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?
-
You might find the second point under "Lessons learned" in this blog post useful https://www.openphilanthropy.org/blog/our-second-chance-program-nih-transformative-research-applicants …
It doesn't surprise me. Every sensible scientist knows "high risk" etc are cheap talk. If I had a nickel for every time I've heard a program officer talk about wanting to support "high risk" work, I wouldn't need grants.
-
-
An idea I like: in a genuine high-risk program, the funder should commit to an independent assessment process (say) three years after grants are given. If at least 50% of grants aren't assessed to have failed, then major changes are to be made.
-
That should, in principle, include firing the PO. (Obviously, not something I desire - but if the program is badly off the rails by not taking enough risk, it's legitimate.) Basically, the funder needs skin in the game to convince scientists they're serious about risk.
-
Lots of other things needed to make this work - especially to credibly argue to scientists that it's worth their time - but I think something like it could work.
End of conversation
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.