Read on Twitter
I used to think that the academic funding process was a case of survivor bias - we see the successful grants & can't learn from those that go down in flames. I believed that if we looked at the failed grants we might improve our chance of future success. I think I was wrong.1/7
As my career progresses I have seen many grants fail and some be successful. I do not think there is much in the substance of the grant to separate the two. Once you get past the threshold of match to the grant requirements that is. 2/7
The science in unfunded grants can be great; the science in funded grants can be awful - I can not see any scientific reasons for some grant rejections. 3/7
I am sure that there are many biases that effect the review process - the Institute you are based at, the "big names" on the grant, the sex of the PI, - but I also know that many people are now aware of these biases and are trying to balance things out - (or am I naïve?) 4/7
I think bias probably does drive the funding system - but it is hard to control for - if the reviewer is comfortable with your approach, methods, analysis, etc. then perhaps they are more willing to recommend funding. 5/7
So that means that essentially grant funding is a lottery (a biased lottery where we can not know what the biases are). 6/7
I will celebrate the successes (especially as they keep me in a job) and will try to ignore the failures (that's hard because that means less chance of keeping my job). But perhaps rather than seeing the failures as "my failure" I need to see it as a "failure of the system". 7/7
