If this all sounds like a calculated plan to reduce the size of the federally funding biomedical research enterprise, I believe that is exactly what is it.

The notion that this "facilitates efficient management" of grants and the appropriation is, to use an official NIH term, horseshit.

/fin

NIH staff are being required to fully fund ~ 50% of their grants. This means that all 4 years of an award will be paid out of this appropriation. This will help them get the appropriated funds spent, but will mean they can only fund (1/2 + 1/4*1/2) = 5/8 has many grants as they would have otherwise.

Probably also worth pointing out that when you look at highly “productive” scientific operations, the main thing you find is an increase in human contribution (eg, more scientists) not some streamlined procedure to arrive at groundbreaking findings. I’m not sure we can escape that fact!

In other words, if we imagine an “efficient” science, we necessarily have to imagine a science that spends less time at the bench, less time mired in figuring out unexpected results, and less time arriving at truly novel outcomes. This ultimately compromises the potential - and efficacy - of science

Rooting science in practical activity - rather than say, good ideas (replace with good experiments!) - reveals why improving the “efficiency” of science is a lost cause. The only real efficiency to be gained would ultimately diminish the *practice* of science, and thus its creative potential.