US Judge Advances Whistleblower Suit Over Harvard's $200M in NIH Grants

Sabine Hossenfelder

A whistleblower victory against Harvard threatens to trigger a wave of copycat lawsuits across academia, where repurposing federal research funds and fabricating grant milestones have long operated as a tolerated open secret.

AI-assisted summary of Academia's Dirty Secret Is Going to Court — original source. Check the original for full context.

Source published: 2026-07-19

Key ideas

A federal judge has allowed a False Claims Act lawsuit to proceed against Harvard professor Lee Nadler, alleging the repurposing of NIH research grants totaling over $200 million and false claims of meeting project objectives. (0:00)
Whistleblower and former NIH official David Zielinski could personally collect a 25% bounty under qui tam provisions if the federal government recovers the misspent funds. (2:31)
The lawsuit targets systemic grant repurposing and routine exaggeration in funding applications, a widespread academic practice that funding agencies have historically ignored. (0:00)
Structural pressures in academia actively penalize candor, forcing researchers to manufacture arbitrary milestones and societal impact statements to secure competitive grants. (4:01)

Detailed notes

## Background Published by Sabine Hossenfelder on YouTube on July 19, 2026, the video examines a federal whistleblower lawsuit allowed by a US judge against a Harvard professor. According to the description, the case involves allegations of repurposing National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grants and falsely claiming milestones were met, bringing widespread but quietly tolerated academic grant practices into legal scrutiny.

## TL;DR A former NIH official, David Zielinski, has brought a False Claims Act lawsuit against Harvard researcher Lee Nadler, alleging Nadler redirected over $200 million in grant funding while falsely certifying that original objectives were fulfilled. Sabine Hossenfelder explains that while such grant repurposing and exaggerated impact statements are technically fraudulent, they represent an open secret and standard survival tactic across academic science. Granting agencies likely ignored these discrepancies for years, but the whistleblower provisions offer massive financial incentives that could spark a wave of copycat lawsuits against major universities. Ultimately, the case exposes how structural pressures in academic funding penalize honesty, stifle genuine innovation, and resist bureaucratic reform.

## Atmosphere & style The delivery is sharp, cynical, and sardonic, driven by Hossenfelder's trademark dry humor and unsparing critique of academic bureaucracy. It feels less like an abstract legal report and more like an insider gleefully pulling back the curtain on a dirty industry secret everyone knows but refuses to acknowledge aloud. The narrative progresses from dissecting an individual legal dispute into an exasperated, systemic critique of research funding incentives, leaving viewers with a bleak yet validating sense of institutional absurdity.

## Bulletin - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=0s) A federal judge has allowed a False Claims Act lawsuit to proceed against Harvard professor Lee Nadler, alleging the repurposing of NIH research grants totaling over $200 million and false claims of meeting project objectives. - [02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=151s) Whistleblower and former NIH official David Zielinski could personally collect a 25% bounty under qui tam provisions if the federal government recovers the misspent funds. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=0s) The lawsuit targets systemic grant repurposing and routine exaggeration in funding applications, a widespread academic practice that funding agencies have historically ignored. - [04:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=241s) Structural pressures in academia actively penalize candor, forcing researchers to manufacture arbitrary milestones and societal impact statements to secure competitive grants.

## Key takeaways - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=0s) Whistleblower David Zielinski filed a federal qui tam lawsuit against Harvard's Lee Nadler for repurposing NIH research funds and misrepresenting project completion. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=0s) The Nadler case is legally distinct from previous high-profile fraud cases because it focuses on routine grant money repurposing rather than data falsification or image manipulation. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=0s) Grant applications across academia routinely rely on manufactured timelines, arbitrary milestones, and exaggerated impact statements to satisfy formal compliance mandates. - [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=0s) Surveys from researchers in Britain and Australia confirm that scientists widely consider required impact statements to be charades or made-up narratives. - [02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=151s) Harvard argued in defense that the NIH could not have plausibly missed that two-thirds of the intended research was never performed over a decade. - [02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=151s) The historical failure of the NIH to intervene points toward a widespread tacit acceptance of flexible grant management across academic institutions. - [02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=151s) Under the False Claims Act, whistleblowers stand to receive 25% of recovered government funds, creating strong personal financial incentives for future copycat lawsuits. - [04:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=241s) The current grantmaking structure actively punishes honest proposals, as projects admitting a lack of immediate practical application are consistently denied funding. - [04:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=241s) Conservative review panels discourage high-risk, unconventional research ideas in favor of predictable, incremental proposals. - [04:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=241s) Reform initiatives such as the NSF X program remain constrained by relying on the same peer-review committee structures they aim to improve. - [04:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=241s) While internal academic committees have avoided holding researchers accountable, external legal judgments could force systemic changes onto the grant system.

