On the whole, though, looking at the current situation - if people can't see that we urgently need to work to build a better, more robust system to support scientific progress *while also trying our best to rescue what we've got*, then I don't know what to say to them. 🧪

bsky.app/profile/azfa...

NSF also already has a lot of MYF baked in at the start, so it's much harder to use it as an accounting trick to gut funding. And being outside of HHS has left it much more insulated from the politics gutting NIH.

I’ve heard about such things, but have never seen it in the wild. This is why junior folks feel compelled to add senior people. Utter bullshit. Can the PI’s lab do the work alone or not? That’s the only reason to care about whether or not there are collaborators

💯

If you’re used to NIGMS, it’s still a significant hair cut (~$100K in directs per year lower for NSF grants). If you’re soft money, NSF isn’t going to cut it.

Much of those types of stock critique grant reviews are post hoc explanations for reviewers not being interested. If they love the grant, those things are ignored. The problem right now is that reviewers have to spread scores for a bunch of very strong grants.

the experiences of individuals from marginalized groups are almost ALWAYS the bellwether for weaknesses and stress points in systems. Trying to correct their experiences improves these systems FOR EVERYONE, not just them

I get those comments too. Part of this is trying to avoid publication gaps that also sink grants.

I do realize that as someone on a 9-mo faculty line, I can maintain a bare bones operation without worrying about my own job. I also work with a model microbe where we can do some things on the cheap. I feel for my colleagues in a different boat, and there's no one right answer.

It may be small scale and slow, but I can still add a little bit more knowledge to the world and provide good mentoring to my reduced crew. And of course I'll still buy lotto tickets for anything that I can apply for. Internal and external.

And they want us to quit or give up. For me, part of the resistance is doing science in whatever form I can. That may mean doing meta-analyses and writing reviews, relying solely on undergrads and my own two hands, and begging for tiny amounts of institutional support for meager supplies.

As Dave rightly points out, resubmission absolutely feels brutal in this moment. Futile. It has the distinct feeling of buying a lottery ticket - it feels like a scam and winning feels out of reach.

Right. I thought this was work people connected to politicians and/or political appointees, which is very different from contacting POs.

I wouldn’t know where to start, even if I wanted to. And I’d rather close my lab than beg fascists and grifters.

The system was created when success rates were much higher. Having also sat on NSF panels where grants are binned instead of precisely ranked, I feel that we’re pretty good at defining ~quartiles, and not great at ranking within those.

And then those awesome grants go back into the pile, and it becomes a Red Queen situation.

In normal times, MIRA apps were often sent to overflow SEPs (literally called that in the email from my SRO). The same SRO that handled the standing study section handled the overflow SEP. That said, I agree that 70% triage would allow 2-day panels and save a lot of effort vs multiple panels.

We're down >25% new and competing renewals from FY24 to FY25, so I would expect at least that percentage increase in submissions.

Utter bullshit. NIGMS administratively withdraws lots of MIRAs because of lack of fit. The vast majority of PIs are not MIRA eligible. And I know firsthand for EI MIRAs at least that priority scores that had a high probability of funding 2 years ago are unlikely now.