1. Patients launch $1.27 million crowdfunding campaign for ME/CFS gut microbiome study.
    Check out the website, Facebook and Twitter. Join in donate and spread the word!
The Pathway to Prevention (P2P) for ME/CFS: A Dangerous Process
Gabby Klein gives an overview of the P2P process, shedding light on the pitfalls with advice as to what we can do in protest ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Funding grant proposals for scientific research: retrospective analysis

Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by Snow Leopard, Nov 27, 2011.

  1. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member

    http://www.bmj.com/content/343/bmj.d4797?tab=related (Open access)


    Objective To quantify randomness and cost when choosing health and medical research projects for funding.

    Design Retrospective analysis.

    Setting Grant review panels of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.

    Participants Panel members scores for grant proposals submitted in 2009.

    Main outcome measures The proportion of grant proposals that were always, sometimes, and never funded after accounting for random variability arising from differences in panel members scores, and the cost effectiveness of different size assessment panels.

    Results 59% of 620 funded grants were sometimes not funded when random variability was taken into account. Only 9% (n=255) of grant proposals were always funded, 61% (n=1662) never funded, and 29% (n=788) sometimes funded. The extra cost per grant effectively funded from the most effective system was $A18?541 (11?848; 13?482; $19?343).

    Conclusions Allocating funding for scientific research in health and medicine is costly and somewhat random. There are many useful research questions to be addressed that could improve current processes.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page