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

What if Congress Doesn't Specifically Reject NIH Indirect Cost Changes?

48 implied HN points • 24 Feb 25
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Legislation Health Policy Budgeting Funding Regulations
  1. NIH can't just set a flat rate for indirect costs on all grants. Each university's costs need to be negotiated individually.
  2. If Congress removes rules preventing NIH from changing how they calculate costs, it doesn't mean they can bypass accounting regulations.
  3. Any exceptions to indirect cost rates must be well-documented and communicated in advance for specific grants, not applied broadly.

Indirect Costs at NIH . . .

297 implied HN points • 08 Feb 25
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Policy Analysis Government regulations Research Funding
  1. The NIH has announced a big change, lowering the indirect cost rate for all grants to 15%. This move has raised many eyebrows because it seems to go against some existing laws.
  2. Congress had previously banned the NIH from changing how indirect costs are calculated. This makes the new policy potentially illegal and could lead to court challenges.
  3. To really address indirect costs properly, there needs to be a focus on reducing the red tape and regulations that universities face. This could help create more efficient funding and research processes.

Inexplicable Cuts at the Dept. of Education

107 implied HN points • 14 Feb 25
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Education & Policy Government spending Research Funding Federal Agencies
  1. The Department of Education recently canceled many important research contracts worth millions, which could hurt understanding of U.S. education performance. It's like throwing away progress that’s already been made.
  2. Some of the canceled projects were mandated by Congress, meaning they were created to meet specific educational goals. Stopping them now is not only wasteful but also goes against legislative intentions.
  3. High-quality education research is crucial for making informed decisions about teaching and learning. Canceling these studies may leave educators and policymakers without the data they need to improve education.

Achieving Government Efficiency Requires More, Not Less, Investment

44 implied HN points • 18 Feb 25
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Government Efficiency Public Policy Research Investment
  1. Government efficiency means getting more value from every dollar spent, not just cutting costs. Investing wisely can help achieve better results.
  2. To make government work better, we need to invest in research and development. This can help find smarter ways to deliver public services that benefit everyone.
  3. Cutting government spending isn't the answer to making it more efficient. We need to assess which programs work best and invest in them to create more social value.

When is DOGE Going to Focus on Reducing Bureaucracy Rather Than Increasing It?

152 implied HN points • 06 Feb 25
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Government Efficiency Bureaucracy Public Policy Innovation Government spending
  1. DOGE seems to be making government processes more complicated, which can lead to less efficiency. Instead of streamlining things, they are adding new layers of rules.
  2. Efforts to cut waste, fraud, and abuse might actually make things worse by creating more bureaucracy. It's often better to accept a little waste instead of drowning in paperwork.
  3. There are already dedicated agencies that can help reduce waste without reinventing the wheel. It makes more sense to work with existing organizations to become efficient.
Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

A Statistical Saga at a "Top" Journal

122 implied HN points • 26 Jan 25
🔬 Science Research Statistics Publishing Peer Review Methodology
  1. Top scientific journals sometimes have trouble understanding basic statistics. This can lead to confusion and errors that affect research outcomes.
  2. A recent case showed that reviewing a paper could involve contradictory requests, like asking for a post-hoc power analysis, which is generally not helpful after results are already obtained.
  3. Researchers should not rely solely on journal editors for correct statistical advice. The system needs to improve how it addresses statistical issues in published studies.

Addressing Research Fraud

89 implied HN points • 27 Jan 25
🔬 Science Scientific Integrity Open Science Medical Research Social Science
  1. The Good Science Project aims to help investigate research fraud and support whistleblowers. They want to make it easier for people to report misconduct in science.
  2. Research fraud is a common problem, with many scientists admitting to questionable practices. Reports suggest that a significant number of researchers have seen or engaged in misconduct.
  3. The project plans to provide legal and educational resources for those worried about speaking out against fraud. They want to empower more people to come forward about their concerns.

The Slow Cancellation of Innovation: A critical look at modern funding

74 implied HN points • 23 Jan 25
🕹 Technology Innovation Funding Venture Capital Research Science
  1. Innovation funding is struggling because it often favors older, established ideas over new and creative ones. This means that new and exciting projects may not get the support they need.
  2. Many young scientists and entrepreneurs are finding it harder to get funding. They face longer waits and tougher competition, which can hold back breakthrough ideas that could change the world.
  3. New funding models are trying to support fresh ideas, but they often end up using the same old criteria for judging who gets funded. This makes it tough for unconventional thinkers to get recognized and backed.

Governmental Efficiency: What Can It Possibly Mean?

167 implied HN points • 20 Nov 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Government Efficiency Public Policy Fiscal Responsibility
  1. Cutting a lot of government jobs might not really save much money. Most spending comes from bigger programs like Social Security and Medicare, not just employee salaries.
  2. Firing workers randomly can hurt important services that people rely on. Instead of cutting jobs, we should focus on fixing how agencies work to make them more efficient.
  3. There are better ways to improve government without just slashing budgets. Setting clear goals and using technology to make processes easier can lead to more meaningful changes.

