When stakeholders advocate to use a lottery system to allocate grant funding, so as to spare applicants (and reviewers) the cost of preparing applications, we need to look beyond changing spokes on a wheel when considering the problem.
Questions being asked by stakeholders in the system are:
- to what extent does the community’s aggregate investment in proposal preparation negate the scientific impact of the funding program?
- are there alternative mechanisms for awarding funds that advance science more efficiently?
A recent study found 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.
- when professional pressures motivate investigators to seek funding for reasons that extend beyond the value of the proposed science (e.g., pro- motion, prestige), the entire program can actually hamper scientific progress when the number of awards is small.
How deep does the problem run?
For the purposes of this exercise, we will use:
- the 34 day average as the value for the amount of time it takes a researcher to prepare an application
- median wage estimates for research assistants in each jurisdiction.
The 2017 National Institute of Health grant success rate was 21% (overall).
The time spent preparing unsuccessful grants amounts to 5,380 years and assuming a median medical research annual salary of US$80,530, the time cost of this exercise amounts to US$433,251,400.
The 2017/18 Medical Research Council grant round had an overall success rate of 24%. The MRC identifies grants which are considered by a panel of reviewers to be internationally competitive, or otherwise. Overall, 17% of grants submitted met this standard. Within that group, the MRC success rate was 86%.
The time spent preparing unsuccessful grants amounts to 108 years and assuming a median entry level medical research annual salary of £30,000, the time cost of this exercise amounts to £3,252,822.
The 2018 National Health and Medical Research Council funding round had an overall success rate of 19.5%.
The time spent preparing unsuccessful grants amounts to 367 years and assuming a median medical research annual salary of AU$77,000, the time cost of this exercise amounts to AU$28,259,000.
Funded Grants
Even when grants are funded, they do not cover all of the costs involved. The UK Medical Research Council reports show the total amount awarded to successful grants to be 28% of the amount requested in those applications (leaving £681,400,000 of unfunded costs of successful grant costs to be met, or the research scope narrowed to fit within the funding provided).
Caps on indirect costs are set, a range of ineligible expenses are excluded.
There is intense debate about whether the full cost of research should be eligible for funding, but for the most part, successful grant applicants still need to look elsewhere to find the funds to cover the gap.
Potential Solutions
A range of proposals have been made. They include awarding grant funding, lottery style, so that the costs involved in submitting applications can be reduced. They also make a case for funding previous recipients (who can demonstrate sellable metrics — based on their past funding round success).
More creative solutions involve academics sitting in an exam hall with a blank sheet of paper. The single side application, written in this forum is seen as a way to force a concise, well-articulated hypothesis to be produced and also benefits from a reduction in assessment time.
The reality is bake sales are often critical to the success of important research.
Can we do better?
Funding is considered by the research sector to be the key structural issue giving rise to the problems faced by its constituents. It is ranked as the area requiring the most urgent policy reform (above the need for issues arising out of the fundamental uncertainty and sustainability of the research workforce).
Demand has exceeded supply at levels that demand a resetting of expectations within the research community. Success rates at these levels that make it difficult to incentivise researchers to submit quality applications or continue in their research career.
Sign up to Coalfacer to take a look at the funding pipeline that we put forward as a sustainable alternative to the status quo.
