Peer review is focused on scientific merit. But funding decisions have always been at least in part based on administrative priorities. There is good reason for this - eg, an emerging disease threat may come about. Sometimes totally justified but need good people at the top + transparency

Overall I think consolidation made sense conceptually but was rolled out too rapidly and during a time that was already incredibly chaotic. It's been challenging. I think in general applicants are still mostly getting solid reviews but it's more stressful on reviewers, SROs, councils & applicants.

Likewise, there were some IC review shops that legit were not efficient, but the biggest difference between CSR and the ICs was the type of mechanisms they handled, which were often more complex (therefore an apples to oranges comparison).

What I've seen from the IC review shops was a lot more in inconsistency. Some were incredibly thoughtful and careful about favoritism. Others definitely had their pet projects, or did a sloppy job with review. Most were similar in quality to CSR but with different stylistic quirks.

In the middle of this discussion, Director Bhattacharya felt obliged to interject something about institutes running their own review offices.

He said "It's like grading your own homework".

When I heard this, I literally said out loud "What the actual fuck?"

12/16

I am not seeing it in his wiki

I love you too, Brett

Consummate V's!!! I said CONSUMMATE!!!!

Literally burninating the peasants.

32 others died at the hands of ICE in 2025. Do not forget them.

2025 was ICE’s deadliest year in two decades. Here are the 32 people who died in custody www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-i...