Reforming the NIH’s Intramural Program

29 implied HN points • 15 Jan 25
🏥 Health Politics Health Policy Biomedical Research Government oversight Public Health
  1. The NIH's Intramural Research Program (IRP) needs major changes to better support innovative research. It was meant for high-risk projects, but now resembles traditional university grant-funded research.
  2. There's a call for more transparency and less bureaucracy in the IRP to help scientists focus on their research. Right now, unnecessary paperwork and spending limits reduce their ability to innovate.
  3. To boost true high-risk research, the IRP should evaluate its ongoing projects compared to other research being done outside the NIH. This way, they can ensure they are doing unique work that couldn’t be done elsewhere.

The Paradox of Progress: Trying to Predict Impact Often Prevents the Highest Impact

55 implied HN points • 13 Dec 24
🔬 Science Innovation Research Funding Technology Policy
  1. Predicting the impact of scientific research often stifles creativity and innovation. Instead of following strict guidelines, we should be open to unexpected paths that can lead to breakthroughs.
  2. Today's funding systems are overly cautious and focus on safe, predictable outcomes. This conservatism can prevent transformative ideas from getting the support they need.
  3. To encourage real progress, we need to embrace uncertainty and risk. Funding should support talented researchers and bold ideas, even when the results are uncertain.

The Case for a "National Clarification Initiative" to Reduce Needless Bureaucracy

100 implied HN points • 09 Nov 24
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Government Bureaucracy Policy Law Administration
  1. A National Clarification Initiative could help clear up misunderstandings about laws that make government work less effective. Many agencies operate under incorrect beliefs about what the law actually requires.
  2. Simplifying and clarifying legal requirements could free up resources and improve innovation in federal programs. There's a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy that slows things down.
  3. Getting feedback directly from agency employees about what's confusing or restrictive can help highlight problems. This initiative would proactively seek these insights to make government processes better.

Some Candid and Scathing Opinions from a Former NIH Insider

48 implied HN points • 16 Dec 24
🏥 Health Politics Public Health Government Policy Biomedical Research Health Reform
  1. NIH has many institutes, but their setup often comes from political pressure, not careful planning. This can create issues when trying to reorganize for better efficiency.
  2. The Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) was meant to help with changes at NIH, but it lost effectiveness under pressure from leadership, showing the challenges of making serious reforms.
  3. Collins, as the NIH director, was seen as domineering and sometimes pushed decisions without considering others’ views. This behavior can lead to problematic decisions and lack of support within the organization.

A Note on the Changing Faces of (D)ARPA

22 implied HN points • 31 Dec 24
🕹 Technology Research Military Innovation Bureaucracy History Regulation
  1. DARPA has undergone significant changes over the years due to increased oversight and bureaucratic rules, impacting how projects are managed and funded. Initially more flexible, DARPA now operates under stricter regulations that slow down decision-making.
  2. The role of leadership has evolved where major visions for projects often come from office directors rather than project managers. This shift affects how projects are pursued and who gets to drive new ideas.
  3. Timelines for project payoffs and the focus on military needs greatly influence which projects get started and how they develop. Changes in political climates or military demands can quicken or slow down the pace of innovation at DARPA.

Small, Fast Grants at the National Science Foundation

33 implied HN points • 10 Dec 24
🔬 Science Research Funding Federal Agencies Philanthropy
  1. The National Science Foundation (NSF) offers small, fast grants that can jumpstart new research ideas, but they aren't used as much as they could be. It's important to increase funding for these types of grants to support innovation.
  2. Philanthropists and foundations should avoid copying the processes of big federal agencies like the NSF and instead focus on their strengths, which can lead to better outcomes in research funding.
  3. Scientists are encouraged to take on roles as science funders, creating opportunities for small grants that can lead to impactful research. This approach can greatly benefit the scientific community.

The NIH and Data . . .

22 implied HN points • 25 Dec 24
🔬 Science Research Data Innovation Metrics Evaluation
  1. The NIH is starting a program to give scholars access to its internal data. This will help them answer important questions about the economic impact and effectiveness of research policies.
  2. They are creating a new metric called the S-index to reward scientists for sharing data with the wider community. This aims to encourage more collaboration rather than just focusing on personal achievements.
  3. The NIH is offering a $1 million prize for innovative ideas on how to implement the S-index metric, encouraging creativity and participation from the scientific community.

Interview with Daniel MacArthur

26 implied HN points • 02 Dec 24
🔬 Science Genomics Research Funding Medical Research Health Technology
  1. Daniel MacArthur is working on making genomic medicine fairer for all communities. His research includes studying genetic differences in underrepresented groups to improve health outcomes.
  2. He believes that funding for science needs to be more flexible and stable. This would allow researchers to take risks and pursue long-term projects without the constant pressure of grant deadlines.
  3. MacArthur thinks research organizations should be built specifically to support scientific work. Many current institutions are not designed for research, making it harder for scientists to succeed.

How to Improve Both Scientific Innovation and Reproducibility at Once

14 implied HN points • 04 Nov 24
🔬 Science Scientific Method Innovation Research Funding Data Integrity
  1. Science struggles with two main issues: not being able to reproduce results and not being as innovative as before. Many studies can't be repeated successfully, which raises concerns about their reliability.
  2. To boost both reproducibility and innovation, it's important to encourage sharing of failed experiments and null results. This would help scientists take risks and avoid only publishing positive outcomes.
  3. Creating 'Red Teams' in science can challenge current beliefs and assumptions. These groups would actively work to test and potentially disprove existing theories, fostering better scientific inquiry.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.