My fellow Americans, weep for our science!

[HereIbe]

Imagine if you were a contractor (NO, not a builder, but anyone who works "on contract" rather than being a salaried or wage employee). Okay, now imagine that, when you submit bids to a customer, the customer is not the person who decides who gets the contract. Instead, the customer calls on your COMPETITORS to decide who gets the contract, AND the competitors all get to know who is behind each bid. Oh, and there is no certification or oversight of the process, either. The competitors do not even have to read the bids. If you think you were rejected unfairly, you get to appeal, and it's the competitors who consider your appeal.

That is how most medical and scientific research in the USA is funded, and it is how it's been funded for about 80 years.

Of course, we could just eliminate all public funding of research, problem solved? Nope, because private funding entities pretty much do the same thing. They tap the same pool of applicants to do proposal evaluations.

[MlleCake]

Peer review is the norm the world over, because when the goal is to increase human understanding, scientists see themselves as collective team-mates, not competitors.

[HereIbe]

And your view of scientists comes from actually BEING A SCIENTIST, right? My view comes from WITHIN the field. Yours?

[MlleCake]

I have been working with the scientific community in various capacities as a science writer, statistician and data analyst for decades.

It's not a perfect system, but what do you propose instead?

[HereIbe]

First, to get enough people pissed off at the current system so there will be some stir made. The problem must first be defined and studied. It is unscientific in the extreme to start throwing medications at people before you have even bothered to properly define the disease--oh, wait! That's how things have been done for a long time! And look at all the failed medications. Hell's bells, we still don't have a proper definition for Alzheimer's disease, and look at how much money is spent on AD medications that offer nothing more than short-term palliative care without halting or even long-term slowing progression of the disorder.

So, first, the disorder must be defined.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I don't really follow your analogy. How does this describe funding for scientific research?

[HereIbe]

How many NIH, NSF, etc. grants have you been part of the process for? It is a VERY ACCURATE description of how funding is decided upon, from an inside perspective.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

About two dozen NSF grants, half a dozen DOD and DOE grants, plus private funding. How about you?

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I'm not contesting your description per se - I just don't understand the analogy. How do competitors decide who gets the contract?

[HereIbe]

The reviewers ARE COMPETITORS! They are working in the same field, sometimes on very similar projects. They are competing for the grant money.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Oh okay, I see what you're on about now. I'm not really sure what a better way would be, other than to just give money to everyone. Are you irritated you didn't get an award or something?

[HereIbe]

Nope, not irritated over missing out this time. Got R01 and R21 and a couple of private grants. I'm irritated at the total bullshit of the process. As for better systems, it's too big a problem for one mind to solve, but it's about time for several minds to get together and admit there is a problem in the first place.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

I'm not sure I agree there's a problem, but yes more minds is better than fewer when it comes to designing systems that cope with some limited resource distribution issue.

[HereIbe]

"More minds" becomes a race to the bottom, as innovation becomes reduced to "did they invent a new technique?" and any non-incremental proposal gets drubbed by people who obviously have no expertise.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

You're making a lot of assumptions right there. What reason do you have to believe people don't have any expertise? Because they disagree with you?

[HereIbe]

When their comments expose complete ignorance of the fundamental and WELL KNOWN premise of the basic biochemistry. Sorry, boys and girls, but miRNA do not operate at the transcription level. Never. Look it up. That's just one example.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Presumably there's more than one reviewer for your proposal. Do all of them misunderstand basic biochemistry?

[HereIbe]

It's happened on more than one proposal. We've had section heads overrule a whole set of reviews on that basis. But we had to go through the time-consuming process of dealing with the section heads.

[HereIbe]

Also, it's obvious you have no clue how the process actually works. While there are "reviewers" for grant proposals, in reality, each proposal has only one reviewer who is expected to read the entire proposal. That "lead reviewer" pretty much sets the tone for the three-person review "group", and that group's report pretty much determines the section's decision as a whole. One person, up to ten grants in one session. Not joking.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

Again, you're making a lot of assumptions I don't think you can substantiate. My point is this: what are the chances that, time after time after time, your submissions get reviewed by incompetent people? Isn't it more likely to be the case that the fault is with your own research?

[HereIbe]

Assumptions? I know from experience how the process is handled. There really is only one lead reviewer. As for incompetence of reviewers, if our proposals are such crap, how can we convince section heads to overrule reviewers? It's something that is very rare, although it's requested a great deal. I get it, though, your blind faith in the system just can't handle the possibility that it's fundamentally crap.

[HungLikeAHorsefly]

You're (yet again) making assumptions here. I don't have blind faith in the system; there is always room for improvement. I'm just a little suspicious when people criticize something without even the faintest idea of what a constructive alternative might look like.

I mean, if you just want sympathy then that's cool. But it looks like you're saying we're all doomed because of a flawed system and you're using personal anecdotes to support what you're saying. Now, I know this isn't a scientific forum here but c'mon man, give us something to work with here.

[itsmeamy]

It just sounds so unfair I think the most qualified person should get the contract cause its no good if the cheapest contractor get the job and dose it wrong

[Wowgirl30q]

That's how a contract bid works. I'm not being sarcastic this is the only way I've ever known of it to work. My ex-husband had contracts with the state. This is normal I thought

[HereIbe]

So, therefore, if everyone practiced slavery, that would mean slavery was okay. That's what your statement boils down to.

WHY does it work that way? MUST it work that way? The fact that it "works that way" means what? There is no better possible way? There are no flaws with the current way of doing things?

What makes the status quo the best possible way to do something?

[Wowgirl30q]

I didn't say it was right or wrong I said...
"this is a normal contract bid to the best of my knowledge." I didn't understand the point you were making considering this is the only way I'd ever heard of.

[Wowgirl30q]

COMPETITORS you let get you the job by running their mouths.. We didn't even get on the BBB/able to bid on a state or federal funded project for over a decade. This is all normal business politics.

[HereIbe]

Therefore, since it is "normal business politics", then it's the only way it should ever be done and it is immoral and evil to ever express displeasure at it.

[NerdInDenial]

This strategy also occurs in the military. There are some advantages, and also many disadvantages.

[PrincessGrail]

Never thought of it that way

[Fuentes]

Shut up

[HereIbe]

Shut me up, loser.

[Fuentes]

☝ Gays boy's be like

[HereIbe]

I get it, you're a sad little incel who can't get anything, so you tell people much smarter than you to "shut up", then you make homophobic commentary.

[Fuentes]

Virgins be like ☝