It doesn’t tell us anything that Science tries to present both sides. In particular, it doesn’t tell us anything that Science found someone unhappy at ARPA-H being part of the NIH. That was my point.
I’m not sure what your last paragraph is about. On the face of it it seems to be something to do with the Science article, but it doesn’t seem like it lines up with that. The people quoted there are, in order,
Liz Feld (BA in Government, journalist and politician): the one you quoted, very negative about ARPA-H as part of NIH
Michael Stebbins (genetics PhD, career in science, science journalism and science policy): “It has tremendous potential at NIH” but various caveats
David Walt (professor at Harvard): seems positive (though I think he’s comparing it to the status quo rather than to putting ARPA-H somewhere else)
ResearchAmerica (sciencey PR organization): seems opposed to anything ARPA-H shaped at all because it will take money away from ordinary NIH projects
The last of these seems to be the one you’re talking about—its CEO does indeed describe her background that way. But they’re strongly opposed to putting ARPA-H inside the NIH.
I did decide to look into who’s behind ResearchAmerica but I think it’s fair to notice that Liz Feld also doesn’t have a science background.
Michael Stebbins (genetics PhD, career in science, science journalism and science policy): “It has tremendous potential at NIH” but various caveats
I don’t think that’s a judgement about the merits of it being at NIH. It’s accepting that the decision happened and wanting to influence the particulars. The battlelines being whether or not it’s part of the common fund and a desire to for “program directors have to have tremendous flexibility” and “ARPA-H director has to have the authority to make decisions”. To the extend that those are the goals being outside of the NIH would help with them.
The thing that matters isn’t whether ARPA-H is within NIH but whether it has the authority to make independent decisions.
It doesn’t tell us anything that Science tries to present both sides. In particular, it doesn’t tell us anything that Science found someone unhappy at ARPA-H being part of the NIH. That was my point.
I’m not sure what your last paragraph is about. On the face of it it seems to be something to do with the Science article, but it doesn’t seem like it lines up with that. The people quoted there are, in order,
Liz Feld (BA in Government, journalist and politician): the one you quoted, very negative about ARPA-H as part of NIH
Michael Stebbins (genetics PhD, career in science, science journalism and science policy): “It has tremendous potential at NIH” but various caveats
David Walt (professor at Harvard): seems positive (though I think he’s comparing it to the status quo rather than to putting ARPA-H somewhere else)
ResearchAmerica (sciencey PR organization): seems opposed to anything ARPA-H shaped at all because it will take money away from ordinary NIH projects
The last of these seems to be the one you’re talking about—its CEO does indeed describe her background that way. But they’re strongly opposed to putting ARPA-H inside the NIH.
I did decide to look into who’s behind ResearchAmerica but I think it’s fair to notice that Liz Feld also doesn’t have a science background.
I don’t think that’s a judgement about the merits of it being at NIH. It’s accepting that the decision happened and wanting to influence the particulars. The battlelines being whether or not it’s part of the common fund and a desire to for “program directors have to have tremendous flexibility” and “ARPA-H director has to have the authority to make decisions”. To the extend that those are the goals being outside of the NIH would help with them.
The thing that matters isn’t whether ARPA-H is within NIH but whether it has the authority to make independent decisions.