Arthur Lakes (a Brit) is considered one of the founding fathers of geology (paleontology) in the US.  In the 1870s he and fellow collectors not only found the first Stegosaurus fossils they also found the first Tyrannosaurus Rex tooth near what is now Golden, Colorado. Though not quite the excitement of the Pikes Peak Gold Rush, a decade earlier, there was an actual Bone Rush. In fact, the lure of fame and selfishness started the bone wars. Arthur Lakes reportedly worked for OC Marsh. Yet some communications with Marsh's rival Edward Cope initiated the unseemly bone battles. 

The latter half of the 1800's were filled with discoveries and advancements in Paleontology. The first quarter of the 2000's have been noteworthy, even scary, in the advancements of Artificial Intelligence. This same 25 years has unfortunately not seen major advancements in health and longevity in the US. If anything, a person's life expectancy has remained unchanged while the number of years in relatively good health has decreased. Why is this? 

A recent podcast with Dr. Bhattacharya the new NIH Director asserts basic research has stagnated to "turn the crank" science (vs more risky breakthrough research). Further, in some research areas, up to 50% of the work can't be replicated. The wailing and gnashing of teeth over government funding cuts is merely theater if such research, funded or not, doesn't help fulfill the mission of the NIH to deliver health and longevity. 

Unlike Silicon Valley researchers, who are rewarded for risk taking and breakthrough discoveries, NIH research grants more often than not have rewarded conservative, low risk research. Grants are awarded time and time again to the same cohort of  researchers, labs and wealthy, heavily endowed  institutions. Frustration is compounded in that much of their published research can't be replicated. The same cohort of researchers operates by an unpublished law of "I won't challenge your research, and jeopardize your funding, if you don't challenge mine".  

Dr Bhattacharya will be pressed to change the status quo of the NIH. He wishes to inspire more breakthrough research by funding younger, less established researchers. Rather than severely penalize failure, NIH objectives will better reward learning and  risk taking that has an opportunity to deliver 'break through' discoveries.  Due to the inbred nature of peer reviews, NIH will fund independent replication studies. Instead of shaming researchers that prove a study can't be replicated, the NIH will reward objective replication studies and their researchers with additional grants.