Absolutely - and overdue.

In my biased opinion, these are a good start: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago...

Agree with all of this.

Amen. The number one error I see (and cited) is underpowered work (and overstated conclusions) that somehow gets published.

I 100% agree with this (and paying reviewers). It is shocking how few people read and digest articles instead of perusing abstracts. That won't change - but having access to the thoughts of paid reviewers will at least provide additional levels of (currently lacking) critiques of published work.

I like the idea of these training grants, but I would link them to specific post-graduate training programs, not medical schools. Residency and fellowship program directors know whose work is moving in the right direction and which trainees need this support.

I would combine this with a modified lottery to balance the playing field for physician-scientists with extended, intensive training (i.e, surgeons) whose research during "gap years" may not even produce 3 articles - particularly for scientists who have to generate their own data in the lab

The Heilmeier Catechism

(posted on the wall of my office)

www.darpa.mil/about/heilme...

This is also an excellent point - I am using more 7 day ven dosing than ever before in my practice and have been very happy with that approach:

I agree with this - the aza/ven in HR MDS paper probably doesn't bode well for the long anticipated results of VERONA. Link to the BA commentary and the trial below.