On the time spent preparing grant proposals: an observational study of Australian researchers

## Objective To estimate the time spent by the researchers for preparing grant proposals, and to examine whether spending more time increase the chances of success. ## Design Observational study. ## Setting The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. ## Participants Researchers who submitted one or more NHMRC Project Grant proposals in March 2012. ## Main outcome measures Total researcher time spent preparing proposals; funding success as predicted by the time spent. ## Results The NHMRC received 3727 proposals of which 3570 were reviewed and 731 (21%) were funded. Among our 285 participants who submitted 632 proposals, 21% were successful. Preparing a new proposal took an average of 38 working days of researcher time and a resubmitted proposal took 28 working days, an overall average of 34 days per proposal. An estimated 550 working years of researchers' time (95% CI 513 to 589) was spent preparing the 3727 proposals, which translates into annual salary costs of AU$66 million. More time spent preparing a proposal did not increase the chances of success for the lead researcher (prevalence ratio (PR) of success for 10 day increase=0.91, 95% credible interval 0.78 to 1.04) or other researchers (PR=0.89, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.17). ## Conclusions Considerable time is spent preparing NHMRC Project Grant proposals. As success rates are historically 20–25%, much of this time has no immediate benefit to either the researcher or society, and there are large opportunity costs in lost research output. The application process could be shortened so that only information relevant for peer review, not administration, is collected. This would have little impact on the quality of peer review and the time saved could be reinvested into research. The Pursuit Of Science By Professional Scientists Every Day Bears Less And Less Resemblance To The Perception Of Science By The General Public. It Is Not The Rule-based, Methodical System For Accumulating Facts That Dominates The Public View. Rather It Is The Idiosyncratic, Often Bumbling Search For Understanding In Mostly Uncharted Places. It Is Full Of Wrong Turns, Cul-de-sacs, Mistaken Identities, False Findings, Errors Of Fact And Judgment-and The Occasional Remarkable Success. The Widespread But Distorted View Of Science As Infallible Originates In An Education System That Teaches Nothing But Facts Using Very Large, Very Frightening Textbooks, And Is Spread By Media That Report On Discoveries But Almost Never On Process. It Is Further Reinforced By Politicians Who Pay For It And Want To Use It To Determine Policy And Therefore Want It Right And, Worst Of All, Sometimes By Scientists Who Learn Early On That Talking Too Much About Failures And Not Enough About Successes Can Harm Their Careers. Failure, Then, Is A Book That Seeks To Make Science More Appealing By Exposing Its Faults. In This Sequel To Ignorance, Stuart Firestein Shows Us That Scientific Enterprise Is Riddled With Failures, And That This Is Not Only Necessary But Good. Failure Reveals How Science Got Its Start, When Humans Began To Use A Process-trial And Error-as A Kind Of Recipe That Includes A Hefty Dose Of Failure. It Gives The Non-scientifically Trained Public An Insider's View Of How Science Is Actually Done, With The Aim Of Making It Accessible, Comprehensible, And Entertaining. --publisher Description. Introduction -- Failing To Define Failure -- Fail Better : Advice From Samuel Beckett -- The Scientific Basis Of Failure -- The Unreasonable Success Of Failure -- The Integrity Of Failure -- Teaching Failure -- The Arc Of Failure -- The Scientific Method Of Failure -- Failure In The Clinic -- How To Love Your Data When It's Wrong : Negative Results -- Philosopher Of Failure -- Funding Failure -- Pharma Failure -- A Plurality Of Failures -- Coda. Stuart Firestein. Includes Bibliographical References And Index. The general public has a glorified view of the pursuit of scientific research. However, the idealized perception of science as a rule-based, methodical system for accumulating facts could not be further from the truth. Modern science involves the idiosyncratic, often bumbling search for understanding in uncharted territories, full of wrong turns, false findings, and the occasional remarkable success.In his sequel to Ignorance (Oxford University Press, 2012), Stuart Firestein shows us that the scientific enterprise is riddled with mistakes and errors - and that this is a good thing! Failure: Why Science Is So Successful delves into the origins of scientific research as a process that relies upon trial and error, one which inevitably results in a hefty dose of failure. In fact, scientists throughout history have relied on failure to guide their research, viewing mistakes as a necessary part of the process. Citing both historical and contemporary examples, Firestein strips away the distorted view of science as infallible to provide the public with a rare, inside glimpse of the messy realities of the scientific process.An insider's view of how science is actually carried out, this book will delight anyone with an interest in science, from aspiring scientists to curious general readers. Accessible and entertaining, Failure illuminates the greatest and most productive adventure of human history, with all the missteps along the way. The general public has a glorified view of the pursuit of scientific research. However, the idealized perception of science as a rule-based, methodical system for accumulating facts could not be further from the truth. Modern science involves the idiosyncratic, often bumbling search for understanding in uncharted territories, full of wrong turns, false findings, and the occasional remarkable success. In his sequel to Ignorance (Oxford University Press, 2012), Stuart Firestein shows us that the scientific enterprise is riddled with mistakes and errors - and that this is a good thing! Failure: Why Science Is So Successful delves into the origins of scientific research as a process that relies upon trial and error, one which inevitably results in a hefty dose of failure. In fact, scientists throughout history have relied on failure to guide their research, viewing mistakes as a necessary part of the process. Citing both historical and contemporary examples, Firestein strips away the distorted view of science as infallible to provide the public with a rare, inside glimpse of the messy realities of the scientific process. An insider's view of how science is actually carried out, this book will delight anyone with an interest in science, from aspiring scientists to curious general readers. Accessible and entertaining, Failure illuminates the greatest and most productive adventure of human history, with all the missteps along the way The pursuit of science by professional scientists every day bears less and less resemblance to the perception of science by the general public. It is not the rule-based, methodical system for accumulating facts that dominates the public view. Rather it is the idiosyncratic, often bumbling search for understanding in mostly uncharted places. It is full of wrong turns, cul-de-sacs, mistaken identities, false findings, errors of fact and judgment-and the occasional remarkable success. The widespread but distorted view of science as infallible originates in an education system that teaches nothing but facts using very large, very frightening textbooks, and is spread by media that report on discoveries but almost never on process. It is further reinforced by politicians who "pay for it" and want to use it to determine policy and therefore want it "right" and, worst of all, sometimes by scientists who learn early on that talking too much about failures and not enough about successes can harm their careers. This book, then, is a book that seeks to make science more appealing by exposing its faults.0 Content: Failing to define failure -- Fail better : advice from Samuel Beckett -- The scientific basis of failure -- The unreasonable success of failure -- The integrity of failure -- Teaching failure -- The arc of failure -- The scientific method of failure -- Failure in the clinic -- Negative results : how to love your data when it's wrong : negative results -- Philosopher of failure -- Funding failure -- Pharma failure -- A plurality of failures -- Coda.