## Detailed walkthrough ### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=0s) A Whistleblower Lawsuit Shakes Up Academia

A major federal lawsuit permitted by a US judge has the potential to fundamentally disrupt scientific research. The case involves David Zielinski, a former official at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), who is suing his former colleague, Lee Nadler at Harvard University. Zielinski alleges that Nadler repurposed NIH research grants and falsely claimed that he had met the required project objectives. According to the complaint, Nadler even bragged to colleagues about first applying for grant money for his research center and only deciding what to do with the funds afterward. While the title may sound unbelievable, the lawsuit matters because this behavior is an open secret across the entire academic sector.

```mermaid flowchart TD accTitle: Whistleblower Lawsuit Flow accDescr: Diagram showing the legal action taken by whistleblower David Zielinski against Lee Nadler under the False Claims Act.

subgraph LegalAction["Legal Action"] Z["Whistleblower: David Zielinski<br/>(Former NIH Official)"] -->|"Files qui tam lawsuit under False Claims Act"| Court["US Federal Court<br/>(Judge allows case to proceed)"] Court -->|"Targets"| N["Defendant: Lee Nadler<br/>(Harvard University / Harvard Catalyst)"] end

subgraph Allegations["Core Allegations"] N -->|"Alleged action"| G["Repurposing >$200M in NIH grants"] N -->|"Alleged action"| F["Falsely claiming project objectives were met"] end ```

Funding agencies such as the NIH, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and international bodies enforce formal compliance frameworks. However, researchers routinely treat these mandates as mere lip service, filling grant applications with manufactured timetables, arbitrary milestones, and exaggerated impact statements claiming how their work will serve the nation. As Sabine Hossenfelder puts it:

> “The reason this lawsuit could hit big is that this happens all the time.”

- Zielinski alleges that Nadler openly admitted to obtaining grants first before figuring out how to spend the funds. - Formal requirements force scientists to invent justifications, such as claiming that another speculative solution to the black hole information paradox will yield national benefits. - Anonymous surveys of researchers in Great Britain and Australia confirm that lies and exaggerations are standard practice, with academics describing impact statements as "charades" or "made-up stories." - Unlike prior high-profile NIH fraud cases at Duke University or the Cleveland Clinic—which focused on data falsification, image manipulation, or fake affiliations—this suit targets the systemic, routine repurposing of grant money.

---

[02:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=151s) Why the NIH Looked Away and the Financial Stakes of Qui Tam

The Harvard lawsuit brings up a crucial question: how could this grant repurposing continue for over a decade without the NIH taking action? The most plausible explanation is that agency officials were either fully aware or strongly suspicious, yet deliberately chose not to intervene because flexible grant management is tacitly accepted across the board. In reporting highlighted by *The Harvard Crimson*, Harvard attempted to dismiss the lawsuit by arguing that the court should view with skepticism the idea that the NIH failed to notice that two-thirds of the intended research was never carried out.

```mermaid flowchart LR accTitle: Qui Tam Mechanism Flowchart accDescr: Flowchart illustrating how a False Claims Act lawsuit pays out to the whistleblower.

subgraph QuiTam["False Claims Act (Qui Tam)"] WB["Whistleblower sues on behalf of US Government"] WB -->|"Wins lawsuit"| Recovery["Government recovers misspent funds"] Recovery -->|"Whistleblower receives 25% bounty"| Payout["Potential tens of millions for retirement"] end ```

The motivation behind Zielinski's lawsuit against a fellow researcher lies in the incentives of the American False Claims Act. Under this legal framework, a whistleblower files a *qui tam* action on behalf of the federal government and stands to receive a massive personal cut if the case succeeds. Addressing Harvard's own defense that the agency could not have missed the unperformed work, Hossenfelder emphasizes:

> “The obvious answer is that they didn't miss it. They didn't care.”

- Harvard argued that it is implausible that the NIH simply overlooked that two-thirds of the grant's proposed work was abandoned. - Under the False Claims Act *qui tam* provisions, successful whistleblowers are entitled to collect 25% of the recovered funds. - The grants awarded to the Harvard Catalyst program under Nadler’s leadership exceeded $200 million, creating a massive potential financial payout. - If Zielinski wins, the financial bounty will likely trigger a wave of copycat lawsuits targeting other academic institutions.

