The way we fund science is flawed. Researchers often wait for years for grant funding, wasting precious time in fast-moving fields like genetic engineering. Project leaders spend nearly half their time on administrative tasks. The current system makes it hard for visionaries like Katalin Karikó to pursue groundbreaking work.
However, I fear the administration’s approach will make things worse. A new policy capping indirect costs at 15% could cut $4 billion from biomedical funding per year and force universities to lay off researchers. This is not just about cost-cutting; it’s an investment portfolio where we want returns in knowledge, lifesaving drugs, and technological capability.
We need to rethink how we select scientific research to fund. The current process is slow, rigid, and risk-averse. We should experiment with rapid-turnaround projects and “golden tickets” that allow reviewers to greenlight unconventional ideas. Streamlined review systems can also help, starting with a two-page pitch instead of a 50-page proposal.
The future of science lies in outside organizations like Janelia Research Campus and nonprofit start-ups using philanthropic dollars to build tools that could accelerate progress. They require massive computing clusters, specialized machine learning engineers, and multimillion-dollar lab equipment. The NIH should pioneer new funding mechanisms to support these initiatives, focusing on indirect costs rather than just reducing spending.
Katalin Karikó’s story highlights the importance of taking risks in science. It’s not about saving dollars; it’s about breakthroughs we could be missing. We need to rethink what efficiency means in science, investing more in innovative research and less time on paperwork.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/19/opinion/doge-nih-science-america.html