The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has been crucial in American innovation, but it needs reform to adapt to modern challenges.

The NIH should adopt a more experimental approach to funding, allowing for high-risk, high-reward research that traditional models might overlook.

We should experiment with new funding models at the NIH, such as giving scientists long-term grants without the burden of constant applications.

Institutional renewal is essential; we must update outdated systems to meet the challenges of today's scientific landscape.

There is a need for a better peer review system that can adapt to the rapid pace of scientific advancements and improve the quality of published research.

The practice of science has deteriorated due to politicization, where good scientists are often overshadowed by those skilled in navigating grant applications.

Government partners are increasingly recognizing that the iterative process of developing technology is a feature, not a bug, and that it leads to better outcomes than traditional funding models.

As we automate scientists and innovators, we may see rapid advancements in scientific research, but new bottlenecks will likely arise.

The challenge of balancing commercial success with research-oriented goals is significant, but we are making progress in both areas.