1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 26th July 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Contribute to feedback on the CDC Evidence Review, for more details click here
    Dismiss Notice

Piper. Science funding is a mess. Could grant lotteries make it better?

Discussion in 'Health News and Research unrelated to ME/CFS' started by WillowJ, Jan 19, 2019.

  1. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Likes Received:
    Our current grant review process doesn’t select the best proposals, by a long shot. One study found very little correlation between how a grant was scored and whether the research it produced was cited.

    Another, looking at high-quality proposals, found there was virtually no agreement on their merits — two different researchers might come to vastly different conclusions about whether the grant should be approved.

    Another analysis looked at successful grants and found that 59 percent of them could have been rejected due to random variability in scoring. Clearly, above some threshold, the process is deeply subjective and not a real measure of quality.

    (paragraph breaks added)

    The article also talks about the problems more usually noted in the replication crisis, as well as the substantial amount of time grant writing takes.
    Sean likes this.
  2. Snowdrop

    Snowdrop Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Likes Received:
    I don't know much about this but could it be that a better vetting process of people who assess proposals for grants might be in order?
    I know it can't be quite as simple as that.
  3. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Likes Received:
    WillowJ and Peter Trewhitt like this.

Share This Page