"Why evaluating scientists by grant income is stupid "

[Snow Leopard]

As mentioned by Neuroskeptic

As Fergus Millar noted in a letter to the Times last year, “in the modern British university, it is not that funding is sought in order to carry out research, but that research projects are formulated in order to get funding”.
This topsy-turvy logic has become evident in some universities, with blatant demands for staff in science subjects to match a specified quota of grant income or face redundancy. David Colquhoun’s blog is a gold-mine of information about those universities who have adopted such policies. He notes that if you are a senior figure based in the Institute of Psychiatry in London, or the medical school at Imperial College London you are expected to bring in an average of at least £200K of grant income per annum. Warwick Medical School has a rather less ambitious threshold of £90K per annum for principal investigators and £150K per annum for co-investigators1.

http://deevybee.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/why-evaluating-scientists-by-grant.html

Wait, who do we know from the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London?
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/groups/projects/cfs/staff.aspx

 

[A.B.]

Hah. That would explain why they create so much useless crap (with many grand claims).

Even funnier is this quote:

One can’t help noticing how often knighthoods go too the best apparatchiks rather than the best scientists.

 

[lansbergen]

Wait, who do we know from the Institute of Psychiatry at King's College London?
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/innovation/groups/projects/cfs/staff.aspx

 

[cigana]

A medical professor at Imperial College recently committed suicide apparently as a result of the pressure to bring in money:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-fellow-academics-chiefs-treated-like-s.html

 

[alex3619]

Ok, a potential money-power link. Interesting.