Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant - Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance

Using Natural Science and Engineering Research Council Canada (NSERC) statistics, we show that the $40,000 (Canadian) cost of preparation for a grant application and rejection by peer review in 2007 exceeded that of giving every qualified investigator a direct baseline discovery grant of $30,000 (average grant). This means the Canadian Federal Government could institute direct grants for 100% of qualified applicants for the same money. We anticipate that the net result would be more and better research since more research would be conducted at the critical idea or discovery stage. Control of quality is assured through university hiring, promotion and tenure proceedings, journal reviews of submitted work, and the patent process, whose collective scrutiny far exceeds that of grant peer review. The greater efficiency in use of grant funds and increased innovation with baseline funding would provide a means of achieving the goals of the recent Canadian Value for Money and Accountability Review. We suggest that developing countries could leapfrog ahead by adopting from the start science grant systems that encourage innovation.

 

Filed under  //  Funding  
Comments (0)
Posted

Real Lives and White Lies in the Funding of Scientific Research

Scientists might have had a Hippocratic oath of their own. They might have promised their gifts to mankind. But instead, I have fathered a race of inventive dwarfs who can be hired for anything.”—Bertolt Brecht “The Life of Galileo,” version by David Hare

“Could we stimulate more discovery and creativity if more scientists had…security of…research support? Would this encourage risk-taking and lead to an overall improvement in the quality of science?”—Stephen Quake (Stanford University)

Filed under  //  Funding  
Comments (0)
Posted

Do's and Don'ts for Grant Applications

  • DO make a compelling case for why the question is important and must be addressed, and place this early in the proposal; after one page, the reviewer should be excited about the proposed research.
  • DO describe in detail who will provide the requisite expertise needed to accomplish the proposed research; establishing a collaboration is one of the easiest ways to ensure that the proper expertise is represented on an application.
  • DO write the proposal in such a way that any reviewer can understand it. Applicants should remember that proposals are evaluated by multiple reviewers with varying scientific expertise and backgrounds.
  • DO follow each and every rule of the funding guidelines.
  • DO make the proposal relevant to the program's core objectives.
  • DO NOT present a continuation of doctoral work without a clear distinction of how this will advance the science to the next stage.
  • DO NOT propose too much; it is easy for a young investigator to become overly ambitious—and to be criticized as a result.
  • Filed under  //  Funding  
    Comments (0)
    Posted