I always loved those curved back windows.

😱

I would go for: cap the inputs per PI and in-person review for every competition.

I just hope they don't over-react and try to overhaul the system as a whole -- like this misguided idea of one competition per year. We do not need to change engines mid-flight again.

I am guessing its pretty evenly split. Everyone I know is writing more grants, whether they have them already or not.

That's so cool! Congratulate Kathy for me!

Congrats Karl, I took the opportunity to add optogenetics to my synaptic transmission lecture today -- the undergrads were amazed as we all have been by the discovery and implementation.

I hope the language used in the report/survey is signalling incremental changes over a period of time. The last thing we need is more 'changing engines mid-flight'. I agree that AI and funding pressure means input limits are reasonable but the biggest problem remains chronic underfunding.

Of the options offered in the survey going to one grant per competition is the worst by a country mile. It's reckless and serves only to temporarily paper over reality.

Seventh, the LOI could be a rational way of triaging a good fraction of grants but these would have to be adjudicated by peer experts in the same committee structure.

Sixth, not being allowed to submit after a successful grant doesn't seem a great idea but *if* implemented it should follow the same logic as above.

Fifth, *if* we limit applications as NPI people will game the system. This needs to be more clearly stated. You can't draw money from more than one grant in any application -- to be enforced by the institution.

Fourth, on budgets. We should 100% remove the ATB cuts but have a separate subcommittee meet to discuss budgets in detail for those grant that will be funded -- disconnected from the main line review work. It won't take long to bring applicants into line with budget asks.

Now it can be argued that reviewer's save time if there is randomization but this assumes the feedback provided is irrelevant and I could not agree less with this assessment.

Third, I don't really see the point of randomization. Since rankings are essentially random at the borderline then we already have randomization. Professional SO's judged on the performance of their portfolio seems the best way if there's going to be out of order selections.