funding problems

here is some correspondence from Nature

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/453978a

http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/454397d

another letter

Here is some correspondence from the Guardian newspapaper

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,2283410,00.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2008/jun/05/highereducation

http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,,2284408,00.html

letter on science funding

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v451/n7180/full/451768c.html

here is another letter about science funding in the UK, also referring to the Nature "Never had it so good article"

Philip Strange

funding crisis in astronomy

http://www.saveastronomy.co.uk/

have a look at this for another funding issue

more on success rates

I recently received the Connect magazine for August 2007 (no 53) from EPSRC. The leading article is on “EPSRC Funding rates” and there is a cute little picture of some people running a race and one getting to the finishing tape first. This sets the tone for the whole article which seems to have been thought up by someone to defend low funding rates.


Imagine Jim Hacker and Sir Humphrey:

JH – Humphrey, I’ve had a lot of stick recently about funding rates for research grants. They are a bit low but can’t we do something to make people think it is all OK.

Sir H – Well minister, people have to realize that when the funding rate is 33%, that does not mean that the success rate is one in three.

JH – Really Humphrey, that sounds ideal but could you explain it to me first

Sir H – Yes minister!


So what did EPSRC write? Here are some of the gems.

“If there is one issue relating to EPSRC which is guaranteed to spark a lively discussion the funding rates are surely it, as we always receive many more excellent research proposals each year than we have the resources to fund. The figures are often interpreted as a measure of wasted effort, as well as sometimes acting as a daunting disincentive to potential applicants. But we would always advise against reading too much into them in isolation”

“Overall funding rates for EPSRC research grants, including all programmes, for 2006-2007 were 38% by value and 32% by number”

“It’s easy to say what funding rates are, but it’s also important to understand what they are not. Crucially they are not a simple measure of the likelihood of being funded. A funding rate of, for instance, 33% doesn’t mean that any particular proposal has a one in three chance of success. This is because peer review is used to prioritise applications for funding. It’s the intelligence introduced by peer review which means that a “random” interpretation of the figures will be misleading and probably dispiriting too.”

“Success in peer review is in your hands, and there is a lot you can do to influence your proposal's chances. You can find advice on proposal writing, how to choose reviewers and how to respond to their comments on our website. We are always happy to give individual advice on how to produce a competitive case for support”



I personally find the tone of all of this very offensive. What they seem to be saying is, yes the funding rate is a bit low but it’s your fault because you don’t write good proposals and anyway you don’t understand what a 33% funding rate means.

If a 33% funding rate does not mean that any particular proposal has a one in three chance of success then what does it mean? What they seem to be saying is that because of peer review some proposals will have a higher chance of success but some will have a lower chance of success. Now if all the proposals rated well by peer review were also funded then that wouldn’t matter too much but I doubt if that is so. Also the peer review system is not without its faults.

I have suggested some ways of improving the system elsewhere (see July 18th 2007) but it is important to look at the figures for grants funded. In 2006/07, there were 4346 applications to EPSRC. 1408 were funded, so that means 2938 were not and that represent a huge effort for no outcome.
“The figures are often interpreted as a measure of wasted effort” - too right they are!

To be fair to EPSRC, elsewhere on their web site they comment on the increased chance of success from universities that carry out rigorous quality control and submit fewer applications. Something like this has to come in universally but this needs to be a partnership between research councils and universities.

another big issue on the block

Here is another letter to Nature that refers to the issue of grant success rates



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/full/448533b.html

someone read it!

see quote of the day on July 12th

http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~hulld/quoteoftheday.html