The Good Science Project

The Good Science Project explores challenges and proposes reforms in scientific funding and practice, focusing on issues like inefficient bureaucracy, the importance of high-risk research, reproducibility in scientific studies, and the evolving landscape of science funding with an emphasis on innovation and efficiency.

Science Funding Research Innovation Bureaucratic Efficiency in Science Reproducibility in Scientific Research Scientific Career Pathways Government Policy on Science Scientific Integrity High-risk Research Biomedical Workforce Challenges Scientific Evaluation and Peer Review

The hottest Substack posts of The Good Science Project

And their main takeaways

NIH and March-In Rights under Bayh-Dole

18 implied HN points • 21 Feb 24
🏥 Health Politics Government funding Medical Research
  1. The debate around NIH's march-in rights intersects with concerns over potentially overpriced pharmaceuticals developed with NIH funding.
  2. Empirical evidence suggests that very few drugs could be subject to NIH's march-in rights due to limited NIH funding directly impacting drug development.
  3. The application of march-in rights under Bayh-Dole is complex legally and practically, with challenges such as potential lawsuits over arbitrary interpretation and limited impact on drug pricing.

The Value of Stability in Scientific Funding, and Why We Need Better Data

18 implied HN points • 17 Feb 24
🔬 Science Funding Data Research Policy Employment
  1. Scientific funding instability negatively impacts researchers' ability to plan and conduct research effectively, leading to swings in funding and unnecessary time spent on grant proposals.
  2. Improved data tracking is crucial to understanding the impact of funding gaps on researchers' employment outcomes, highlighting the need for long-term empirical studies in science policy.
  3. Addressing funding stability issues and utilizing detailed longitudinal data can help prevent obstacles in scientific progress and support the longevity of researchers' careers.

When Does Science Self-Correct? Lessons from a Replication Crisis in Early 20th Century Chemistry

63 implied HN points • 14 Nov 23
🔬 Science Chemistry Psychology Replication Applications
  1. Science can struggle to correct errors from the scientific record, even with healthy reforms in place.
  2. Non-replicable findings can still hold influence and get cited as much as replicable ones.
  3. Natural sciences can swiftly correct mistakes with practical consequences, while social sciences face challenges in self-correction due to less tangible applications and high acceptance of contradictory findings.
Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

Reupping an Article on Katalin Kariko

70 implied HN points • 02 Oct 23
🔬 Science Research Funding mRNA technology
  1. New scientific institutes funded by Silicon Valley aim to advance scientific progress quickly.
  2. The current system of science funding is seen as uncreative and inflexible.
  3. It's important to fund a diverse range of people and ideas, including those that may currently seem unpopular or unworkable, to uncover groundbreaking discoveries.

Comments on Draft NIH Scientific Integrity Policy

26 implied HN points • 31 Oct 23
🔬 Science
  1. NIH asked for public comments on a draft Scientific Integrity Policy.
  2. Recommendation: NIH should proactively look for research integrity issues instead of waiting for complaints.
  3. Case study showed the need for NIH to allocate resources to proactively monitor research integrity.

Comments on NIH Reform for Sen. Cassidy

26 implied HN points • 26 Oct 23
🏥 Health Politics
  1. NIH should consider reforming their peer review process to fund groundbreaking research
  2. NIH needs to address the issue of soft money and reliance on grants for researcher salaries
  3. NIH's SBIR/STTR program needs an overhaul to be more efficient and relevant for biotech startups

It's a DARPA-filled Week

18 implied HN points • 03 Nov 23
🔬 Science Technology Research Funding Computers
  1. Recent articles are discussing the different perspectives on the ARPA funding model for research.
  2. Eric Gilliam is starting a comprehensive project analyzing past DARPA projects, aiming to create a resource for funders in similar organizations.
  3. This week is filled with DARPA-related content for those interested in ARPA initiatives.

Comments to the White House on Federal Data

26 implied HN points • 13 Sep 23
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Policy Data Funding Research
  1. The White House should make federal data more accessible in a machine-readable format.
  2. NIH and NSF need to be more open in allowing external researchers access to critical data on agency operations.
  3. There is a need to update scientific funding agencies like NIH and NSF to enable external researchers to access data more easily.

Why Are We Screwing Over Researchers Who Make Innovative Discoveries?

3 HN points • 27 Feb 24
🔬 Science Innovation Research Patents Entrepreneurship
  1. Current federal law grants universities patent rights over discoveries made with federal funding, hindering researchers' control over their work.
  2. The case of Katalin Karikó highlights how universities may profit substantially from researchers' work despite mistreatment and lack of support.
  3. Empirical evidence suggests that granting professors control over patenting their discoveries, rather than universities, is likely to boost innovation and entrepreneurship.

Master Protocols: A Tool for Increasing the Reliability of Behavioral Evidence

26 implied HN points • 30 Aug 23
🔬 Science Research Interventions Reliability
  1. Behavioral interventions are crucial for promoting public health alongside biomedical products.
  2. Replications of trials of behavioral interventions in multiple settings are crucial for reliable scientific knowledge.
  3. Master protocols can increase the reliability of behavioral research by coordinating trials and meta-analyses across diverse populations and settings.

Science Funders, High-Risk Research, and Apple Pie

33 implied HN points • 18 Jul 23
🔬 Science Funding Research Peer Review Innovation
  1. Science funding agencies struggle to fund truly high-risk projects due to the constraints of peer review processes.
  2. Agency staff may be hesitant to deviate from traditional practices, even if officially given the authority to do so.
  3. Well-intentioned programs for high-risk research can be underused due to organizational norms and resistance to change.

