Thread by @alesposito75

Prestigious European #grants might be #biased, study suggests nature.com/articles/d4158…

One day I will share my own research on the UK :) Very interesting patterns. Eventually, I wonder if this was true anywhere despite the *appearances* of #fairness of one or another system.

The are several reasons... let me share my *non-expert* opinion about this issue.

1) A background of overlap between panels and awardees can never be eliminated because they should be both at the top of their fields.

2) Who knows the system (and people within it) have an advantage because can be advised (with no malice) about the unwritten rules, processes, priorities and good practices.

3) There are too many applications and too few panellists. The relations between panellists and applicants will always play a role, even for those (MOST) honest panellists. This is because it is difficult to eliminate every type of bias.

4) We operate in a "winner-take-all-system". The accumulation of resources and power in a small fraction of academics is very steep. The dynamics in play in any collegial decisional process are therefore influenced by the unavoidable clash of interests between...

...a small fraction of scientists relative to the total amount of researchers working.

For bias to emerge, sometimes overt and undeniable, dishonest people are not necessary. Bias can happen because of the rules of the game. To minimize bias, the rules should change.

Solutions? First of all, we should acknowledge the problem. We'll have very different opinions, but let's say at least there is a problem of transparency and that bias is difficult to eliminate.

Second, one of the main issues is the immense costs and uncertainty of research assessment, particularly in grants. If a heavy selection could be performed at an outline stage, we would not remove the issue but we would remove all the wasted time we invest in not-funded grants.

I personally believe that two optimal solutions are
i) push for maximum transparency and accountability. then we will accept that there might be always some residual bias because perfect systems do not exist.

Unfortunately, there is a huge gap in the perception of transparency between different actors involved in the process.

ii) dismantle the winner-take-all systems or fully accept it, let's not keep playing this inefficient game.

Dismantle it: significantly more money to early and mid-career scientists. The role of senior staff and institution would shift into mentoring. Add far more junior people in panels. There will be a larger base of panellists available and more self-restraint.

Accept it: remove completely funding for junior and mid-career researchers. Give the money only to top academics such as heads of departments. They will do their selections. It might work, as they will be the primary stakeholders of the investments and the accountable ones

One of two final observations. A friend told me "academia is the only industry where someone is awarded money by their competitors". This is why I came up with the "accept it" option, however outrageous and uncharacteristic of me that is.

Perhaps we should leverage self-interest to ensure money is spent well and to have individuals responsible/accountable for investments, rather than a system that is very expensive and magically delocalize any responsibility. And now the very final observation.

We can argue that the UK system works perfectly: we punch above our weight (fact). A system that churns results does not have to be fair nor sustainable. The point here is not if funding systems (EU, UK, USA, ...) are working but if they are (or are perceived to be) fair.

I am maturing the idea that our system suffers of one big issue. I give you a hint while I'll try to find more time in the future to write about it: "rent-seeking". For now, I just wished to tease you with this concept and I'll let you wonder :)

@threadreaderapp unroll