---

[04:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=241s) Systemic Dishonesty and the Flaw in Reform Committees

The pervasiveness of misrepresentation in applications raises the question of whether "fraud" is even an accurate term when deception has become an absolute necessity to survive within academia. Honest grant writers who openly admit that a theoretical project offers zero tangible utility or immediate economic value simply would not receive funding. Consequently, the current grant system actively penalizes candor while heavily discouraging high-risk, conceptually novel ideas because non-traditional proposals face near-certain rejection by conservative review panels.

Institutional attempts to solve this stagnation continue to repeat historical mistakes. The NSF's recent "NSF X" initiative aims to scale independent, innovative research organizations, yet it relies on the same peer-review mechanisms that created the gridlock in the first place. AI could theoretically help evaluate grant proposals more objectively, but the academic establishment shows little appetite to implement it. Reflecting on bureaucratic efforts to reform academic grantmaking, Hossenfelder remarks:

> “You can't escape the committee by appointing a committee to escape committees.”

- Scientists face intense structural pressure to fabricate immediate societal relevance to avoid immediate rejection. - The NSF X program was established to launch organizations focused on independent research and development, but risks relying on the same insular reviewer pool. - Academic culture has systematically avoided accountability, but successful legal judgments could abruptly introduce actual consequences to the grant-writing ecosystem.

---

[05:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=337s) Sponsor: Ground News

Staying informed through daily news reading can quickly turn tedious due to sensationalism, redundant headlines, and unclear sourcing standards. Ground News addresses this by aggregating reporting worldwide, allowing readers to view quick summaries, compare media coverage, and review instant fact-checks in a single location rather than sorting through dozens of repetitive articles.

A clear example of media framing is seen in the coverage of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approving Reflect Orbital's space-mirror concept to sell orbital sunlight by the hour. Left-leaning media outlets primarily emphasize risks and regulatory concerns, whereas right-leaning platforms frame the story in neutral or optimistic terms. Through analytical tools like the Blindspot feature, users can identify stories covered exclusively by one end of the political spectrum. Viewers can claim a 40% discount on the comprehensive Vantage plan by visiting the dedicated Ground News link.

## Notable quotes > [04:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4&t=241s) You can't escape the committee by appointing a committee to escape committees. — Sabine Hossenfelder

## Mentioned David Zielinski, Lee Nadler, National Institutes of Health, Harvard University, Harvard Catalyst, False Claims Act, National Science Foundation, Duke University, Cleveland Clinic, The Harvard Crimson, NSF X, Ground News, Federal Communications Commission, Reflect Orbital

## Video description Go to https://ground.news/sabine to get 40% off the Vantage plan and see through sensationalized reporting. Stay fully informed on events around the world with Ground News.

A federal judge in the US has allowed a whistleblower lawsuit to go forward, in which a former official of the National Institutes of Health accuses a Harvard professor of repurposing research grants and falsely claiming he had met his objectives. The allegations are unproven. But the reason this case matters is that everyone in academia knows this kind of thing happens all the time, and until now no one seemed to care. Let's take a look.

#science #sciencenews #academia #research #fraud #lawsuit

👕T-shirts, mugs, posters and more: ➜ https://sabines-store.dashery.com/ 💌 Support me on Donorbox ➜ https://donorbox.org/swtg 👉 Transcript with links to references on Patreon ➜ https://www.patreon.com/Sabine 📝 Transcripts and written news on Substack ➜ https://sciencewtg.substack.com/ 📩 Free weekly science newsletter ➜ https://sabinehossenfelder.com/newsletter/ 👂 Audio only podcast ➜ https://open.spotify.com/show/0MkNfXlKnMPEUMEeKQYmYC 🔗 Join this channel to get access to perks ➜ https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1yNl2E66ZzKApQdRuTQ4tw/join 📚 Buy my book ➜ https://amzn.to/3HSAWJW

[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxN22cWeSK4)

