Dr. Harris argues that more money, in and of itself, won't necessarily solve the problem, and some of Mr. Daniels' findings back him up. For example, the Hopkins president notes that the NIH's system of grant review, while admired the world over for its rigor, may create something of an "incumbency bias" in which established researchers have an advantage not necessarily because of the quality of their scientific ideas but because of their superior understanding of NIH policies, procedures and regulations — what's known as "grantsmanship." He also notes a Catch-22 — you can't get a grant without data, and you can't produce data without a grant. Efforts by the NIH to address those sorts of problems, he says, have been laudable but inadequate, and he suggests some substantial changes to the peer review and grantmaking processes. Dr. Harris' ideas don't go quite as far, but they are a step in the right direction.