Yes, competition is good.

But as you say, the incentives are not aligned correctly. And yes, it's very difficult for reviewers to make the best decisions.

So instead, they reject and request preliminary data. Which requires money. But at least this is better than a sexy shot in the dark, which I think private institutions should be funding. Or things like MD Anderson's moonshot program.

Things aren't perfect, but I think we can both agree that there is no perfect solution to this problem, incremental improvement? Certainly.