Interview: Jeffrey Marqusee (formerly a DOD research funder)

29 implied HN points • 11 Jul 23
🔬 Science Research Technology Funding Peer Review Innovation
  1. Jeff Marqusee led research programs on environmental and energy issues at the Department of Defense.
  2. His program solicited and funded high-risk research proposals by setting aside specific funding and conducting internal reviews.
  3. An unintended experiment showed the importance of funding high-risk research and the limitations of peer review in making funding decisions.

Looking for a New NIH Director

29 implied HN points • 17 Mar 23
🔬 Science Biology Medical Research Innovation Reform
  1. NIH Directors historically have had similar backgrounds, typically with PhDs or MDs and extensive academic experience.
  2. Consider expanding the pool of potential NIH Director nominees beyond traditional criteria to include those with diverse backgrounds and experiences.
  3. Look for a potential NIH Director who excels at identifying talent, has broad interests, is open to new ideas, and is willing to push for meaningful reforms.

Why We Need More Quality Control in Science Funding...

44 implied HN points • 04 Oct 22
  1. Expand capacity to assess reproducibility and investigate research fraud in science funding agencies like NIH and NSF
  2. Reproducibility issues exist in biomedical research, with many experiments failing replication
  3. Official agencies should proactively investigate fraud in published papers to preserve the value of taxpayer-funded research

How To Actually Reduce Administrative Burden on Research

37 implied HN points • 13 Oct 22
  1. Researchers spend over 40% of their time on administrative tasks like reports and budgets, hindering their work.
  2. Efforts to reduce bureaucratic burden often fail due to good intentions behind regulations and lack of public support for reform.
  3. To effectively reduce bureaucracy in research, a national commission like the military base closure commission could make recommendations that go into effect unless vetoed by Congress.

Why We Need a New MIT

37 implied HN points • 30 Jul 22
  1. A new MIT may be needed to focus on hands-on experience in engineering to enhance innovation.
  2. Government-funded scientists spend a significant amount of time on administrative tasks, hindering efficiency and adventurous research.
  3. Funding agencies should promote high-risk, high-reward science and prioritize independent audits of scientific literature to address the replication crisis.

Bringing Greater Balance to the Force (the Biomedical Scientific Workforce, that is)

26 implied HN points • 19 Oct 22
  1. Younger scientists in biomedical research are facing challenges with obtaining funding and career advancement.
  2. There is a discrepancy between the number of biomedical doctorates produced each year and the available NIH grants and academic positions.
  3. Hypercompetition in scientific research can lead to issues like compromising reproducibility, limiting innovation, and deterring talented individuals from pursuing careers in academia.

The Paperwork Reduction Act Is Terrible, and We Should Eliminate or Reform It

3 HN points • 28 Nov 23
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics
  1. The Paperwork Reduction Act can be a major obstacle to government reform, ironically hindering efforts to reduce paperwork and improve government efficiency.
  2. Proposed reforms to the Paperwork Reduction Act include raising the threshold for information collection to 1,000 people and exempting voluntary surveys from the process.
  3. OMB could help streamline the Paperwork Reduction Act by delegating review of low-burden information collections and expanding generic clearances to reduce bureaucratic burdens on federal agencies.

Upcoming Chances to Influence NIH

1 HN point • 01 Feb 24
🔬 Science Research Data Innovation Health Publication
  1. NIH is seeking input on reducing publication bias against null studies to improve science integrity and innovation
  2. NIH is inviting comments on their strategic plan for data science to ensure data is findable, accessible, and leads to tangible health improvements
  3. Prioritizing null results and meaningful data metrics can advance science and human health

September 2022 Update from Good Science Project

22 implied HN points • 03 Sep 22
  1. Recent articles highlight issues in R&D at MIT for US development.
  2. A suggested way to boost science funding by reducing administrative barriers.
  3. Promoting discussions on improving scientific reproducibility and innovation.

Why Peer Review Should Be More Like Meteorology

18 implied HN points • 10 Oct 22
  1. Proposal review could benefit from using quantitative percentages to assess likelihood of success.
  2. Requiring reviewers to make probabilistic forecasts can help in improving performance and calibration over time.
  3. Using probabilities in proposal evaluations can lead to more precise evaluations, improve feedback loops, and reduce hindsight bias.

Why NIH Should Reinvigorate an Advisory Board, and other updates...

7 implied HN points • 28 Sep 22
  1. NIH's structure may not be rational due to historical ad hoc decisions by Congress and patient groups.
  2. The Scientific Management Review Board, created in 2006, has never fully utilized its advisory authority to assess NIH performance and organization.
  3. Efforts to reinvigorate the Scientific Management Review Board are underway to promote regular rethinking of biomedical funding and better organization within NIH.

Coming soon

7 implied HN points • 21 Jul 22
  1. Newsletter about improving the funding and practice of science
  2. The Good Science Project is coming soon
  3. Subscribe to stay updated

Welcome to the Good Science Project Substack...

3 implied HN points • 21 Jul 22
  1. The Good Science Project Substack newsletter will summarize the project's activities and publications.
  2. Substack is being used for better email subscriptions and recommendations.
  3. The Newsletter discusses a Congressional letter about the underuse of an advisory board created by the NIH Reform Act of 2006.

Under the Evidence Act, the NIH Could Do Much More....

1 HN point • 21 Nov 22
  1. The NIH needs to substantially expand its efforts to comply with the Evidence Act compared to NSF.
  2. NSF has detailed evaluation plans with strategic goals and study designs, while NIH's plans are lacking in ambition and substance.
  3. There is a disparity in resources and personnel allocation for evaluation and data collection between major agencies under HHS, highlighting the need for restructuring and more focused division-level evaluation efforts.