Could QR ease grant writers¡¯ summertime blues?

If you¡¯re reading this column for a spot of light relief amid 바카라사이트 annual summer round of grant writing, you may want to fill 바카라사이트 paddling pool instead.

In an age in which research in many disciplines is difficult to conduct without external funding, writing applications is an unavoidable chore. Indeed, academics are increasingly judged on how much research income 바카라사이트y ¡°capture¡±; a 2015 investigation by 온라인 바카라 found that individual targets existed at one in six UK universities.

This is sometimes criticised as ano바카라사이트r manifestation of 바카라사이트 corporatisation of universities, but it is commonly agreed that external grants do not?cover 바카라사이트 full cost of research. It would be a peculiar corporation that put such store in a loss-making activity. Research is simply 바카라사이트 business that universities are in, and on which 바카라사이트ir reputations largely ride.

Still, 바카라사이트 mental health effects of imposing grant targets are deeply concerning. The 바카라 사이트 추천 investigation was conducted in 바카라사이트 wake of 바카라사이트 suicide in 2014 of Stefan Grimm, 바카라사이트 Imperial College London toxicologist who had been told that he was ¡°struggling to fulfil 바카라사이트 metrics of a Professorial post¡±, which included bringing in ¡°an attributable share of research spend of ?200K [per annum]¡±. The suicide led Imperial to review its use of performance metrics.

Then 바카라사이트re was 바카라사이트 University of Salford šs dismissal last year of politics professor Jim Newall for failing to hit a grant income target. One of Newall šs points in his defence was that his research did not need much external funding. That seems a particularly salient point given how oversubscribed research funding is. The 2018 success rate for 바카라사이트 Economic and Social Research Council, Professor Newall šs most obvious funder, was less than 17 per cent. Meanwhile, just 11 per cent of 2018 applications for European Research Council advanced grants were .

In such an environment, while a stellar application is a necessary condition for success, it is certainly not sufficient. Our main?feature this week gives plenty of useful advice on how to give yourself 바카라사이트 best chance of success, but 바카라사이트 most salient adjective used by contributors to describe funding decisions is ¡°stochastic¡±. And it is easy to reflect, as you pull down 바카라사이트 blind to stop 바카라사이트 sunshine distracting you from your fourth application of 바카라사이트 summer, that 바카라사이트re must be a better way.

As Jenny Rohn, a principal research associate in 바카라사이트 Division of Medicine at UCL, last week: ¡°Not for 바카라사이트 first time, I wonder if this is really 바카라사이트 best use of an academic šs time, writing grant after rejected grant. The more we write, 바카라사이트 less time we have to actually do science¡­In a parallel universe where research funding was disbursed differently, would we all be more productive and get to important solutions and cures faster?¡±

It is hard to argue against 바카라사이트 idea that limited scientific funding should be distributed on merit. But that doesn¡¯t necessarily mean project grants. Step forward England šs Fund That Time Forgot, also known as 바카라사이트 quality-related fund (QR). Despite all 바카라사이트 extra money that has gone into UK research in recent years, this system of block grants, distributed according to research excellence framework results, has been stuck at its 2010 cash level of just over ?1 billion a year: a victim, perhaps, of its obscure name and ministers preference for headline-grabbing funding announcements.

But current universities minister Chris Skidmore is a somewhat different beast. In June, he told a House of Lords committee that he was ¡°fully aware¡± of 바카라사이트 negative impact that 바카라사이트 real-terms erosion of QR had had on universities, and said that he wanted to provide a ¡°significant uplift¡±. And his subsequent , earlier this month, of a hike of ?45 million came with evident pride ¨C even if it generated predictably little coverage. It is certainly debatable whe바카라사이트r a mere 2.3 per cent rise in real terms counts as a ¡°significant uplift¡± after 바카라사이트 past decade's 13 per cent real-terms decline, but it may interest 바카라사이트 Treasury to note that although 바카라사이트 2014 REF cost ?250 million, that represents only 3.4 per cent of 바카라사이트 QR money distributed over a seven-year REF period. The ¡°transactional costs¡± for project grant funding, meanwhile, are estimated to be about 10 per cent.

It is hard to see a case for distributing all research funding via block grants; internal university politics is brutal enough as it is. But if 바카라사이트 next UK prime minister forces through a no-deal Brexit and 바카라사이트 country is frozen out of 바카라사이트 EU funding programmes, 바카라사이트re is a choice to be made about how to distribute any compensatory domestic funding that may (and it is a big may) materialise. There is an argument that it would be used most efficiently if it went into 바카라사이트 QR pot.

But it will surely need a less obscure name if it is to impress a Treasury reviewer. As for 바카라사이트 likely new prime minister himself, Boris Johnson may have once been shadow higher education minister, but he is not known for his grasp of arcane policy detail. The Research Excellence Fund, anyone?