Fund the person or the project?

Of course, that’s the shorthand for the policy debate that has been ongoing for years in the science funding world. Should we fund top-notch scientists (subject to some sort of regular post hoc review) and trust them to come up with the ideas? Alternatively, should we fund each project as an idea, while still taking into account the quality of the investigator? And how do we decide (fund or decline) anyway?

The answer to this question is an excellent example of the need for more evidence-based policy making. There are natural experiments out there in the US funding world: NIH’s R35 grants are largely person-based. Howard Hughes Funding (especially in the case of its extramural program) is another example. And of course, on the other side is the long track record from NIH RO1s and NSF’s standard grants. However, I’ve never seen the results of those experiments — despite my former government position, which would have given me access to them. So here’s a ‘bleg’ as my colleague and friend Tyler would use the word: does anyone have the evidence? Please send it along, and I’ll blog about it.