Let’s talk about a little-discussed issue in science funding: the rise of consultants who “help” researchers win grants. Spoiler: they add noise, bias the process, and waste public money meant for actual research. Here’s why this matters. (1/n)
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
While there’s no hard data on how often consultants are used, they seem especially popular in biomedical research. Their services are often paid for with public funds. So money meant for research is redirected to play the grant game. (4/n)
Some labs even hire researchers specifically to write grant applications. These individuals also coach PIs and team members for interviews. Valuable for funding? Sure. But does it help science? Not at all. (5/n)
From a public funding perspective, this is a waste. Money earmarked for research is spent on marketing, not discovery. Worse, the funding process becomes a zero-sum game where polished, stylized proposals outcompete scientifically superior ones. (6/n)
The result? Grantmanship amplifies existing inequities:
- Wealthier labs and institutions hire consultants or grant writers.
- Researchers from less privileged regions or institutions are left behind.
- Matthew effects become even stronger. (7/n)
My somewhat outside view: Many labs hire researchers specifically to help PhD students and junior postdocs learn how to write grants as professors the administrative burden on senior faculty is high.
to some extent, that's true. But I once saw a presentation by a postdoc whose main task was to screen research calls, create word clouds and similar analyses, and then tweak the wording of proposals (including coming up with fancy project titles).
Comments
- Wealthier labs and institutions hire consultants or grant writers.
- Researchers from less privileged regions or institutions are left behind.
- Matthew effects become even stronger. (7/n)