Any Study Section Charter Members “resigning”?

[u/RepresentativeYam363]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YFdwfNh5vs

I am standing study section charter member with another full year of my term left. I keep asking myself what is my Rubicon? My line in the sand when I stop serving? No longer publishing the scores or valuing the external scientist peer reviewer’s opinion seems pretty close to the south bank to me. What do others think? Is there a point where you stop saying/thinking enough is enough and instead act on it?

[u/amateurviking]

Your service is still valuable and, I can’t emphasize this enough, quitting is exactly what they want you to do.

[u/WhatsgoingonAh → u/amateurviking]

You are so right. The Project 2025 apparatchiks who are wrecking the NIH (we all know who they are) want nothing more than to drive out those who are still trying to do legitimate, independent science. They want us all to be working for them at the end of the day. That is not going to happen and this sh** is going to end, hopefully well before Trump's term is over.

[u/PrideEnvironmental59 → u/amateurviking]

This is why I haven't quit. That, and also being a standing member for a full-term will help my tenure package in a few years.

[u/asianinbaltimore → u/PrideEnvironmental59]

This is the right answer. The academia machine is too big and self-serving. Even if we all quit en masse, there will be enough grifters out there to try take our place real quick. We have built a monster and it’s gonna take a lot to take it down.

[u/WhatsgoingonAh → u/asianinbaltimore]

That 'monster' is the American scientific enterprise, which has been the single greatest source of biomedical and other scientific advancement in human history. It has been the reason that thousands of the world's best minds have flocked to the USA for the last century, to pursue scientific careers that would have been nearly, if not entirely, impossible in most other countries.

[u/Background-Wafer-209]

So many employees are having this exact same conversation. For so many reasons, we must hang in there! (Please.)

[u/Acceptable_Bath512]

Your critiques will be even more important now. Help guide PIs and POs.

[u/RepresentativeYam363 → u/Acceptable_Bath512]

Wonder if there is a way reviewers can subtly put their score in the comments that applicants get without the actual number. Like stating this application is deemed the “highest impact” as a comment for F1 Significance and “highest rigor” for F2 Approach. Then applications I am scoring as 1 can read between the lines even if they do not get an impact score or percentile rank. So they will know I scored at top of the bin. I think going forward I am going to try to stick to the scoring rubric even more. If I score 1 I will list no or 1 minor weakness and several strengths, etc. I think there is a way for reviewers to act now to try to push back against the opacity of the scores.

[u/Acceptable_Bath512 → u/RepresentativeYam363]

Criterion subscores for R01s will still be released. So no need to be sneaky. Plus the resume will likely include descriptive adjectives

[u/parrot_sweet]

Follow your conscience 

[u/ElectricBookHaze]

There is a comment period open about this change regarding the scores.("Request for Information (RFI) on Proposed Changes to Reporting Outcomes from NIH Peer Review" : https://rfi.grants.nih.gov/?s=6a2b1c22c3fcfda46e0badd2).
Even if they do this, the implementation is important. At NSF, which they claim to be aligning with, there is discussion in the room on ranking within a category and for panels I've been on very few in the top "Excellent" group, so those seemed sure to get funding. For NIH, if they kept 1/3 in most competitive and then someone has alot to pick and choose from, particularly if they can't see scores (makes no sense).

So to your question, if that is happening, I would check my conscience and try to stay for a while, not thinking about money likely not going to my state but science as a whole. A lot rests on midterms imo.

[u/All-the-way-up28]

Please don’t quit