Read on Twitter
When I was a postdoc @NIH, one of my hobbies was trying to answer this question.
Grant administrators didn't know, and DIDN'T CARE, what fraction of time their grantees spent pursuing funds.
PIs got genuinely angry when I asked them to estimate their grantseeking time fraction. https://twitter.com/Ben_Reinhardt/status/1265116075492085766
Grant administrators didn't know, and DIDN'T CARE, what fraction of time their grantees spent pursuing funds.
PIs got genuinely angry when I asked them to estimate their grantseeking time fraction. https://twitter.com/Ben_Reinhardt/status/1265116075492085766
I thought the PI response was especially interesting.
"Hey Dr. X, how much time do you spend doing science?"
"100%!"
"Oh you don't write grants?"
"Silly postdoc, writing grants IS doing science!"
"Seems like a waste of time?"
"No, it, uh... Organizes my thoughts!"
"Hey Dr. X, how much time do you spend doing science?"
"100%!"
"Oh you don't write grants?"
"Silly postdoc, writing grants IS doing science!"
"Seems like a waste of time?"
"No, it, uh... Organizes my thoughts!"
Yet none of them were interested in applying for my prestigious $0 York Endowment, which would do them the favor of organizing their thoughts.
I think they knew it was a waste of time, but also had a lot of pride and self-esteem tied to (otherwise useless) grantseeking skills.
I think they knew it was a waste of time, but also had a lot of pride and self-esteem tied to (otherwise useless) grantseeking skills.
The people who complained the most about grantseeking were often very defensive of its importance.
Stockholm syndrome? Maybe more like defense of the validity and foundation of their identity. They seemed simultaneously frustrated, ashamed, and proud of the skill they mastered.
Stockholm syndrome? Maybe more like defense of the validity and foundation of their identity. They seemed simultaneously frustrated, ashamed, and proud of the skill they mastered.
In contrast, my (intramural) PI spent almost no time seeking his virtually guaranteed funding. So the extramural funding situation was obviously avoidable!
So I set out to find the administrator who was in control of the process, and ask them why it had to be this way.
So I set out to find the administrator who was in control of the process, and ask them why it had to be this way.
(Spoiler: I accomplished nothing)
I spent the first part of this quest climbing up the seniority ladder, bouncing from meeting to meeting, where the answer was always that the decision was over their head.
Eventually I got a meeting with (I think) the second-in-command to Gottesman? My memory is a bit hazy.
Eventually I got a meeting with (I think) the second-in-command to Gottesman? My memory is a bit hazy.
Finally I will get my answer! What fraction of their time do your grantees (presumably the best and the brightest of our scientists) spend seeking funding, vs doing science?
They didn't know, and they didn't care.
They didn't know, and they didn't care.
Isn't this tragic? And ENTIRELY avoidable, as proven by the intramural funding model? Couldn't we get a hundred times more bang for our buck if we could get somebody at the top to care about this?
Longshot: @NIHDirector, care to comment?
Longshot: @NIHDirector, care to comment?
Hey @lelandtlr, can you tease Francis about this the next time you see him?
