Post #3165534
2026-03-26 12:35 UTC
@neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social But then you're back to the fundamental problem with a "questions only" grant review - which is that you are not judging whether the experiments proposed are doable in that lab or whether they are even possible in the first place.
Over the years as the NIH grants have gotten shorter and much more "question focused" than "method/lab focused" is that people propose things that they have no track record of doing (and we all know how complex some of these techniques are to do right) or that are fully impossible given current technologies in the first place.
As you note, there is real incentive to hide methodological details. A questions-only focus leads to funding impossible projects.
Replies (2)
-
@adredish@neuromatch.social 2026-03-26 12:37
@neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social Personally, I think that funding ideas rather than people/labs is the fundamental categorical mistake being made in the science funding world today.
-
@brembs@mastodon.social 2026-03-26 12:38
@adredish@neuromatch.social @neuralreckoning@neuromatch.social Good point! One way to do this would be a two stage application. Is there a better way? Is a one-step, 'traditional' process that always checks all methods better thna a two-stage procedure?