Image via Wikipedia
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 would lead to an explosion in the number of "qualified investigators," and bring many lazy and mediocre ones in and drive most of the good and driven ones out. Also, the EU does compensate the preparation of grants. The preparation of a proposal is not all wasted effort: a proposal requires a researcher to organize his ideas.
Now, I don't want to come out of this post as a defender of the grant system - after all, the grant system has been one of the main centrifugal forces pulling me away from a career in research. Three things have been most problematic:
- Lack of transparency: Arbitrary decisions by anonymous reviewers without the opportunity to address their criticism give them the power to make essentially political decisions. Grant picking should be a transparent public process - and research should strive towards something good for humanity.
- Lack of accountability: Once the project has been approved, there is little pressure on the PI to actually achieve goals. Consequently, research often ends with the grant proposal, and research for a new grant proposal then begins. It would be better to spend most money for awards recognizing past research than to spend practically all of it for vapor and smoke.
- Lack of a productive environment: To execute successful projects one needs the freedom to pick the best people with the right skills, competing with the industry. Good work requires focus, and there are not many people who can both do quality research and quality teaching. I cannot do both at the same time myself. Moreover, many research institutions have become internally rigid, slow and top-heavy, and the overhead is suffocating.
Once the project has been approved, there is little pressure on the PI to actually achieve goals. Consequently, research often ends with the grant proposal, and research for a new grant proposal then begins. It would be better to spend most money for awards recognizing past research than to spend practically all of it for vapor and smoke.
NSERC Discovery Grants are essentially awarded for past research, plus the ability to write a plausible proposal for future research. The fine print on the terms of the grant explicitly state the the funds don't have to be used for the research outlined in the proposal. This is of course the only sensible system, considering that the grants are normally for five year terms, and are intended as a primary support for the researcher during that time. It would be impossible to say for sure what would be the best thing to work on years in the future.