中文简报

美法官推进针对哈佛大学2亿美元NIH资助的举报人诉讼举报人在针对哈佛的诉讼中获胜，恐将在学术界引发一波模仿诉讼；长期以来，挪用联邦科研资金和伪造资助里程碑在学术界一直是被容忍的公开秘密。前NIH官员David Zielinski依据《虚假申报法》对哈佛大学研究员Lee Nadler提起诉讼，指控Nadler挪用了超过2亿美元的资助资金，同时虚假证明原定目标已达成。Sabine Hossenfelder解释称，尽管此类挪用资助和夸大影响陈述在技术层面上属于欺诈，但它们代表了学术界公开的秘密和普遍的生存策略。资助机构多年来可能一直对这些出入视而不见，但举报人条款提供了巨额财务激励，这可能会引发针对各顶尖大学的模仿诉讼潮。归根结底，该案件揭示了学术资助中的结构性压力如何惩罚诚实、扼杀真正的创新并抵制官僚体制改革。一名联邦法官已允许针对哈佛大学教授Lee Nadler的《虚假申报法》诉讼继续审理，指控其挪用了总计超过2亿美元的NIH研究资助，并虚假声称达成了项目目标。 (0:00) 举报人兼前NIH官员David Zielinski依据追诉条款（qui tam provisions），如果联邦政府追回被滥用的资金，其个人可能获得25%的赏金。 (2:31) 该诉讼针对的是系统性的资助挪用以及申请中例行的夸大其词，这是一种资助机构历来予以忽视的普遍学术实践。 (0:00) 学术界的结构性压力切实惩罚了坦诚，迫使研究人员编造随意的里程碑和社会影响陈述以获得具有竞争力的资助。 (4:01)

Reading summary

Sabine Hossenfelder argues that a federal whistleblower lawsuit against Harvard University exposes a pervasive culture of misrepresentation across academia, where researchers routinely manufacture objectives and impact claims to secure grant funding. Allegations of Grant Repurposing at Harvard (0:00) A federal judge allowed a lawsuit to proceed in which former National Institutes of Health (NIH) official David Zielinski accuses Harvard researcher Lee Nadler of repurposing over $200 million in NIH grants awarded to the Harvard Catalyst program. According to the complaint, Nadler falsely claimed to have achieved required project objectives and bragged to colleagues about securing grant money before deciding how to allocate it. Hossenfelder emphasizes that unlike previous high-profile academic fraud cases at Duke University or the Cleveland Clinic—which centered on image manipulation, data falsification, or fake affiliations—this case challenges the routine administrative diversion of research funding. Qui Tam Incentives and Regulatory Inaction (2:31) In its defense, Harvard argued that the court should be skeptical of claims that the NIH failed to notice that two-thirds of the proposed research was never executed. Hossenfelder contends that agency officials did not miss the divergence, but rather ignored it because informal repurposing is tacitly accepted across the scientific establishment. The litigation proceeds under the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit whistleblowers suing on behalf of the government to retain 25% of recovered funds. Given the scale of the Catalyst grants, a legal victory for Zielinski could result in a tens-of-millions payout and trigger copycat lawsuits across academia. Institutional Incentives and Failed Reform Efforts (4:01) Hossenfelder points out that the current funding system penalizes candor, as scientists who honestly state that basic or theoretical research lacks direct societal or economic utility risk immediate rejection from conservative review panels. Surveys of researchers in Great Britain and Australia indicate that exaggerations and fabricated impact statements are widespread. Meanwhile, institutional solutions such as the National Science Foundation's "NSF X" initiative risk reproducing the same bureaucratic gridlock because they continue to rely on traditional peer-review panels, prompting Hossenfelder to observe that appointing committees cannot resolve committee-driven failure. While the scientific establishment has long avoided confronting internal dishonesty in grant applications, Hossenfelder concludes that successful court judgments under federal fraud statutes may abruptly impose outside accountability on academic funding practices.

