The NIH's "high risk" grant programs: https://commonfund.nih.gov/highrisk Anyone know on what basis they call it high risk? Do they actually track failure rates? Or is it just signalling?
-
My answer based on how colleagues and mentors navigate the proposal process and how reviewers evaluate proposal relative to R-series grants. Not sure how the outcomes are tracked officially.
If some large fraction - say, 50% - aren't failing, I'm not sure in what sense it's "high risk". Sounds more like "very low risk" as opposed to "not risky at all" (standard R01). ~80% of startups fail. WIsh a funder would take risk seriously, and do the same.
-
-
If you compare to SV then certainly doubt these are quite as high risk. More like an idea whose time everyone can agree has come, but where you have greater than usual ambition/scope, have the pedigree to execute, don't need as much established papers/data to justify.
-
I'm not sure research ever publicly *fails*. What would failure mean and how would NIH measure it? Far more likely that goal posts change and/or process to get there changes. Unlike say a clinical trial, I don't think deliverables are as concrete in these proposals.
- 1 more reply
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.