Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 5 May 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/459020b
News
UK scientists get funding ban reprieve
Serially unsuccessful applicants can still apply for grants.
After a campaign by scientists, the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) has softened and delayed its controversial policy to bar serially unsuccessful grant applicants from making funding bids for one year.
The ban — which may be unique among European and US funding bodies — was due to be imposed on 229 researchers starting on 1 June, in an effort to reduce pressure on an overloaded system that currently peer-reviews all grant applications.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
I don't have a problem with the EPSRC policy. Seriously, if you have three grants all ranked in the bottom half in one year, then you need to stop and think about what research you are trying to get funding for. And what's wrong with only submitting 2 grants per year to make sure this doesn't happen to you? The policy makes sense to me.
There is an issue with funding bodies being hit by the recession too. Apparently, a number of grant proposals that would be approved for funding are not making the cut off as the bar has had to get a lot lot higher as the funding bodies have much less money to 'give away'
In answer to Nial Wheate's comment: what is wrong with the policy is that, at panel meetings, almost all of the very limited available time is spent debating the very top proposals, the ones lucky enough (and yes, it is largely luck!) to get entirely supportive referee comments. It is hard to get these in the right order, and yet these are the proposals most likely to be funded. Anything below the top 20% or so will get little attention. Accordingly, the rank order below the top 20% is essentially random. If EPSRC really wants to lower the burden on peer review (their stated reason for introducing this policy), it would be much easier, fairer and more effective to limit the number and/or value of proposals for which one could apply in any given time period.