精炼阅读摘要

Sabine Hossenfelder指出，一起针对哈佛大学研究人员涉嫌挪用科研经费的联邦举报人诉讼已被美国法官批准继续审理，该案可能揭开学术界长期默认虚构申请指标、挪用科研拨款的系统性潜规则。哈佛拨款诉讼揭示学术界公开秘密 (0:00) 美国国家卫生研究院（NIH）前官员David Zielinski依据《虚假申报法》（False Claims Act）对哈佛大学的前同行Lee Nadler提起举报人诉讼（qui tam）。Zielinski指控Nadler在领导Harvard Catalyst项目期间挪用了超过2亿美元的NIH研究资助，并虚假申报项目目标已经达成；诉状甚至提及Nadler曾向同事吹嘘自己是先为研究中心申请经费，拿到钱后再决定如何使用。Hossenfelder强调，虽然这一行为看似令人震惊，但实际上此类操作在整个学术界是普遍存在的公开秘密。以往杜克大学或克利夫兰医学中心发生的知名NIH欺诈案大多集中于伪造数据、篡改图像或挂名虚假机构，而本案的特殊之处在于直接针对日常科研活动中普遍存在的经费挪用行为。尽管NIH、美国国家科学基金会（NSF）及国际资助机构均设有严格的形式合规框架，但学者们往往将其视为走过场，在申请书中编造虚假的时间表、随意设定里程碑，并夸大对国家利益的实际影响。英国和澳大利亚研究人员的匿名调查进一步证实，学术界将撰写影响力陈述称为“做戏”或“编造故事”，夸大与不实陈述已成为常规操作。虚假申报法的高额奖励与监管漠视 (2:31) 本案引发的核心疑问在于，为何长达十余年的经费挪用行为从未遭到资助机构的干预。《哈佛绯红报》（The Harvard Crimson）的报道显示，哈佛大学在试图驳回诉讼时辩称，法庭应当怀疑NIH怎么可能没有注意到拟定研究中有三分之二根本从未开展。对此，Hossenfelder认为最合乎逻辑的解释并非官员疏忽，而是资助机构心知肚明却刻意漠视，因为学术界在经费管理上的所谓灵活性早已被各方心照不宣地接受。 Zielinski提起诉讼的直接动力与美国《虚假申报法》的激励机制密切相关。根据该法律的举报人条款，个人可以代表联邦政府提起诉讼，胜诉后有权分得追回资金的25%。鉴于Nadler牵头的相关资助项目总额超过2亿美元，胜诉意味着巨额的个人分成收益。Hossenfelder预测，如果Zielinski最终胜诉，如此庞大的经济回报极有可能引发针对其他学术研究机构的一波效仿性诉讼浪潮。结构性欺瞒困境与官僚改革局限 (4:01) 学术申请中普遍存在的虚饰反映了科研体制的深层矛盾。如果坦诚承认基础理论课题（例如黑洞信息悖论的某种推测性解法）短期内没有任何实际功用或直接经济价值，申请者几乎不可能获得经费。现行资助机制在惩罚诚实申报的同时，也严重打压了高风险、概念新颖的探索，因为保守的同行评审委员会往往会直接否决非传统的研究提案。在这种生存压力下，欺瞒几乎成了学术界立足的必要手段。针对科研停滞与体制僵化，官方的改革尝试往往陷入重复历史错误的怪圈。例如NSF推出的“NSF X”倡议旨在扶持独立的创新型研发机构，但其决策依然高度依赖最初导致体制停滞的同一批同行评审人员。Hossenfelder援引其观点评价称，“你无法通过任命一个委员会来摆脱委员会的束缚”。虽然理论上引入人工智能有助于更客观地评估项目提案，但学术建制派对此缺乏采纳意愿；学术圈长期回避外部问责，而此类司法判决可能会强制为项目申请生态引入真正的问责后果。本案将学术界长久以来对经费规则的形式合规与实际脱节推到了法律前沿。如果司法裁决认定普遍存在的项目指标虚报构成欺诈，现行依赖同行评审与夸大实用价值的科研资助体系或将面临颠覆性的重构压力。

Source quotes

[4:01] Sabine Hossenfelder: You can't escape the committee by appointing a committee to escape committees.

