Now THAT would be truly bold and ambitious.

Actually, scratch 4x, make it 80x more for Life Sciences

By the way, another opinion is that funding mechanisms should be tailored to disciplines. I mean the commissions priorities can be reflected in the high level distribution, but I do not think grant format is a one size fits all from humanities and maths, to large scale physics or global ecology.

At the end of the day though, the budget needs quadrupling. And that is just for Life Sciences.

Merging starting, consolidator and advanced would help with the calendar and allow for three rounds per year. Again like the NIH R01 mechanism.

Early career are evaluated together with intermediate and seniors for R01 but the panels correct for experience and they benefit from a different payline in percentile scores.

More 4-year grants at ~400k/year would go a long way to bolster a broader base of excellence, tapping diversity to foster creativity. Analogous to NIH R21, add to that 2-year 200k / year for bold idea to get tested with less preliminary evidence.

As a European-US de-expat I do miss the extensive R01 investigator-initiated mechanism at the scale NIH has/had it. It fits a broad range of career stages and super-stars could get more than one (some institutes downgraded “well-funded” investigators and a limit was discussed).

#SunnyOban

You have competition @lionlchristiaen.bsky.social @msarscentre.bsky.social

Ben non

lovely palette

Good point as long as religion is treated like a hobby meant to foster spirituality and community, contributing to the robustness of the individual psyche and social fabric. But when it poses as a solution to the world’s problems, claiming a vote at the performance table, then it is just a waste.