G
Good Science Project
goodscience.substack.com · Group blog · on HN since 2022
The Good Science Project writes on metascience, research funding, NIH indirect costs, research fraud and how science is organized.
What HN saysHN commenters cite its NIH indirect costs post for context on funding rules and reform ideas, though they disagree on how to read it.
16HN people shared it
3linked it in comments
24stories submitted
40story points
6 months agolast shared
2022people per year2026
Most-shared posts
- 1Metascience Since 2012: A Personal History2 people · 3 points · first shared 2023 · discussion on HN
- 2Indirect costs at nih2 people · first shared 2025
- 3The Research on Fluoride and IQ1 people · 5 points · first shared 2025 · 1 comments on HN
- 4Why Are We Screwing over Researchers Who Make Innovative Discoveries?1 people · 3 points · first shared 2024 · 2 comments on HN
- 5How did places like Bell Labs know how to ask the right questions?1 people · 2 points · first shared 2023 · discussion on HN
- 6Strip Clubs vs. Academic Fraud: Which Is Worse?1 people · 2 points · first shared 2024 · discussion on HN
- 7A Tentative Venture into Replication at NIH1 people · 2 points · first shared 2024 · discussion on HN
- 8The NIH Should Expand Its “Person Not Project” Funding1 people · 2 points · first shared 2023 · discussion on HN
- 9Do We Fund New Research or Not?1 people · 2 points · first shared 2024 · discussion on HN
- 10Addressing Research Fraud1 people · 2 points · first shared 2025 · discussion on HN
- 11How to Fund More Innovative Research1 people · 2 points · first shared 2024 · discussion on HN
- 12Interview with a Top Swiss Scientist1 people · 2 points · first shared 2023 · discussion on HN
- 13We've Made Some Metascience Progress Since 1910, but Not Enough1 people · 2 points · first shared 2024 · discussion on HN
- 14What If Congress Doesn't Specifically Reject NIH Indirect Cost Changes?1 people · 1 points · first shared 2025 · discussion on HN
- 15Progress Engineering: Innovation as Social Design1 people · 1 points · first shared 2026 · discussion on HN
What HN people wrote when they linked it
troupo · 2025-02-14
Oh, they already killed some of the best education research already: https://goodscience.substack.com/p/inexplicable-cuts-at-the-dept-of
mlyle · 2025-02-23
https://goodscience.substack.com/p/indirect-costs-at-nih This reads that argument in the exact opposite direction:
> So, an HHS division like NIH can use a different rate only for a “class” of grants or a “single” grant, and only with “documented justification.”
> There is nothing that says NIH could, in one fell swoop, overturn literally every negotiated rate agreement for 100% of all grants with all medical and academic institutions in the world, with the only justification being “foundations do it” rather than any costing principle whatsoever from the rest of Part 75 of 45 C.F.R.
Further, this doesn't allow a blanket adjustment to existing awards.
marcosfelt · 2025-02-23
This blog post gives some good context on why indirect rates exist and some more reasonable ideas for reforming the current system: https://goodscience.substack.com/p/indirect-costs-at-nih?utm_campaign=…