aaac:solutions

What is the effect of reduced funding for individual research grants (relative to the overall funding profile)?
What do we expect to happen if the current trend continues unchecked?
Does it represent healthy competition and improve proposal quality?
Does it unfairly target younger researchers?
Does it reduce the number of scientists in the field?
Does it favor large projects over small projects? Is that good or bad?
Specific Data for No Change

Is it good for the science?
- Reduce the diversity of ideas? Stifle risky, but imaginative proposals?
Would it improve success rates?
Would it reduce reviewer load?
- number of proposals per group, per PI, per faculty vs research vs lab
- Would it create more PIs (proposals) from otherwise collaborating senior researchers?
- Does it make it even more difficult to decide between a few very excellent must-fund proposals?
Specific data for Solution 1
Has this been tried before?
- Where? How many years?
- What are the advantages?
- What are the disadvantages?

Is it good for the science?
- Does it create funding gaps for tenure-seeking researchers and thus unfairly target a demographic we want to encourage?
- Does it create uneven funding levels, loss of resources, lack of continuity in the off years?
Would it improve success rates?
- Or create a multitude of poor proposals in the “on” year
- Or increase funding requested per proposal?
Would it reduce reviewer load?
- Or create many more proposals in the “on” year?
- Specific data for Solution 2
Has this been tried before?
- Where? How many years?
- What are the advantages?
- What are the disadvantages?

Should the results of the first-step down-selection be advisory or mandatory?
Who makes the decisions about multi-step proposals?
Is it good for the science?
Would it improve success rates?
Would it reduce reviewer load?
Has this been tried before?
- Where? How many years?
- What are the advantages?
- What are the disadvantages?