By: Jeremy Berg
The claims of this work greatly exceed the analysis that appears to have been performed. The conclusion that “the system is totally broken” seems entirely unjustified. The analysis states that 40% of...
View ArticleBy: John Ioannidis
Dear Jeremy, thank you for your interest in this analysis. I fully agree with you that more evidence and more analyses would be very useful. Nevertheless, based on what we see, the large majority of...
View ArticleBy: Jeremy Berg
John: With regard to the 40% figure, I feel it would be more useful to have full context for this figure. This could be interpreted by some to mean that these scientists apply to NIH and only 40%...
View ArticleBy: John Ioannidis
Dear Jeremy: I think we are starting to converge and we share many common experiences, not just the fact that we were both Department chairs in our early 30s. But I feel embarrassed, if not ashamed,...
View ArticleBy: Jeremy Berg
Hi John: I agree that academic careers are in danger of becoming sufficiently unattractive that we are likely losing talented people to other careers. My point is that I feel this is largely the doing...
View ArticleBy: Joshua Nicholson
Dear Dr Berg, I am glad to see a fruitful discussion on the topic of science education and funding. I think the best way forward is to openly discuss current practices and potential alternatives to...
View ArticleBy: John Ioannidis
Dear Jeremy: I think we are converging, at least we are looking at the same numbers, and we are both not happy with them. <1% is nowhere close to be called a big proportion. I am not trying to blame...
View ArticleBy: Jeremy Berg
Josh: Thanks for your comments. The present funding situation (with historically low success rates) is a consequence of the fact that the NIH budget has been essentially flat (and well below the rate...
View ArticleBy: Alan Mayer
All- I am an HHMI training grant recipient. K08 awardee, R21 awardee, MDPhD now in private practice. I obtained my faculty position in 2003, and after many failed and eventually desperate attempts to...
View ArticleBy: Kenton Sanders
The main problem at the NIH is the so-called peer review system. The Review Branch and the Study Section mechanism of review is antiquated and greatly flawed. WIth priority scores reduced to historical...
View ArticleBy: John Ioannidis
Dear Jeremy, thank you for your interest in this analysis. I fully agree with you that more evidence and more analyses would be very useful. Nevertheless, based on what we see, the large majority of...
View ArticleBy: Jeremy Berg
John: With regard to the 40% figure, I feel it would be more useful to have full context for this figure. This could be interpreted by some to mean that these scientists apply to NIH and only 40%...
View ArticleBy: John Ioannidis
Dear Jeremy: I think we are starting to converge and we share many common experiences, not just the fact that we were both Department chairs in our early 30s. But I feel embarrassed, if not ashamed,...
View ArticleBy: Jeremy Berg
Hi John: I agree that academic careers are in danger of becoming sufficiently unattractive that we are likely losing talented people to other careers. My point is that I feel this is largely the doing...
View ArticleBy: Joshua Nicholson
Dear Dr Berg, I am glad to see a fruitful discussion on the topic of science education and funding. I think the best way forward is to openly discuss current practices and potential alternatives to...
View ArticleBy: John Ioannidis
Dear Jeremy: I think we are converging, at least we are looking at the same numbers, and we are both not happy with them. <1% is nowhere close to be called a big proportion. I am not trying to blame...
View ArticleBy: Jeremy Berg
Josh: Thanks for your comments. The present funding situation (with historically low success rates) is a consequence of the fact that the NIH budget has been essentially flat (and well below the rate...
View ArticleBy: Alan Mayer
All- I am an HHMI training grant recipient. K08 awardee, R21 awardee, MDPhD now in private practice. I obtained my faculty position in 2003, and after many failed and eventually desperate attempts to...
View ArticleBy: Kenton Sanders
The main problem at the NIH is the so-called peer review system. The Review Branch and the Study Section mechanism of review is antiquated and greatly flawed. WIth priority scores reduced to historical...
View ArticleBy: Matthias
It just does not matter what they do to the system. There is just not enough money in it. They started “training” all the scientists in late nineties. After 6-7 years of PhD and 6-7 years of postdoc,...
View Article
