-
Mashup Score: 14Some Candid and Scathing Opinions from a Former NIH Insider - 9 day(s) ago
Guest article by Jeremy Berg
Source: goodscience.substack.comCategories: General Medicine News, General HCPsTweet
-
Mashup Score: 0Interview with Loren Frank - 5 month(s) ago
Loren Frank is a professor of physiology at the University of California, San Francisco, and has been an HHMI Investigator since 2015.
Source: goodscience.substack.comCategories: General Medicine News, General HCPsTweet-
Some good thoughts about science funding and its current faults. https://t.co/2jVhuapA82
-
-
Mashup Score: 0Comments on Draft NIH Scientific Integrity Policy - 1 year(s) ago
The NIH recently asked for public comments on a draft Scientific Integrity Policy (You can still submit comments here by Nov. 9.) The Good Science Project submitted comments arguing that the NIH has taken admirable steps, but it should go just one step further so as to
Source: goodscience.substack.comCategories: General Medicine News, CardiologistsTweet-
Comments on Draft NIH Scientific Integrity Policy https://t.co/OsAYLxEocA @NIH @stuartbuck1 https://t.co/c4dD6gUIND
-
-
Mashup Score: 0INTERVIEW: Geneticist at a Top 5 University - 2 year(s) ago
At the Good Science Project, we’ve been featuring regular interviews with practicing scientists. One of the chief difficulties in doing so is that many scientists aren’t willing to be quoted publicly, for fear of retribution from folks at NIH, NSF, etc.
Source: goodscience.substack.comCategories: Healthcare Professionals, Latest HeadlinesTweet-
INTERVIEW: Geneticist at a Top 5 University. Lots of truth about nih funding from @stuartbuck1 https://t.co/YJXclIRYsm
-
-
Mashup Score: 1INTERVIEW: Geneticist at a Top 5 University - 2 year(s) ago
At the Good Science Project, we’ve been featuring regular interviews with practicing scientists. One of the chief difficulties in doing so is that many scientists aren’t willing to be quoted publicly, for fear of retribution from folks at NIH, NSF, etc.
Source: goodscience.substack.comCategories: Expert Picks, Latest HeadlinesTweet-
In contrast with the Nature piece on academics fleeing to pharma, this has good points Well done @stuartbuck1 https://t.co/GZmCIGQGVc
-
-
Mashup Score: 1INTERVIEW: Geneticist at a Top 5 University - 2 year(s) ago
At the Good Science Project, we’ve been featuring regular interviews with practicing scientists. One of the chief difficulties in doing so is that many scientists aren’t willing to be quoted publicly, for fear of retribution from folks at NIH, NSF, etc.
Source: goodscience.substack.comCategories: Cardiologists, Latest HeadlinesTweet-
I had heard this...maybe I need to get w/the program: 'It’s an open secret people write grants for stuff they’ve already done– they know it’s feasible & has good prelim data, & by time it gets funded, they can take money & do something else.' @stuartbuck1 'https://t.co/IQmzDvrXc7
-
-
Mashup Score: 0
One of the biggest problems in scientific funding today is that younger scientists are increasingly shut out of funding, and are forced to stay in “training” for years on end or else drop out of academia. I recently met a young biology professor at a major university who did not want to be quoted by name: He/she had recently gotten a first NIH grant at age 40, after spending 8 years doing…
Source: goodscience.substack.comCategories: Healthcare Professionals, Latest HeadlinesTweet-
Bringing Greater Balance to the Force (the Scientific Workforce, that is), by @stuartbuck1 https://t.co/inJhbbXk7P
-
-
Mashup Score: 0Why Peer Review Should Be More Like Meteorology - 2 year(s) ago
We’re all familiar with meteorologists’ forecasts: a 5% chance of rain, a 95% chance of rain, etc. It would be far less useful if you turned on the Weather Channel only to hear on every occasion that there were two possible forecasts: “Rain will happen today,” or “rain will not happen today,” with the forecast being wrong half the time.
Source: goodscience.substack.comCategories: Cardiologists, Latest HeadlinesTweet-
Why Peer Review Should Be More Like Meteorology, by @stuartbuck1 https://t.co/MlfX8BnNwI https://t.co/JOeMkGOcLg
-
-
Mashup Score: 1Why We Need More Quality Control in Science Funding... - 2 year(s) ago
With science funders like NIH and NSF, we need to dramatically expand their capacity to assess reproducibility, as well as to investigate the more extreme case of research fraud. Otherwise, we could be wasting easily several billion dollars a year on fraud and irreproducible research.
Source: goodscience.substack.comCategories: Cardiologists, Latest HeadlinesTweet-
RT @gbiondizoccai: Why We Need More Quality Control in Science Funding https://t.co/bWesydEtzf @stuartbuck1 https://t.co/qvTCEKwWYX
-
-
Mashup Score: 0Why We Need More Quality Control in Science Funding... - 2 year(s) ago
With science funders like NIH and NSF, we need to dramatically expand their capacity to assess reproducibility, as well as to investigate the more extreme case of research fraud. Otherwise, we could be wasting easily several billion dollars a year on fraud and irreproducible research.
Source: goodscience.substack.comCategories: Cardiologists, Latest HeadlinesTweet-
Why We Need More Quality Control in Science Funding https://t.co/bWesydEtzf @stuartbuck1 https://t.co/qvTCEKwWYX
-
Harsh critique of NIH leadership and strategic processes from a highly respected former institute director. https://t.co/Kj3vjlyDJx