Voting reflects the current makeup of our community and defines the common denominator of our imagination. Because we (scientists, administrators, politicians) cannot predict future need nor can we predict which idea will get us to any desired therapy, a certain amount of investment in avant garde hypotheses is essential to our continued success. The NIH has tried its best to put money to good and efficacious use but in doing so, efforts that do not fall within mission relevance and topic areas mandated by the congress, the administration or the "community vote" became a casualty of over-investment in near horizon projects. We must improve the balance between "community selected topics" and investigator initiated ideas. This will ensure the innovation pipeline continues as long as RO1s adhere to strict "best science" criteria (innovative, hypothesis driven, and evidence-based investigation into the mechanisms of development and disease; all broadly defined, whether or not included in a topic area listed to the left of this post). We should leave open a window for the unexpected as we all know that serendipity is the mother of invention.
In defense of serendipity: We cannot manage discovery by voting
Tags: voting
