Starting from a position that the overall budget number is too high seems like a red flag of bad faith. Blaming academic research for the lack of Pharos investment in antibiotics confirms it.
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Brian and Kyle who?
-
Terence and Philip work just as well
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Completely agree. STAT articles are typically better researched. I was disappointed by the quality of this article
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
agreed - terrible ideas. substitution of individual bias of people actually doing the science for institutional top-down bias
@statnewsThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Agree. Their claim that using only NIH staff as reviewers would "promote intellectual diversity and institutional memory, decrease bias ..." etc. has exactly zero empirical support and could as easily exacerbate the very problems they seek to remedy.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
So how about a rebuttal?
@statnews it was a bizarre piece full of nonsequitors. I’ve been on many and chaired a few study sections, see the need for reform. We need a productive discussion on new approaches to funding allocation -
The point about indirect costs is one that I have been making for years, and I don’t necessarily think an academic will agree. I think if you need indirects to keep your lights on in academia, you should be forced to forfeit IP rights under Bayh-Dole.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
These guys are likely gunning for a job writing policy at the White House.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
THANKS
@STAT
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.