Original transcript

[0:00] This new lawsuit could change the course of science. I know that title sounds unbelievable, [0:06] but hear me out. A federal judge in the US has allowed a lawsuit to continue on in which [0:11] a former official of the NIH the National Institute of Health, David Zielinski, sues one [0:17] of his former colleagues, Lee Nadler at Harvard. The spicy part is the reason for the lawsuit. [0:24] It's that Nadler allegedly repurposed NIH grants and falsely said he'd met objectives. Zielinski [0:31] claims that Nadler bragged to colleagues about first applying for grants for his research center and [0:37] then deciding what to do with the money. The reason this lawsuit could hit big is that this [0:43] happens all the time. You see, the NIH and the NSF and a lot of national funding agencies globally [0:49] have official rules that you must comply with, but everyone in academia knows their lip confessions [0:56] and most of what they write in the grand proposals is bullshit. You need timetables with milestones to [1:03] be checked off and a statement of relevance for just exactly how your amazing research [1:08] will benefit your country and so on. So they make up timetables and milestones and some reasons for [1:14] why yet another nonsense solution to the black hole information pseudo problem will benefit the [1:20] nation. I don't know whether the person who's being sued really bragged about basically lying [1:26] in his grant proposals. But if he did it, it wouldn't remotely surprise me because I've had [1:32] faculty members do the same thing. In academia, it's become entirely normalized. You don't have [1:38] to take my word for it. Anonymous interviews among academics in Great Britain and Australia have also [1:44] demonstrated that lies and exaggerations have become routine in proposal writing. Participants [1:51] of the study refer to their impact statements as "charades" or "made-up stories." This is not the first [1:59] time that an NIH grant recipient got sued. There have been a handful of cases in the past years, [2:05] but the earlier ones like those at Duke and Cleveland Clinic were more obviously [2:11] fraudulent and concerned data falsification, image manipulation, or false affiliations. The [2:17] new lawsuit instead tackles a money repurposing tactic that's extremely widespread in academia, [2:24] not just in the United States, and not just in the life sciences. What makes this case particularly [2:31] interesting is the question it raises. How did this go on for over a decade without NIH catching [2:39] it? The most obvious explanation is that NIH knew or at least strongly suspected what was happening [2:46] but didn't care because this kind of flexible and often misleading grant management is widespread [2:52] and testedly accepted. Indeed, according to the Harvard Crimson, the university had tried [2:58] to prevent the lawsuit because the court should be skeptical that the NIH somehow missed that [3:05] 2/3 of the work contemplated was never done. Yes, exactly. How could the NIH have possibly missed [3:13] this? The obvious answer is that they didn't miss it. They didn't care. You may wonder why Zielinski [3:20] would even sue Nadler if he's potentially shooting the NIH into the foot. That at least is not [3:28] difficult to guess because this is what's called a "qui tam" lawsuit under the American False Claims [3:35] Act. The whistleblower in this case Zielinski sues on behalf of the US government. If he wins, [3:41] he gets 25% of the money he saved the government. It's hard to say just exactly how much this is, [3:47] but the NIH grants for the Harvard Catalyst under Nadler's guidance totaled more than $200 million. [3:55] So, if Zielinski wins, he'll have a very cozy retirement and there'll likely be more such [4:01] lawsuits. Now, look, I'm not claiming that everyone in academia is a fraud. And indeed, [4:05] one may ask whether fraud is a good term for lies that have become so normalized they're simply [4:11] necessary to survive in the system. If they were honest and declared that actually their research [4:17] is irrelevant and a waste of money, they might as well not submit the proposal in the first place. [4:23] The entire process is not one that rewards honesty. And the problem has a flip side [4:29] which is that researchers who want to try something conceptually new [4:35] face such a high risk of rejection that they don't try in the first place. There have been [4:40] many many initiatives to overcome this problem. The most recent one is the NSF X program from the [4:47] American National Science Foundation that is quote "designed to launch and scale a new generation of [4:54] organizations focused on independent research, development, and innovation." This initiative [5:00] will fail for the same reason as all previous initiatives in all other countries because they'll [5:07] ultimately draw on the same pool of reviewers as everyone else and they'll just reinforce the same [5:13] standards again. You can't escape the committee by appointing a committee to escape committees. [5:19] This is a problem that AI could actually help to mitigate, but there doesn't seem to be much [5:25] effort into this, which is interesting in its own right, isn't it? In summary, academia may soon [5:30] discover a new incentive structure. It's called consequences. I read a lot of news every day, [5:38] and that used to be really tedious because a lot of headlines repeat, and it's difficult to [5:43] tell what quality the articles are. But today's sponsor, Ground News, has really made my news [5:49] reading so much better. Ground News is a news platform that collects news from all over the [5:55] world. It really saves me a lot of time because I don't have to sort through a dozen headlines [6:00] on the same story. I can just get a quick summary and fact check for all the coverage. [6:06] And ground news also gives you a lot of extra information at one glance. Take for example [6:12] this recent story about the FCC approving the space mirror from reflect orbital that wants to [6:19] sell sunlight by the hour. Ground News gives you a brief summary here with a comparison between the [6:25] left and right leaning talking points. You can see that the left leaning headlines stress concerns [6:31] whereas the right leaning ones are more neutral or upbeat. Ground news also gives you a lot of [6:37] extra information such as a factuality check and where the news has appeared. Ground news also has [6:43] this interesting feature called Blindspot. This collects news which has been covered only on one [6:49] side of the political spectrum. I found Ground News super useful for putting news into context [6:56] quickly. And of course, I have a special offer for you. That's a 40% discount on the Vantage plan, [7:03] which gives you access to all their features. All you need to do is use my link ground.news/sabine [7:10] or use the QR code so they'll know I sent you. Thanks for watching. See you tomorrow.