Comments on specific topics are below, or scroll past them to find the most recent comments on all topics.
- Conditions for science
- Effects of hypercompetition
- Rigor and reproducibility
- Training and the structure of the workforce
- Graduate education
- Postdoctoral training
- Staff scientists
- Improving career paths
- Workforce diversity
- Workforce age demographics
- Funding biomedical research
- Government sources
- Institutional sources
- For-profit sources
- Philanthropic sources
- Evaluation mechanisms
- Grant review
- Publication processes
- Appointment and promotion processes
- Setting budget priorities
- Comments on other topics
Most Recent Comments
Comments by Holly Hamilton
Posted: September 13, 2016
(1) The training model thus far is that of the medieval apprentice- a trainee is to become a clone of his/her supervisor. (2) Trainees are rarely permitted to conduct work not expressly assigned/approved by supervisor. (3) Training goals for postdocs at a national level are unspecified. (4) All postdocs are trained as if they will become academic research professors.
Comments by Elizabeth Tran
Posted: August 8, 2016
With the stop and start of science now and the current funding climate, it is very difficult to support a staff member. There are no university programs to provide long term support for technicians during a funding gap. Instead, there is a surplus of funds for graduate student assistantships and TA support. Universities and/or funding agencies should create funds to support technicians regardless of project funding.
Comments by Ronald Ellis
Posted: June 7, 2016
The NIH should reconfigure R01 grants into two categories, which are funded from separate budget allocations. Each laboratory could only receive one R01A award, and larger laboratories would win additional funds through R01B awards. If 45% of NIH funds were dedicated to the R01A category, that would guarantee a diverse portfolio in which new investigators and smaller groups could compete more effectively.
Comments by Michael Lenardo
Posted: June 2, 2016
Reforming the structure of graduate education will provide new solutions to the problems identified.
Comments by J. Brian Byrd
Posted: March 1, 2016
In the 1960’s, contact with patients was common in biomedical research projects (e.g., JCI, 1960’s). To remove the patient from the biomedical research enterprise would have been unthinkable. At the same time, fundamental science was recognized as having intrinsic value without a demand that it be “translational.” Transgenic mice ushered in a new, utterly dominant mode of “normal science.” In 2016, investigator-initiated biomedical research almost never involves the recruitment of a patient with a disease. At the same time, there is a diminished appreciation for the intrinsic worth of fundamental inquiry, which is almost never applied in the living humans. These two problems are related. Read more >>