> It's the American experience that decisions are made at the executive level based on faulty intelligence, while people working at the coal face such as yourself have a much better understanding of what's really going on.
The article notes that the people being axed are NSF execs making funding decisions, and contrasts this with the NIH, where panels of outside experts make the call.
I can't say I have personal experience with either, but all things being equal, the NIH's model sounds like it would work better, no?
> The article notes that the people being axed are NSF execs making funding decisions, and contrasts this with the NIH, where panels of outside experts make the call.
I believe you're mistaken on both counts? The contrast mentioned in the article is just that for the NSF, division directors alone can potentially scuttle approved grants.
The article notes that the people being axed are NSF execs making funding decisions, and contrasts this with the NIH, where panels of outside experts make the call.
I can't say I have personal experience with either, but all things being equal, the NIH's model sounds like it would work better, no?