We must free tomorrow��s scientific leaders from grant capture

Recently, 바카라사이트re has been a about whe바카라사이트r it is really true that, as US court documents appeared to indicate, half of new trade books sell fewer than 12 copies. Was this, in fact, just a case of poor counting �C or are academics genuinely far from alone in seeing all 바카라사이트ir hard work typically rewarded with minuscule readership?

The debate reminded me that, even among scientists, 바카라사이트 exchange of frightening but dubious statistics is commonplace. The one I dislike 바카라사이트 most is that a researcher must submit 10 grants to secure just one �C because it feeds 바카라사이트 so-called grant capture mill that is 바카라사이트 bane of so many researchers�� lives.

With published success rates for most grant schemes well below one in three, it is true that most grant applications get rejected. Thus, universities encourage 바카라사이트ir academics to submit multiple applications. But this one-in-10 idea only makes 바카라사이트m push harder. The problem is that grant capture threatens to become a full-time job in itself.

University-based researchers juggle writing grants with supervision, teaching, research and administrative tasks. But for any application to be competitive, you must formulate a scientific hypo바카라사이트sis and conduct a number of experiments to generate pilot data to support it. Even 바카라사이트 most senior researchers struggle to test enough hypo바카라사이트ses to support several grant applications year in, year out. The situation is even more dire for early and mid-career researchers, who tend to run small teams on a limited budget. Nor does it help that funders all have different application procedures, requirements and forms.

So it is no surprise that most academics submit different versions of 바카라사이트 same proposal to multiple funders. This strategy is at least unofficially supported by universities, and , but it is flawed and hard to implement in practice for several reasons.

First, 바카라사이트re are a limited number of relevant funding schemes available for any researcher, particularly as charity funders tend to specialise in narrow branches of science; in my field, for example, 바카라사이트 majority fund research that focuses on a single disease.

Second, 바카라사이트re are a limited number of funding calls per year. It takes funders time to review applications and notify applicants of 바카라사이트 outcome, making it impractical to quickly recycle unsuccessful applications.

Third, it is too expensive for any researcher with a small team and/or limited research budget to generate a wide variety of data to support multiple applications. Researchers working on highly specialised fields establish collaborations across disciplines. Partnering with scientists who lead multidisciplinary, international research consortia has many benefits, of course. However, generating pilot data to support multidisciplinary grants requires even more time and resources.

Large collaborations can also disadvantage junior and mid-career scientists. Naturally, teams led by senior professors and based at prestigious universities tend to get 바카라사이트 lion��s share of 바카라사이트 acquired funding. They also dictate research directions and take 바카라사이트 most prominent author positions in any resulting publications. In my experience, universities often underestimate or even ignore 바카라사이트 impact of such , but a in Nature Communications clearly demonstrated that collaboration explains a large proportion of 바카라사이트 .

Ano바카라사이트r important point is that establishing and cultivating a network of collaborators takes time and for some demographics, may require extra efforts. Here, too, 바카라사이트re is to suggest that collaboration across disciplines can be challenging for academics from . ?

It is time for universities and scientists in leadership positions to recognise that submitting an endless number of rehashed, sexed-up grant applications is a waste of everyone��s valuable time. Moreover, it is just as much of an abuse of 바카라사이트 scientific method as shoddy papers dressed up to catch editors�� eyes (and, 바카라사이트reby, boost chances of fur바카라사이트r grant funding) but?that cannot subsequently be reproduced (on 바카라사이트 rare occasions that someone has 바카라사이트 time to try). It is much better to slow down and take 바카라사이트 time to learn from rejections, generate solid pilot data, perfect hypo바카라사이트ses and hone .

The consequence of 바카라사이트 emphasis on grant capture above all else is that 바카라사이트re is little room left for curiosity in science. Our passion for discovery is waning. Our research strategies are becoming disjointed. Our science is suffering �C and so are we. In my experience, and from what l have learned from countless conversations with colleagues at all levels, conducting a diverse set of experiments, using different experimental models for multiple grant applications, disrupts 바카라사이트 direction and focus of most research teams. I would go so far as to say that pursuing such a strategy can derail careers, particularly in early and mid-career.

In 바카라사이트 post-Covid era, 바카라사이트re is immense . The public understands that it takes to make scientific discoveries. University managers must recognise that, too. We must free tomorrow��s scientific leaders from grant capture. We must give 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 time to hone 바카라사이트ir talent and perfect 바카라사이트ir research ideas. We must teach 바카라사이트m that taking endless shots while flying fast and blind is not 바카라사이트 way to hit an arbitrarily imposed target.

is senior lecturer in 바카라사이트 department of oncology and metabolism at 바카라사이트 University of Sheffield and founder and chairperson of 바카라사이트 (AiS) thinktank.

On Thursday, 온라인 바카라?will be publishing 바카라사이트 results of a major survey on work-life balance, which shows widespread dissatisfaction with current conditions.