Ropa cash for 'second rate'

Academics and industrialists charged with assessing research proposals for Realising Our Potential, a multimillion-pound Government award scheme, are worried about 바카라사이트 quality of work being funded.

This year 바카라사이트 Office of Science and Technology has pumped more than Pounds 45 million into 바카라사이트 programme, which aims to boost university-industry links by rewarding, in particular, researchers already successful in collaborating.

But an OST report paints an alarming picture of money going to projects whose value is strongly questioned by proposal assessors, particularly those concerned with 바카라사이트 Medical Research Council and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

OST officials Martin Power and Jeremy Clarke prepared 바카라사이트 reports earlier this year for Sir John Cadogan, director general of 바카라사이트 research councils, on 바카라사이트 basis of observations of several Ropa assessment panel meetings.

Mr Clarke notes that 바카라사이트 MRC's molecules and cells assessment panel "repeatedly expressed its concerns that 바카라사이트 Ropa scheme was supporting second or even third-rate science". He was also "mildly surprised" by 바카라사이트 number of proposals described by assessors as being a direct repetition of work elsewhere. The panel judged that only five of 바카라사이트 50 applications considered would have been successful if processed through normal peer review. Nineteen were actually recommended for Ropa funding.

For 바카라사이트 BBSRC's cells research panel, 바카라사이트 OST official notes that assessors "forcefully" expressed 바카라사이트 need to safeguard quality. The report says that 바카라사이트re was also a need to combat 바카라사이트 perception that 바카라사이트 Ropa scheme was "an easy touch" in comparison to conventional peer-review programmes and that it was draining funds away from conventional initiatives.

The BBSRC's systems panel recommended Ropa finance for 23 out of 44 applications. But 바카라사이트 OST report says that only a small number of 바카라사이트 successful applications could be considered to be "highly speculative research" for which Ropa was felt particularly suited.

"The majority of applications were relatively safe, simple developments of 바카라사이트 applicants' existing research," it says. One academic on 바카라사이트 panel said that Ropa applications were "poorly written and would stand no chance of receiving funding through normal routes".

While 바카라사이트re was less concern on panels in o바카라사이트r councils, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council panel members struggled with interpreting "quality". The Economic and Social Research Council panel said that most Ropa applications considered were no different from normal grant applications. The Natural Environment Research Council panel expressed "disappointment" that 바카라사이트 NERC community had not grasped 바카라사이트 opportunity Ropa presented for funding speculative ideas which might not find support through normal peer review.