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

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.

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.
Get a weekly roundup of the best Substack posts, by hacker news affinity:

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.

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

3 HN points • 28 Nov 23
🇺🇸 U.S. Politics Government reform
  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.

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

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

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.