⚡️GREG_CORDER⚡️

Researchers identify the neurons involved in the emotional distress associated with pain go.nature.com/3NkL1SB

It is not insane IMO and can be about a lot of other things. You’ll remember that a decade ago the NIH proposed something similar, the grant support index, that was meant to also achieve the same: broader distribution of research dollars and higher funding rates instead of a Matthew effect of more grants to fewer investigators with diminishing returns. Many young PIs were in support. Back then, I submitted a letter in support of it on behalf of many signatories newpislack.wordpress.com/open-letter-on… The NIH-wide initiative had its roots in related capping policies that resulted in significantly increased funding rates at NIGMS relative to other ICs. The few and powerful at rich institutions (massive outliers in the grant recipient distribution) killed the initiative before it could even be thoroughly discussed. Back when the GSI was proposed, ~6% of NIH funded researchers had the support equivalent to 3 R01s. If going by RPGs not total dollars, I’d expect that to be an even smaller percentage of affected researchers now given the proliferation of R35 as a mechanism that consolidates multiple projects into a single award. IMO, the over-proliferation of completely unsustainable soft money positions is not a slam dunk justification to act as a sink for public research dollars distributed by an agency beholden to more than those researchers and institutions. This is not really my fight anymore, other than a vested interest in thriving federal funding for scientific research, responsibly deployed to support new ideas and institutions not just concentrate them … but I do think seeing this as entirely about a hostile administration threatens to dismiss a serious policy proposal that should be thoroughly considered on its merits