Stuart Buck

That was by no means the main point of the piece, but always happy to correct minor mistakes.

A Reality-Based View of Government Funding of Science Getting the diagnosis right before designing treatments

Jeremy Berg makes the same critique, and I respond in this back-and-forth: substack.com/home/post/p-...

Venture Capital Has Lessons for Government and Philanthropy tackling structural and bureaucratic rot

New at Good Science Project:

goodscience.substack.com/p/venture-ca...

Megan Ranney and Stuart Buck sit in high-back leather chairs in a wood-paneled room

We were so thrilled to help host @stuartbuck.bsky.social for conversations with @meganranney.bsky.social of @yalesph.bsky.social and Michelle Hahn of the Tobin Center about the importance of reproducibility in science. bit.ly/4tnu7Dl

Update on Metascience-Related Language in the NIH Budget Earlier this week, the House and Senate appropriations committees released a bipartisan bill on NIH funding, along with a Joint Explanatory Statement that has a few paragraphs of metascience interest.

@stuartbuck.bsky.social update on metascience in the budget
goodscience.substack.com/p/update-on-...

Emphasis on #replication should be good news, but my concern is it’ll be used for policy-based evidence creation.
#NIH
Study registration, strong methods & commiting to publish are key

Back and Forth on the Value of Replication From Stuart:

It’s a debate between @jdworkin.bsky.social and @stuartbuck.bsky.social on the value of replicating research!

Stuart Buck headshot next to faded image of glowing lights and digits, with text: Reproducible Science is Good Science; Conversations with Sutart Buck of the Good Science Project; Jan. 21 & 22, 2026

Members of the Yale community: Please join us on Jan. 21 & 22 for two conversations with @stuartbuck.bsky.social on reproducibility in science. Register to attend on 1/21 at bit.ly/3Z5IZbu or on 1/22 at bit.ly/4qdXZAi

💰🧪 Funding outside the box: A Quick Q&A with … philanthropy expert Stuart Buck 'Breakthroughs are by definition a break with the status quo'

An interview with me that came out today:

fasterplease.substack.com/p/funding-ou...

A Top Scientist's Ideas as to NIH An anonymous guest post

New post on NIH!

goodscience.substack.com/p/a-top-scie...

AI and Pediatric Cancer Research The Trump Administration recently issued an executive order titled “Unlocking Cures for Pediatric Cancer with Artificial Intelligence,” with an accompanying announcement from the Department of Health ...

New post!
goodscience.substack.com/p/ai-and-ped...

A Compact Between Universities and Government? Recently, the federal government released a proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” based on a proposal from investor Marc Rowan.

New post on the proposed compact with American universities:

open.substack.com/pub/goodscie...

I know what your 3rd and 4th guesses were:

Wordle 1,579 5/6

🟩⬜⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟨⬜⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Was your third word drift?

The Case for Crazy Philanthropy

(1/5)
Once, eccentric patrons funded wild dreams — radar in a mansion, secret codes in Shakespeare, scrolls from Vesuvius. Today, philanthropy feels safe and bureaucratic. What if wild giving could revive science, health and imagination?
🔗 www.palladiummag.com/2025/08/22/t...
@stuartbuck.bsky.social

Lucky:

Wordle 1,469 2/6

⬜⬜🟩⬜⬜
🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩

Anyway, thanks for continuing to raise important issues!

I would never block you or Joe Bak-Coleman, because I am fine with (and even appreciate) being challenged. For me, blocking is only for people who are very disruptive or insulting. Not just because someone politely disagreed.

I basically agree, I guess, but I also think it's poor epistemics to block someone when the apparent reason is "they made an argument that I find inconvenient to answer." I hadn't said anything remotely disrespectful to him at that point.

PS: you're definitely debating (disagreeing) with me! :)

you're debating right now! :)

anyway, the only bad faith I see is the refusal to address an obvious counterpoint: are all people who work on a problem (reproducibility, anti-Semitism) to blame when a malignant politician weaponizes that issue? if not, why not?

Don’t believe what you read on new report of medical error deaths Take the "news" that medical errors are the third leading cause of death with a grain of salt. Medical errors are poorly defined, and that estimate has been around for awhile.

When we funded Prasad, he was working on medical reversals and was writing stuff like this: www.statnews.com/2016/05/09/m...

I can't control what someone does 8-10 years in the future.

The Case for a "Department of Government Efficiency" There ought to be a federal department exclusively focused on making government work better, that is, government efficiency.

Maybe we should have a Department of Government Efficiency:
goodscience.substack.com/p/the-case-f...

Carl Bergstrom blocked me for this post! Didn't know he was like that.

NASA Is Worth Saving Guest Column by Casey Handmer

New guest post!
goodscience.substack.com/p/nasa-is-wo...

*who's

Thanks for the plug, I guess!

"so many"? I can think of arguably 2 people who might be what you're describing.

Good point. In fact, one might as well denounce anyone who has ever criticized anti-Semitism because they are somehow responsible for Trump weaponizing that idea against Columbia and Harvard.

Let Unfunded Grant Applications See the Light of Day Showing which proposals do and don’t receive federal funding can improve research and advance open science.

Showing which proposals do AND don’t receive federal funding can improve research and advance open science, @stuartbuck.bsky.social & @csmarcum.sciences.social.ap.brid.gy write. In fact, US funding agencies are required by law to provide much of this data already:

And how does each red light have a different area in which other lights could occur? The size of stoplights isn't standard any more?

How do these red lights make any sense? No source of support, no reason to exist in the first place, no reason to have multiple red lights.

Nothing about that makes sense.