Computational model finds that the costs of preparing grant proposals may equal or exceed the gains that accrue from the awards, especially if few grants are awarded h/t
Wow. “The effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports, especially when only a few proposals can be funded.” Think about it.
Finally a robust formal proof that large grant competitions are a very inefficient way of allocating research funds. In fact, lotteries are better
If you hated science and wanted to slow its progress, what would you do? One option would be to set up a system where scientists spend much of their time writing grant applications, most of which will never get funded. A lot like the system we have now...
"We find that the effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports, especially when only a few proposals can be funded."
Do grant proposals squander a scientist's time? Kevin Gross & use economic theory to show that #GrantProposal competitions are often inefficient, but efficiency can be restored by using a lottery, or by scoring past success #PLOSBiology
"We find that the effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports, especially when only a few proposals can be funded."
Do grant proposals squander a scientist's time? Kevin Gross & use economic theory to show that #GrantProposal competitions are often inefficient, but efficiency can be restored by using a lottery, or by scoring past success #PLOSBiology
"We find that the effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports, especially when only a few proposals can be funded."
"Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions"
ICYMI The grant proposal system compels researchers to devote time to writing proposals that could have instead been used to do science. article uses economic theory of contests to analyze how efficiently proposal competitions advance science
Well, that sounds disturbing. "...We find that the effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports..." Relevant read on #research #funding
The grant proposal system compels researchers to devote time to writing proposals that could have instead been used to do science. article uses economic theory of contests to analyze how efficiently grant proposal competitions advance science
Im kaum überraschenden Ergebnis sagt diese Studie, dass der Antragsbetrieb mehr sonst für echte Forschung verfügbare Ressourcen verschlingt, als er der Forschung zur Verfügung stellt. Spannend.
On grant applications: “When applicants fail to recognize the degree to which the contest is already a lottery, they will overinvest effort in preparing proposals, to the detriment of science.” Kevin Gross &
'We find that the effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports, especially when only a few proposals can be funded'
Now in just in case anyone still cares about journals. 
Contest modelling study finds that "the effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports". #academiclife
Is the current model of research funding hampering scientific progress? Perhaps. #PLOSBiology: Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions
IBIS Journal club Friday: Contest models highlight inherent inefficiencies of scientific funding competitions by Gross and
#Metascience2019 It was brought to my attention that I never cited or provided a link to the grant efficiency paper I presented yesterday. It was published earlier this year in .
For more info, check out this paper
‘We find that the effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports, especially when only a few proposals can be funded’
Competing for #scientific #funding is very inefficient. "the effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports"
Impact on science is squandered because applying researchers must spend time writing proposals instead of doing science.
Check out the related paper from on contest models #metascience2019
We recently proposed funding people instead of projects as one possible means of reducing grant preparation costs. () If agencies go that route, it will be imperative that they monitor and compensate for the gender biases observed in this study.
Dans le cadre de la science ouverte, remplacer l'évaluation des propositions par un tirage au sort - une idée vraiment géniale. Dans la foulée, rattacher l'ANR à la Française des Jeux dans l'optique d'un modèle économique durable. Tu fais la proposition ?
"The value of the science that researchers forgo while preparing proposals can approach or exceed the value of the science that the funding program supports. As a result, much of the scientific impact of the funding program is squandered." By
Something all scientist have probably suspected for a while: highly competitive funding mechanisms are inefficient.
"We find that the effort researchers waste in writing proposals may be comparable to the total scientific value of the research that the funding supports"
Many people share this view
"We suggest that lost efficiency may be restored either by partial lotteries for funding or by funding researchers based on past scientific success instead of proposals for future work." #PhDchat #researchfunding
Scientific funding: Researchers devote much time on writing proposals, time that could have instead been used to do science. The science that researchers forgo while preparing proposals can exceed the value of the science that the funding program supports
More on efficiencies in lottery vs competition-based grant allocation
I recently eyed a 2-year post-doc; they wanted an original 15-page research proposal *with* your application. They wouldn't even fund the proposed work, they just wanted you to write it. The time academia forces us to waste proposal-writing is HUGE & real.
It was stories like this that inspired Kevin Gross and I to write the following paper
A grant lottery may yield the same efficiencies (and better ones, considering productivity gains) as peer review. Move to evidence-based funding now, ⁦⁩ & ⁦⁩!
A partial lottery that selects proposals for funding randomly from among those that pass a qualifying standard can restore lost efficiency by reducing investigators' incentives to invest heavily in preparing proposals.
As a result, the scientific impact of the funding program is squandered. Sadly, increased waste & reduced efficiency is inevitable in a grant proposal competition when the number of awards is small.
Interesting quantitative analysis: spending too long time to write grants is bad for science.
Partial lotteries more cost efficient than current funding competition system? Possibly, but I find hard to consider just a ”waste of time” to write proposal, because they still help shape and deepen a research vision.
"We suggest that lost efficiency [in writing grant proposals] may be restored either by partial lotteries for funding or by funding researchers based on past scientific success instead of proposals for future work."