Actions speak much louder than words: for midcareer and senior investigators, the track record of productivity should be paramount in selecting grant recipients.

On the surface, it seems obvious – and, indeed, it is commonly assumed – that the best predictors of the scientific impact of a project are the novelty, methodology, feasibility, and importance of the proposed studies (as assessed by peer review groups). Accordingly, funding decisions by the NIH, AHA, and other bodies are based primarily on what the applicants say in their proposals. What the applicants have actually done in the past (i.e., their track record of productivity or lack thereof) is generally seen as a secondary factor; reviewers are reluctant to emphasize it lest they may be accused of being biased in favor or against an investigator. Although the evaluation of a grant proposal is supposed to include the qualifications of the investigators and, in the case of competitive renewals, the progress made in the previous funding period, these factors are not paramount, and past productivity remains peripheral in the overall assessment. Reviewers commonly assume that the applicants will do what they say they will do and that, if they do it, they will publish the results of their work. Projects, we are told, must be evaluated on their own merit, not on the basis of what the applicants did (or did not do) in the past. What matters most, we hear, is the future.