'Science by consensus' impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical...

Area of Science:

• Scientific funding and policy
• Research evaluation methodologies

Background:

• Grant application success rates at NIH and NSF are critically low, impeding scientific advancement and researchers' careers.
• The current peer review system for grant proposals is widely accepted but lacks scientific validation against alternatives.

Purpose of the Study:

• To identify and detail major problems within the existing scientific peer review process.
• To propose and advocate for a scientifically evaluated, equitable alternative funding system.

Main Methods:

• Delineation of 15 significant issues inherent in the current peer review system.
• Proposal of a novel funding model that bypasses traditional peer review.

Main Results:

• The proposed alternative system aims to fund significantly more principal investigators, including early-career scientists, with reduced overall budget.
• Elimination of the peer review stage is central to the proposed system's efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

Conclusions:

• The current peer review system for grant applications is scientifically unevaluated and detrimental.
• Implementation of an alternative, equitable funding model is necessary to foster scientific progress and support a broader range of researchers.