Median Watch

Eyes on statistics

Funding schemes that cost more than they award: part 2

“What is the purpose of research funding?” Phew, that is a big question. If I could hear your answers, I am sure there would be a wide range of opinions. Let’s put that in the too hard basket. What about this question, “What should research funding not do?" Again, I can imagine lots of answers, but there are likely some answers that we could all agree on. How about an axiom that “A research funding scheme should never cost more than it awards.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Wednesday, February 5, 2025

Scientific fraud is rising, and automated systems won’t stop it. We need research detectives

Reposted from The Conversation. Fraud in science is alarmingly common. Sometimes researchers lie about results and invent data to win funding and prestige. Other times, researchers might pay to stage and publish entirely bogus studies to win an undeserved pay rise – fuelling a “paper mill” industry worth an estimated €1 billion a year. Some of this rubbish can be easily spotted by peer reviewers, but the peer review system has become badly stretched by ever-rising paper numbers.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Friday, June 23, 2023

What to do when applying for research grants is a waste of time for almost everybody

Reposted with permission from Campus Morning Mail. Researchers have a dark sense of humour when it comes to research funding. One of my favourite sneers was from the ecologist Terry McGlynn who said, “instead of writing this grant, I should walk the whole country and get a penny from each person. Same amount of money, but less hassle.” Applicants to last year’s early- and mid-career Medical Research Future Fund fellowships may be wishing that they had gone on a long walk rather sitting at their computers, with speculated success rates at under 5 per cent.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Monday, March 6, 2023

Funding schemes that cost as much as they reward

Johnson & Johnson have a funding scheme for women in STEM. Of course this is a great idea and much needed given the chronic under-representation of women in health and medical research, which was confirmed again this week with the latest NHMRC figures. But there’s a huge potential problem with this scheme: the success rate is under 1%. The last round had 650 applications and 6 awarded. Given this incredibly low success rate, this scheme could be costing as much as it rewards.

Posted by Adrian Barnett Thursday, September 16, 2021

A change to judging career disruption

Re-posted from this 2016 AusHSI blog because this is still an issue. Let’s start with the obvious. Winning funding for health and medical research is soul-crushingly hard. Success rates for major schemes are under 20%, so failure is the norm. Your application will be judged by a panel of 6 to 12 senior researchers. A key marker of success is your track record, which may simply mean the number and quality of your papers, and your previous research funding (a very circular measure).

Posted by Adrian Barnett Wednesday, September 23, 2020