A not-well-kept secret is that a great way to get funding from NIH is to stagger your applications such that you: 1) do a round of experiments and pick the successful ones, 2) submit a proposal in which you claim to have “preliminary data” predicting success from those experiments,
I often wonder whether the fact that some forms of dishonesty are recommended in one area of the scientific endeavor (research funding) is not leading to more dishonesty in another (research publications).
It seems like a fairly straightforward solution would be requiring more detailed interim and post-project budgets to examine where the money actually went, along with a robust auditing process and real consequences.
I often wonder whether the fact that some forms of dishonesty are recommended in one area of the scientific endeavor (research funding) is not leading to more dishonesty in another (research publications).
It seems like a fairly straightforward solution would be requiring more detailed interim and post-project budgets to examine where the money actually went, along with a robust auditing process and real consequences.