I'm excited that our community is discussing how to help folks (esp ESIs & their lab members) withstand the effects of Covid19 on their labs' viability. I would like to discuss the role that funding agencies can play to ensure the continued success of our cimmunities 1/
I must confess that I am not an expert in these topics, but this is a discussion we must be willing to have so I’m happy to take a first stab at this, even if I end up making a fool of myself (it wouldn't be thr first time) 2/
First, from funding agencies' perspective, it makes sense to ensure that investment into labs is given a chance to reach fruition; running out the clock on grants after 2-4 years of work because they were hit by Covid19 makes no sense, to the PIs or the funding agencies. 3/
1 year of at-cost extension might suffice in many cases to overcome the gap in productivity over past year. I hope the cost benefit analysis by the powers that be can model how much would such an action cost. Setting some priorities might help. Here is one such attempt. 4/
(1) All grants (especially from ESIs) ending in 2020-22 would get a 100% funded extension for one year if that is the only grant they have. After that, cost extensions would drop by 33% the later they end. 5/
(2) Labs with multiple grants can be pro-rated in cost of funded extensions; the more grants you have and the later they end, the smaller the fraction of your funded extensions. The goal here is to retain lab viability to deliver on their original grant applications. 6/
A legitimate question is whether our focus should be on preserving already funded grants or fund new grants with new ideas. I think this is a false dichotomy. Typically new NIH grants are for 4-5 years of funding. They are difficult to get, often require lots of prelim data. 7/
Admittedly, there is a lottery element to getting grants funded (separate discussion). So already funded grants have already been vetted (won a lottery) so to speak. The investment required for 1 yr extensions for fraction of grants is <<< funding new 4-5 year grants. /fin
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I've had some tough conversation with colleagues (esp. junior PIs) over past few weeks that prompted me to write this. My intention is not to offend but to draw attention.
I'm proud of colleagues who pivoted to Covid19 research & published many amazing papers over past year. 1/
But I'm also proud of colleagues who showed kindness to their labmates & tempered expectations about productivity in an already difficult funding climate. Their focus on mental health of their lab is something to be commended. 2/
Especially now, the scientific enterprise needs these voices at the table. But a year (or more) of lost productivity can be fatal for tenure/ promotion decisions, grant funding decisions & the survival of these labs. Many departments have responded by extending tenure clocks. 3/
Having dug a hole for myself on the issue of preprint reviews, I continue to dig deeper. I must confess that a patient friend crystallized my objections to me. I know a lot of people review preprints and papers equally diligently. However, I do not. 1/
I often do not review preprints from an evaluative eye the way I might for a journal. I usually 'review' them purely from the perspective of trying to make constructive suggestions on a story I'm interested in because it is cool and in my field. 2/
To that end, I raarely post public comments. Instead, I send unsolicited emails to the authors with my suggestions and objections. My reviews are not always 'easy'; occasionally they are tough and suggest more rigor in argument or experiment before submission to peer review 3/