Azhir Mahmood  🚀 🤖 🧬 🧠 🪐

Definitely we shouldn't just hand out grants based on H-index. I'm not at all sure what's the best way of addressing track record when predicting performance that avoids our current prestige bubbles. Maybe we could try blind grant reviews? I'd be totally down for that.

This feels like an absolute minimum thing we should do. As you know, I'd rather largely get rid of grants and replace with core funding.

How would you evaluate how much core funding was needed?

Equal funding and if people need more they have to persuade their peers to give up some of theirs. There might be problems with this too but it's the best suggestion I've seen so far. Exceptions made for very expensive equipment that should probably be bought by institutions.

That's interesting. I think some basal level for all is good. IME though grant writing has sharpened my ideas substantially so the process has real value for my science over and above the money.

I agree that it does sharpen ideas, but it's disproportionate work for that end. Surely we can design something better?

Maybe so. I guess it depends on the experiments you do without the grant feedback...

I think there's variability here. Some people are very good at being self-critical, others rely on the external feedback. IMO, in aggregate the grant pressure is more helpful than hamrful.