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

The challenges faced by the NIH highlight the need for reform in scientific funding processes to better support innovative research.

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

If we can create an algorithm that people can trust for fair allocation of rewards, we could improve many cap tables and grant funding processes in science.

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

I'm waiting to see what projects the US government might fund for normal fallible human researchers.

Today's scientists spend 40% of their time on paperwork and grant applications, which hinders their ability to focus on research.