Instead of selecting for “merit,” we are simply selecting for whoever is privileged enough to be able to wait through the uncertainty. Not a great way to promote innovation in science or attract the best and brightest.
I’m expanding on this thought in an essay tomorrow! Thanks again for doing this!
Yes. I believe the strategy seems to be awarding fewer and fewer awards, increasing multi-year funding, and if there is money left over Vought will impound it.
Thank you once again for a superb and thorough analysis! As I said before, compile these into a book! 👏🏻
Thanks! I have never written a book, so that would be a tall order. Plus, it would be depressing to read. HA!
Thank you for putting this together.
You’re welcome!
Thank you for putting this info together. Very depressing.
Hey — I came across your writing and really liked how you think.
I’m exploring something similar from a different angle — writing about human behavior through a system design lens (like debugging internal patterns).
Just started publishing on Substack. If you ever get a moment to read, I’d genuinely value your perspective.
Also happy to support your work — feels like there’s an interesting overlap here.
I’ve indeed seen countless NOFOs on ME/CFS and other complex chronic illnesses that never materialize.
Yes. Read my last essay about Jon Lorsch. He is the mastermind behind the strategy to overhaul NOFOs at the NIH. His reasoning is highly flawed.
Thanks for doing this research, Liz. Excellent analysis!
Hi Susan! I am trying to cover topics that the news misses.
Instead of selecting for “merit,” we are simply selecting for whoever is privileged enough to be able to wait through the uncertainty. Not a great way to promote innovation in science or attract the best and brightest.
I’m expanding on this thought in an essay tomorrow! Thanks again for doing this!
Yes. I believe the strategy seems to be awarding fewer and fewer awards, increasing multi-year funding, and if there is money left over Vought will impound it.