I think we can all agree that writing grants mostly sucks. But: would you feel comfortable starting a new project without having first formally proposed it? Would you feel ok about carrying on with an idea without spending time on a comprehensive literature review? without crystallizing your ideas in a structured document? without the approval of peer review?
I'm in a position to do some new experiments without having to get funding for them. That's very, very cool for so many reasons, so trust me when I say I'm not complaining. I'm just observing that writing a proposal has its merits.
4 comments:
I remember that DM has posted about comprehensives not being worthwhile, but i'm not sure. For me, its really helping to undestand the bigger picture, where we are in the literature, the significance and what has and has not been done before.
I guess I"m saying, yeah I get it.
Starting a project: sure. Most pilot experiments can be quick and dirty (and cheap). Nobody says you can't step out on the high wire without a net.
Carrying on with it? NO. As soon as I think I have something interesting and novel, I first check to see if it is a) novel and b) if it makes any sense, i.e. could it be some kind of artifact. I do NOT want to be in the middle of a project only to find out that it has already been done, or that it's all an artificial fluke that only works in one system with one brand of blue dye, or whatever.
Usually, figuring out what kinds of control experiments to do involves going back to the literature.
However. Peer review, to quote Kathy Griffin, can suck my dick. I think a system where you can't even start a new project without the peer review stamp of approval is stupid and basically impossible. If we all waited for grants, nothing would get done. In the real world, most labs piggyback projects on OTHER grants because it's the only way to get enough preliminary data to get any grants at all. That's why it's basically impossible to get a faculty position now unless your postdoc advisor funds all your projects outright for at least a year.
I've found that writing grants has been extremely helpful for me to develop my ideas more completely and thoroughly. You could write a grant-like proposal anyway. You know, in all your free time :-)
I'm with you, SM. I found my prelims to be completely worthwhile. It forced me to really read the literature, really hammer out the logic of my work, etc. I felt like it was a huge leap forward in my progress.
MsPhD, glad to hear you mostly agree. Controls aren't really a big issue in my field (they are usually either obvious or impossible). I get that people bootleg money for new projects from funded ones. In this case, however, it is something really new for our lab so there is nothing similar that has been externally vetted.
Karina, good idea. I have actually written up a short proposal-like document. I figure such a doc could at the very least become the intro to a paper when the time comes. The problem is, I don't think anyone will read it critically before it's time to do the experiment.
Frankly, I think a (semi-)formal proposal is basically essential before starting new work. Just sayin'.
Post a Comment