What We Learned Doing Fast Grants - Future

We launched an abnormally fast source of emergency science funding during COVID-19. The results revealed flaws in current science funding models.

The COVID-19 pandemic isn’t over and it might yet kill more than ten million people worldwide. From the beginning, the institutional response has been lethargic. While officials (including, regrettably, prominent scientific officeholders) provided public assurances, the U.S. did virtually no surveillance sequencing in January or February, even as outbreaks took hold in China and Italy. The CDC botched the initial diagnostic test. Even once working tests existed, they remained invariably slow and hard to obtain for members of the public. We didn’t get off on a good foot. As the first U.S. lockd

saved by

• Raffi Hotter
• Cheng Lin
• Anna Brandenberger

related reading

• How the NSF Moved Faster than the NIH During COVID-19 | IFPprogress.institute
• How research grant applications are slowing scientific progress | Voxvox.com
• Silicon Valley’s New Obsession: Science Funding - The Atlantictheatlantic.com
• Why were Covid vaccine trials so fast?substack.com
• How Life Sciences Actually Work: Findings of a Year-Long Investigation - Alexey Guzeyguzey.com
• A Vision of Metasciencescienceplusplus.org
• The story of VaccinateCA - Works in Progress Magazineworksinprogress.co
• The trouble in comparing different approaches to science fundingscienceplusplus.org
• Developing the science of science - Works in Progress Magazineworksinprogress.co
• A Vision of Metasciencescienceplusplus.org
• What’s Wrong with NIH Grants?substack.com
• Is Science Stagnant? - The Atlantictheatlantic.com