I recently read an article entitled "Cost of the NSERC Science Grant Peer Review System Exceeds the Cost of Giving Every Qualified Researcher a Baseline Grant". It's quite a good read and summarizes many things I've observed happening in a research environment, particularly with regards to the administrative overhead scientific researchers must deal with on a day-to-day basis.
What makes this article especially memorable is that after a customary introduction and quick "there are many hints that the grant funding system we have fails us on many counts" segue, the authors dive into a relentless point-by-point excoriation of the grant reviewing process from not five, not ten, but twenty one angles.
Many hints indeed.
However, each of these points isn't argued in very great depth, but the main message is retained: Much effort (and money) is wasted in reviewing basic research ideas which by their very nature are speculative. The authors claim that "the cost of rejecting [an NSERC] Discovery Grant application ($40,000) equals or exceeds the cost of giving it ($30,000).", and propose that the current system be modified to simply provide funding to all 'qualified' researchers.
Presumably, 'qualified' researchers would have have already been recognized as productive through other channels such as university appointments, etc., and hence trustworthy enough to not fritter away funds on projects of dubious value. This kind of approach certainly does have the appeal of bringing researchers closer to true independence.
- Login to post comments
