cool idea”. You’ll find that most study sections that have been disbanded were due to the uncovering of a grant mafia imbedded in the group.
November 24, 2025 at 9:29 PM
That’s why it’s called “a mafia” and not “a cool idea”. You’ll find that most study sections that have been disbanded were due to the uncovering of a grant mafia imbedded in the group.
A collusion between reviewers to up and down score certain grants to manipulate the (now defunct) payline. With the scores themselves being major input to the ultimate deciders seems like it makes manipulation easier. Maybe ditching the payline will prevent this, but I suspect the opposite.
November 24, 2025 at 9:24 PM
A collusion between reviewers to up and down score certain grants to manipulate the (now defunct) payline. With the scores themselves being major input to the ultimate deciders seems like it makes manipulation easier. Maybe ditching the payline will prevent this, but I suspect the opposite.
Grant mafias are going to flourish under these conditions, IMO.
November 24, 2025 at 9:03 PM
Grant mafias are going to flourish under these conditions, IMO.
The minimized reviews definitely changes their usefulness. I’m the first to tell ESIs to assume they’re going to have all new reviewers next time (you may remember why). But I do see value in input re: priorities. Not a thing anymore, clearly. So moot.
November 24, 2025 at 8:58 PM
The minimized reviews definitely changes their usefulness. I’m the first to tell ESIs to assume they’re going to have all new reviewers next time (you may remember why). But I do see value in input re: priorities. Not a thing anymore, clearly. So moot.
As far as the overall policy goes, dare I say that I like it? It’s the thought we have on study section all the time (“Why are we discussing a 5,5,4 with a 4% payline?”) made manifest.
November 24, 2025 at 8:48 PM
As far as the overall policy goes, dare I say that I like it? It’s the thought we have on study section all the time (“Why are we discussing a 5,5,4 with a 4% payline?”) made manifest.
If you’re talking about an ESI with the same criterion scores as a non-ESI, the only difference I see is experience with interpreting reviews. Non-discussed grants often just get 3 different laundry lists (sometimes overlapping, sometimes not so much) of criticism. Discussion can focus that list.
November 24, 2025 at 8:48 PM
If you’re talking about an ESI with the same criterion scores as a non-ESI, the only difference I see is experience with interpreting reviews. Non-discussed grants often just get 3 different laundry lists (sometimes overlapping, sometimes not so much) of criticism. Discussion can focus that list.
You’re referring to the “simplified” review? Yeah, probably useless to rescue anyone with that.
November 24, 2025 at 7:38 PM
You’re referring to the “simplified” review? Yeah, probably useless to rescue anyone with that.
Sorry you need to be that way, but I’ve seen the difference for the ESIs I mentor. It does require reviewers who will go back and edit their reviews based on discussion, which generally falls to a proactive SRO. So it doesn’t always happen, for sure.
November 24, 2025 at 7:35 PM
Sorry you need to be that way, but I’ve seen the difference for the ESIs I mentor. It does require reviewers who will go back and edit their reviews based on discussion, which generally falls to a proactive SRO. So it doesn’t always happen, for sure.
It’s simply a matter of getting some consensus actionable feedback to the ESIs. Discussion will sometimes (certainly not always) prioritize the weaknesses that the PI should focus on addressing for resubmission.
November 24, 2025 at 7:31 PM
It’s simply a matter of getting some consensus actionable feedback to the ESIs. Discussion will sometimes (certainly not always) prioritize the weaknesses that the PI should focus on addressing for resubmission.
I hope they’ll accept an omnibus rescue request then.
November 24, 2025 at 7:19 PM
I hope they’ll accept an omnibus rescue request then.
I do wish they would discuss 50% of ESIs, but other than that, no complaints about having only one day on Teams.
November 24, 2025 at 7:09 PM
I do wish they would discuss 50% of ESIs, but other than that, no complaints about having only one day on Teams.