Crisis of Faith

January 4, 2013

The hardest thing about grant review is giving good scores to proposals that clearly suck compared with your own proposals that have been scoring* outside of the fundable range in recent rounds.

*because of rat bastige biased and incompetent reviewers that make eRroRZ of FaCT!, of course.

GrantRant III

January 4, 2013

Yes, I realize that this is a competing continuation and that you have many published papers. But you use the figures, published or not, to help tell the story of your proposal.

Wall to wall text is still a huge Grant FAIL.

GrantRant II

January 4, 2013

You know when you are faced with using somebody’s crappy bit of code but you could just write the whole thing from scratch? But then you’d have to ‘splain to the boss man why you spent all that effort doing by a totally different way? And the client will be pissed….and the coding team will be pissed…and basically it all just sucks ass. But you can’t bear to let the cluster borkage mess exist and still call yourself a professional?

Reviewing a revised NIH grant that you didn’t review for the original submission is a little bit like that.